Ralph Nader: Obama “Wants to Talk White”

by Latoya Peterson

It never ends.

Ralph Nader, in an interview with the Rocky Mountain News had this to say about Barack Obama:

Nader was asked if Obama is any different than Democrats he has criticized in the past, considering Obama’s pledge to reject campaign contributions from registered lobbyists.

“There’s only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He’s half African-American,” Nader said. “Whether that will make any difference, I don’t know. I haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What’s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We’ll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards.”

The Obama campaign had only a brief response, calling the remarks disappointing.

Asked to clarify whether he thought Obama does try to “talk white,” Nader said: “Of course.

“I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law,” Nader said. “Haven’t heard a thing.”

Or at least, so says the white Arab-American* man who does not have to worry about people with “low racial sensitivity” mistaking him as a militant reverse hate monger.

And I love that last bit – plight of the poor, inner cities and rural areas are the specific area of black American politicians. Who needs to talk about white stuff like healthcare, Iraq, the economy? Obviously, we missed the memo that Barack is running for President of Blackville, USA.

Nader also added:

“He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician,” Nader said. “He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he’s coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it’s corporate or whether it’s simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up.”

(the Huffington post via Ta-Nehisi)

*Corrected to reflect Nader’s proper background.

**Updated: My apologies readers. I incorrectly identified Ralph Nader as white, and was corrected by a commenter. I did not go back and revise the rest of my post, which included the “low racial sensitivity” joke from the Corbert report which played on the idea of racist people not bothering with Obama. That was not meant as a slam on Nader’s heritage at all, nor was it meant to say that Arab Americans do not deal with racial discrimination in the US – I just neglected to change the joke reference that no longer applies.

I deeply apologize to any of my readers that I may have offended by not paying attention to the full context of the post after I revised it. I promise to do better.

Update 2: Also, a side note – We are not objecting to what Nader meant. We are objecting to what was said – where certain agendas are tied to whiteness and certain agendas are tied to blackness. I believe that the candidate’s plans to attack poverty make it clear what segments of the population they are most familiar with and the problems they are looking to solve.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Open Thread: Racial Politics at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 26 Jun 2008 at 1:22 pm

    [...] learned quite a bit from this thread, but now, I have a [...]

Comments

  1. amrita wrote:

    Just as a minor point of correction, Nader is actually an Arab-American. This is neither here nor there, as regards his statements.

  2. Eva wrote:

    I used to adore Nader in the 60’s and 70’s but today, not so much so.

  3. Glossolalia Black wrote:

    Okay, seriously. As a high yella sister who has always benefitted from being able to mimic white Americans cadence with precision (in other words, I “talk white”), I would love to ask Mr. Nader in my honkeyest voice possible what his schooled definition of talking white is.

    You know, right before I laugh my ass off.

  4. Nadra wrote:

    Nader seems to forget that Obama is white as well as back, so why is it strange for him to discuss the issues that “white” politicans have traditionally touched upon?

  5. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    LOL @ “Blackville, USA”

  6. Natalie wrote:

    LOL! Honestly that’s all I could do after reading this nonsense. While Ralph Nader has done his fair share of good (PIRGS, Greenpeace) does he really think he has the inside scoop on what Barack Obama is all about? I’m so sick and tired of hearing people describe phonetics as either black talk or white talk. Clearly being logical, educated, and concise means you’re trying to appeal to the white establishment. In order to get in you gotta fit in!

    Ugh… just when I think the world is getting a little bit better ignorance just continues to rear its ugly head.

  7. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    I should have linked that Real World Reference, shouldn’t I? Whateves…

  8. Matt wrote:

    Jeff Weintraub and Andrei Markovits have written some interesting stuff on how some parts of the left discount Obama.

    [Obama's] central message emphasizes what I think is one of Obama’s greatest strengths–namely, that he is not afraid to appeal to a politics of solidarity, national community, and the common good. This aspect of Obama’s approach is precisely what makes some people uneasy, and perhaps they have good reasons for feeling that way in Obama’s case, but rejecting this kind of message out of hand is a very damaging mistake.

    It’s not remotely surprising to me that it would come through in this kind of way.

  9. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    > I should have linked that Real World Reference, shouldn’t I?

    Yes, it’s by far my favorite moment of reality show racism of 2008.

  10. KadiBaby wrote:

    @ Glossolalia and Nadra
    I think what Nader is actually trying to say is that Obama is talking ‘white’ politics not his actual speech pattern. Nader would like to see Obama speak more frankly on economic injustice. But I must agree with Latoya….Barack is not running for the president of Blackville, U.S.A. and leastways these things effect us all (What black people aren’t in Iraq?). I did not know that Nader was an Arab-American! That is cool, but also does bring out the point that he’s not exactly repping that heritage.
    Finally can all these people stop calling Barack Obama AA? He is (if anything) Kenyan-American and whatever white ethnic group his Mom’s family reps.

  11. KadiBaby wrote:

    Oops sorry I meant Glossolalia and Natalie! :)

  12. Abu Sinan wrote:

    Pretty sad considering Ralph Nader is of Arab background. Why doesnt he talk more about Palestine and US support for dictators in the Middle East? Is he afraid of “sounding Arab”?

    Sometimes it comes from areas where you least expect it.

  13. eastsidekate wrote:

    Payday loans? For real?!? It’s as though Nader’s telling Obama what his proper place is– Blackville, indeed.

  14. Antonio wrote:

    I love the arrogance in Nader’s statement of what an African American president should be talking about. That blowhard is well past his prime.

  15. marge twain wrote:

    As one of those people like Nader, who has to deal with people wanting to put me in a “black or white” box, I really don’t appreciate the black/white speech distinction.

    BO isn’t an anti-poverty candidate, nor particularly progressive. I have wondered whether his being a business-as-usual democrat in policy is about his real beliefs or if he’s trying to toe the line of acceptability while also trying to appeal to whites who are eager to embrace a not-scary or angry black candidate.

    I would like for him to have an agenda for those things Nader mentions, though they belong to every American, not just black Americans. Predatory lending, lead paint allowed to remain in the ghettos, most politicians don’t even give those things lip-service because of who they afffect.

  16. deathblossom wrote:

    Wait, wait, let me get my card out!

    1. Caucasian guy telling a black man what it really means to be a black? Check.

    2. Mention of the ghetto? Check.

    3. Equating black with poor and inner city? Check.

    4. Mention of the “threatening” black man? Check.

    5. Free Space

    BINGO! Thank you, Ralph Nader!

  17. Sean wrote:

    Hmm… when I first read the caption, I got a flashback to Joe Biden.

    After reading the rest of article, I suppose I wasn’t too far off the mark.

    Looks like an Iraq exit strategy and health care reform are strictly “white things” now. And to think: I gave him serious consideration back in ‘04.

  18. Mary wrote:

    Dang. I have huge respect for the stuff Nader accomplished early in his career. Watching him turn into a cranky, racially clueless jackass is just sad.

  19. Bang Gully wrote:

    Well, Barack Obama’s campaign is no less hypocritical and racist.

    Obama gives paternalistic lectures a la Cosby to black males. At the same time, he speaks in front of AIPAC, a Jewish/Israeli lobby that has been found spying on our government , and tells them things like “Jerusalem will be undivided.” Israel is a country that is basically an apartheid state that Obama has cosigned on to get Jewish votes.

    If Obama can talk about black parenting or the lack of it, then he can sure take criticism from Nader about economic issues that affect blacks (as well as others) Other that bad choice of words, I don’t think what Nader said was racist or offensive.

  20. Clueless WW wrote:

    I work with a lot of blue-collar white folks who are desperately struggling with payday loan problems. I hate payday lenders because they’re rapacious fuckers, not because it’s a black issue (esp. considering I’m white). At the same time, I think health care needs a substantial redesign. OOOOOH, I CAN MULTITASK! ZOMG!

    @BangGully — often times, offensive is entirely based on “bad choice of words”… although in this case, I get the feeling Nader actually has strong feelings behind his bad choice of words which are also offensive. (In a related example, implying that support for Israel is the only way to get a Jewish vote…)

  21. Lyonside wrote:

    >Other that bad choice of words, I don’t think what Nader said was racist or offensive.

    You find NOTHING racist in Nader assuming and then telling what is or is not a “black” concern? Vs. a “white” concern?

    Color me shocked.

  22. Margie wrote:

    Hmmmmm. What does it mean to ‘talk white’? Is this the same as being ‘very articulate’? Please spare me the disgrace of being reminded that no matter how educated, kind, considerated or economically stable a person of color is….the white man (in this case, Arab-American) always have to pull you down. I look forward to the day when Americans of all background move beyond the ‘Idiots Guide to Foot-In-Mouth Racism’ and truly embrace people for their character and actions. By the way, Ralph, I used to admire you, then I was angry at you for your part in the elections, now I’m disgusted.

    –Margie

  23. Bang Gully wrote:

    Lyonside:

    The racism in Nader’s words are offset by the excellent points he brings up and BO’s contradictions and hypocricies. I’m just weighing it on a different scale.

    Can I ask you a question, lyonside? What is your ethnicity?

  24. Bang Gully wrote:

    @Clueless – If you were talking about me, nowhere did I imply that support for Israel is the ONLY way to get Jewish otes. But Israel is a big rallying point politically for American and the jewish/Israeli lobbies have spent significant time/money to make sure that America’s support is firmly on the Israelis side.

  25. jed wrote:

    “You find NOTHING racist in …”

    I think the definition of ‘racist’ has been expanded and abused so far that the word has lost its impact for many in the US. Much like the words ‘feminist’, ‘hate’, and ‘coward’.

    A says, “You’re a racist.”
    B says, “What of it?”

  26. Lyonside wrote:

    >Can I ask you a question, lyonside? What is your ethnicity?

    Why do you care, BangGully? And what does that have to do with the price of beans?

  27. Steve wrote:

    Will this guy just go away – pleaseeeee – what a jerk I am sorry, what an ass!

  28. Bang Gully wrote:

    Lyonside – Well, I’m asking because I’ve only posted here a couple of times and you seem to get outrageously offended at everything I said. It reminds me of this :

    http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/28/101-being-offended/

    If I were a betting man, I’d say you were white. That’s why i ask.

  29. alex wrote:

    Okay, so this gets really tricky. There’s no doubt Nader used incredibly careless language. To say that someone is “talking white” when they focus on traditionally “Democratic” issues, as almost all politicians do, is racist. Clearly. No debate there. Of course African Americans are affected by health care, the war in Iraq, social security, education, minimum wage, you name the social issue up for debate.

    However… What I actually hear Nader saying is that many white Americans are threatened by people who go beyond mainstream politics, and that Obama is playing to the center. Fact is, policies that really address the root causes or even symptoms of poverty and social injustice are radical. Are those issues only African American issues? Of course not. Millions of poor and working class people of all races are effected by poverty, especially (as Nader points out) in both inner city AND rural areas. However, as I think most people would agree, a disproportionate number of those people are African American. That doesn’t mean that it’s “talking black” to address these issues. It’s talking social justice. And because he’s (rightly) concerned that truly progressive politics are too far left to be electable, and because he knows that “angry Black men” are feared by many racist Americans, Obama is careful to use inclusive language and to avoid all appearances of being radical. Whether he’s more radical than he appears and concerned about his own electability or whether his personal politics actually are more centrist is almost irrelevant.

    Fact is, Obama is talking to the center. And I think that’s the argument that Nader was making – that Obama’s policies are not going to threaten the “power structure,” which, as Nader points out, is definitely white. Does that mean Obama’s “talking white”? Of course not. Obama’s talking politics, and Nader’s language is incredibly sloppy. But is Obama truly representing the needs of working class communities and people of color (two distinct but sometimes overlapping constituencies)? Personally, I think the answer to that question is no, as well.

  30. Stal Herz wrote:

    First, let me start by saying that I am an Obama guy and have been from day 1. I believe he will change the formation of the country and that he can start to bridge the gap between everyone.

    However, the things that Nadar said about Obama not addressing those issues is 100 percent correct. He hasn’t. What has he said? Nothing?

    When Nadar spoke of “Talking White” he was referring to getting the votes from those who are unsure about him. He has the black vote.

    Just as in Rev. Wright – what the good rev. said was pretty much true – it’s just that we need to get Obama into the whitehouse. That is first and foremost. Nadar has always been a champion of the people.

    -Stal

  31. jed wrote:

    “what a jerk I am sorry, what an ass!”

    Yeah, namecalling is definitely the best way to maintain dialog.

  32. Bang Gully wrote:

    thanks alex, you’ve elucidated it way more eloquently than I could have.

    I really don’t care if somebody calls me a “sand nigger” if his policies and actions actually help my life and chances at success, that is way more acceptable than somebody who says “They understand my culture” but at the same time cosigning on making my life a living hell because of there policies.

  33. Lyonside wrote:

    >Lyonside – Well, I’m asking because I’ve only posted here a couple of times and you seem to get outrageously offended at everything I said.

    Hm. Maybe it’s because I actually have problems with what you’ve written.

    > http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/28/101-being-offended/

    Irrelevant. To the topic and to me.

    >If I were a betting man, I’d say you were white. That’s why i ask.

    I’m not. You lose. Move on.

  34. fanita wrote:

    Stal Herz,

    Some evidence that Obama has addressed some of these issues.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/9353/55952/443/541628

  35. CEdwards wrote:

    Thank you, Nader, for clarifying that black people are a monolithic group in America with the same problems: “Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead…”

    Get with the program, Nader…the poor are from every region, race, and ethnic background and there is (believe it or not, Ripley) a growing black middle class (has been for decades).

  36. Bang Gully wrote:

    @CEdwards – Nader has probably done more to help the poor in this country than most people posting here.

    Also, what you’re saying is not what he said at all.

  37. Daomadan wrote:

    Nader. I haven’t been happy with you since I found out you tarnished the reputation of the Corvair with unfounded critique.

  38. Bang Gully wrote:

    Lyonside: Fair enough. But you need to drop the rude ‘tude.

    Mod Note - I’ve gotten two requests to ban you, Bang Gully, and Lyonside is a well-respected commenter here. I suggest you watch yourself. It would appear that you’re the one with the attitude.

  39. BlackIvy wrote:

    Do white candidates not have the same responsiblity to speak to the issues of poverty that happen to disproportionaly affect black americans, but that affect all poor americans? Why is it that there is an assumtion that each is only looking out for his or her own?

  40. Nadra wrote:

    In the Illinois Senate, Obama did address issues that affect the blacks Nader is talking about here. For example, one of his major achievements was making sure cameras were used during police interrogations. In addition, one of the things that Obama did that truly won me over was refuse to scapegoat undocumented immigrants. While Hillary was comfortable blaming immigrants for a lack of jobs, Obama said that they were not to blame, that our economy and other issues were responsible for the difficulties that the working class have in securing employment. So not only has Obama spoken out and taken action to protect the urban poor, he has refused to scapegoat undocumented immigrants, who also work in the types of rural environments Nader mentions above.

  41. marjorie wrote:

    Here’s what kills me about Nader…

    He’s taking Obama to task for not championing the oppressed, because in Nader’s view Obama as a black man, per se, should have as a natural cause the desire to lift the oppression. This may or may not be debatable in some peoples view, but it’s pretty clear (to me anyway) that many people do have an assumption that Obama will have more of an inclination toward justice…because he is black. If this is the case, Nader may simply be pointing out that the policy positions Obama spends time on don’t bear this out. But people will still believe, if not have more hope, myself included.

    My *big* problem, though, is that Ralph Nader thinks he has any standing from which to speak. Let’s recap.

    In ‘96 the Green Party emerged as a vibrant albeit small electoral phenomenon in certain urban areas. At the time I was in Portland Oregon, and it was the case there for sure. Now that I’m in New Mexico it’s clear to me that it was the case here as well…the Green Party got large percentages in the later 90s here. In ‘96 though, they didn’t really run a presidential campaign “to win”–it was really just to get the issues out there. They selected Ralph Nader as their guy.

    And they did again in 2000.

    Here in New Mexico, as it turns out–I wasn’t here at the time–the Greens threw key elections to the Republicans. And they have still not been forgiven because we became stuck, in my congressional district anyway, with a Republican for the next 10 years.

    In 2000 everyone likes to claim that Nader threw the election to Bush. I think it’s a little more nuanced but its a hard one to rebut.

    Throughout, the Green Party said to committed on-the-ground Democrats who pleaded with them to not be spoilers: so sad, too bad.

    So here you have a relatively small, urban elite mainly, anglo group of liberal/radicals basically giving the finger to everyone else in their supposed broader progressive local coalitions–who may not like the Democrats, but recognize that when it comes to Domestic issues like poverty, domestic violence, racial profiling, etc., they will have a lot more success with the Dems than the R’s. And, of course, this broader grouping contains people of color and their community based organizations.

    So if they’re so good, so progressive,so consensus based–why do these people think they have the right to spoil these elections–regardless of the wishes of the most impacted communities?

    Then in 2004, Nader goes it alone, and here we have him again. If he’s so good, how come he’s running and not supporting Cynthia McKinney, who is the current Green candidate? If anything, she represents perhaps a step in the right direction for the Green Party.

    In a nutshell, Nader is an egomaniac. And I have little patience for him.

  42. soreal678 wrote:

    didnt Barack Obama work for Ralph Nader’s campaign back in the 1970’s or 1980’s???

    I think he was just a canvasser back in the day….it’s been a while since i read BO’s first book, i think he mentioned it there.

  43. Black Canseco wrote:

    I’m gonna come off as a loon on this one, but I agree with Nader. So much so that I wrote a piece on this about a month ago:

    http://knockthehustleblog.typepad.com/hustleknockin/2008/06/was-john-edward.html

    In it, I juxtaposed Barack Obama with John Edwards and decided that John Edwards, at least in his expressed ideals and ideas was coming off as more Black of a candidate than Obama was/is.

    As for Nader’s statement:

    “He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician,” Nader said. “He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he’s coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it’s corporate or whether it’s simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up.”

    If Roland Martin or Dr. Cornell West had said this (and they have actually) people would be praising them for keeping it real.

    Fact is the biggest obstacle facing every black candidate that’s ever run for any office has been the “We Won’t Get Even” test.

    No matter what’s happened in past or present, the candidate has to figure a way, usually thru coded language to say, “don’t worry white voters, if elected I won’t do to you what you’ve allowed to be done to us.”

    Obama has to play the “happens-to-be-black” angle. He can’t be seen as challenging establishment, specifically white establishment if he wants their votes.

    His Change mantra is great so long as everyone can read whatever they want into it. But if he defines Change as ending the inequities in the education system between blacks and whites, ending the inequities in prison sentencing and policing, and our hypocrisies in foreign policy–treating African and Island countries one way but blindly defending Isreal and siding with the whitest/most westernized people in any conflict… if Obama said he wanted to fix our affirmative action and diversity initiatives policy which have made White Women the single greatest beneficiaries of AA since its inception, etc. then Obama would’ve been out of this race sooner than Chris Dodd.

    But Obama simply plays the game that needs to be played by black candidates running for major office.

    My hope is that he’s playing the game and will flip it when he wins. But somehow, I doubt it.

  44. Black Canseco wrote:

    By the way, I’m from Chicago. (Obama’s Father’s Day speech was actually at my church, even. I missed it but my mom attended and loved it. Sorta.)

    I remember Carol Mosely Braun’s +Jesse Jackson’s (both chicagoans) presidential campaigns. I remember how both got marginalized as the “black candidates” not only because of their ethnicity, but because they openly touted policies and proposals that addressed closing racial disparities in various aspects of society.

    Say what you want about Jackson, but the guy touted equality for all, equal access to healthcare, quality education and a foreign policy that would make African nations more than charity cases and PR stunts. and as a guy who freed US hostages twice, he wanted to sit down and discuss issues with all middle eastern leaders.

    maybe he would’ve flaked on all these promises, but at least he said them outloud from beginning to end in 84 and 88.

    Braun championed healthcare, education with a focus on uplifting ethnic communities, specifically ethnic women.

    They both got and clowned for bringing up these issues. Just as John Edwards did in 04 when he talked about the Two Americas. And not just by republicans but by white liberals. So every black politician is learning from their failures, including Obama.

    As happy as I am for Obama, i’m really not liking what he having to say/do in the name of winning.

  45. holls wrote:

    Yeah, all I have for Nader is :

    Shut the hell up. Haven’t you done enough?

  46. KeShawn wrote:

    Nader’s right. And if Barack doesn’t start talking about the issues in the community, he’s going to be losing my vote. I’m still smarting over his slapdown of Black fathers. Check out Margaret Kimberley’s latest
    http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=673&Itemid=1

    and if this keeps up, Sister Cynthia McKinney will have my vote.
    Also Nader being Arab isn’t a minor point. He was slapped down and that doesn’t cut it.
    We need to remember the entire world is not Black or White and we need to be supportive of our Arab brothers and sisters.

  47. Black Canseco wrote:

    #

    BlackIvy wrote:

    Do white candidates not have the same responsibility to speak to the issues of poverty that happen to disproportionaly affect black americans, but that affect all poor americans?

    Well, America’s got a 350 year track record (counting the 13 colonies) of White Men looking out for nothing but white men and white women.

    “Why is it that there is an assumtion that each is only looking out for his or her own?”

    Because for the most part we have to. it’s great to think that every official looks out for everyone, but it’s simply not true. if you want something done, you’ve gotta do it yourself or put a gun to the head of the folks wanting to do it for u.

  48. ceecee wrote:

    @Black Canseco
    You raise really valid points, but do we not want a President who speaks to the concerns of ALL?
    Did BO not prove himself as working for the good of poor as a Senator in Chicago? I’m sure Obama read up on Braun and Jackson’s campaigns and took notes on what not to do.
    I think you see what you want to see – good or bad. When you listen to BO and the issues he speaks on, I really believe he shares the cake so to speak evenly around everyone so that every one can take something away from it.

    Again it’s all about perception.

  49. Monie wrote:

    I guess everyone has forgotten that Nader described how he was treated in the 2004 election by saying he was treated like a “N word”. But he didn’t say N word, he said the word. This was in a room full of people including the press.

    So I’m not surprised by this statement.

  50. Cranky_Old_Batt wrote:

    Ironically, even as an African American, I was shocked by how “black” Obama sounds when I first heard him speak.

    I sound so “white” Nadar’s jaw would hit the floor and his eyes would bug out if he ever heard me. Damn that college education and upper middle class childhood!

    But more or less to the point, I guess Nader total missed or conveniently forgot about all the work for the under-privileged that Obama has done.

    So Ralphie, a closet racists are we?

    Nader seriously needs to just go away. Far away. Anything good about him is quickly being erased by his very public mental deterioration.

  51. lxy wrote:

    I think what Nader is suggesting is that Obamba’s political agenda is not that much better or different that McCain or Clinton or any other Republicrat Party candidate.

    The type of “change” that Obama champions is a *cosmetic* change that does not challenge the American political establishment.

    A couple of good articles analyzing Obama’s politics:

    Barack Obama and the “End” of Racism
    http://the-fourth-world.blogspot.com/2008/02/barack-obama-and-end-of-racism.html

    Andrew Sullivan on Obama: The “Best Face” For Imperialism
    http://www.assatashakur.org/forum/open-forum/27702-andrew-sullivan-obama-best-face-imperialism.html

  52. eric daniels wrote:

    Ralph Nader told the truth, what has Obama articulated for the inner cities and those problems that affect African- Americans? Obama is an opprotunist like Clinton he loves to talk black and act like a brotha but he has no policy except a speech to convince white conservatives “He ain’t like those niggas looking for a handout” and he ain’t the unholy trioka of Jesse, Al, and Louis. Nader was telling the truth, why don’t you people go on his site or a debate and challenge him on his father’s day speech.

    And make sure to ask what policy solutions does he have to help remedy the problem.

  53. Black Canseco wrote:

    ceecee,

    Any elected official should be required to speak to the issues of all the people they’re charged with representing. The problem with black candidates is they’re often put in a position of vowing to ignore people of color in the name of pledging allegiance to mainstream sensibilities.

    To address disparities in the school system doesn’t appeal to folks for whom the disparities work in their favor. To address injustices isn’t a winning platform if doing so causes people to have to own up to their role in causing/perpetuating or benefiting from said injustices.

    as much as we want “change”, we want only certain kinds of change, on certain terms, when it feels good.

    As Bill Maher even admitted to: We’ll vote for a black president, provided he’s the right kind of black candidate–not too threatening in appearance, issues or demeanor.

  54. georica wrote:

    ANY elected official or candidate needs to be asked questions concerning poor folks, black folks, gentrification, the mortgage mayhem, etc.

    as far as i know, they are all Americans.
    and the next president, who ever that my be, will have an equally profound effect.

    i’m tired of people questioning barack’s integrity based on his lack of raising “black topics”. no one ever asked hillary or mccain.

    yet, there’s no racism. oh, wait- there IS racism but no one ever cops to their culpability in its plague.

  55. drydock wrote:

    Obama will not significantly change the status quo without a strong push from below. Nader’s race-baiting rhetoric is an example of how not to make that fight. I believe that Nader thinks that by undermining some of Obama’s black support it will pressure Obama to the left. The way to pressure Obama to more progressive positions is to actually have an oppositional movement to do it. The reality in the US is that progressive movements, in particular labor are weak. Nader can help this situation by talking class instead of lobbing lame 60’s style race rhetoric into the mainstream discourse.

    There will be no universal health care , no end to US militarism in the mid-east, no relief for inner cities unless working class/poor people of all races fight for these things.

  56. ceecee wrote:

    BC,
    but you wrote above:
    “Well, America’s got a 350 year track record (counting the 13 colonies) of White Men looking out for nothing but white men and white women.”

    again, do we not want someone who addresses issues affecting ALL instead of focusing on a few selective issues?

  57. Ron wrote:

    Ralph Nader is what happens when white people show their arrogance and inability to talk logically about race and poverty.

    Are all black people poor and care about pay day loans and welfare? No.

    The fact of the matter is that Obama represents working class people of all colors and not just black people.

    Ralphie thinks he can bait Obama but Obama will not go down that road for him.

    Many Obamites would like for him to be the interracial candidate not the black candidate or African American candidate. The reality is that he is African-America by American standards thus world standards. The one-drop rule will be a worldwide rule eventually so get used to that.

    AfricanAmericans did not legislate for any of these rules whites did. The one-drop rule was designed to benefit whites and divide blacks.

    AfricansAmericans have once again turned a rule designed to hurt us to our advantage. Afro-latins and Afro-Arabs must do the same.

  58. Keesha Jones wrote:

    Barack didn’t prove himself to be a friend of the poor or concerned with them in Chicago. I have avoided saying a word since Hillary Clinton used the term “slumlord” but I’m at my breaking point and nonsense like this is going to push me to it and right out of Barack’s camp.
    To those saying Ralph Nader is “White,” you are offensive. He is an Arab-American. How dare you? And how dare Racialicious condone this hatred. Barack Obama can wrongly slam Black fathers and that’s okay but Nader brings up the fact that Barack is biracial and that he’s appealing to Whites by doing things like slamming Black fathers? Does no one hear read Michael Eric Dyson? Did no one see his column in Time magazine pointing out that studies show Black fathers not living with their children are more likely to maintain contact with them than White fathers? Barack pushed a racist stereotype about Black fathers to get in good with White racists. And you want to slam Ralph Nader. I find that offensive. After Arab-Americans were rounded up following 9-11, I find this entire attack Ralph Nader nonsense to be offensive. Whoever said they’re thinking about voting for Cynthia in November, I’m almost there too. I’m sick of this garbage. I’m sick of every valid criticism of Barack being rejected with cries of racism. And Hillary Clinton was correct, Tony Rezko was a slum lord. Barack steered money to him, thousands and thousands of tax payer dollars, while in the Illinois legislature. I’ve never brought that up with anyone, not family or friends. But I’m at my breaking point. Barack slammed Black fathers and got away with it. Everyone but Michael Eric Dyson played dumb and let him get away with it. I’m real tired of keeping quiet for the good of Barack. Whether he gets into the White House or not, I’ll still be Black and I’m not willing to sell out my race for the biracial Barack to attack Black men. Cynthia McKinney is the perfect example of a candidate who is going into the communities and is raising the issues. Barack wants to hide behind Black to silence criticism. I saw this movie before. Rally behind O.J. Rally behind Michael Jackson. The ones who did nothing for the Black community but needed our help. I’m sick of it. Barack skipped Tavis Smiley’s State of Black America twice. He either starts giving to the community or he’s lost my vote. I’m real tired of his Black when he wants to be and it suits his purposes.

  59. Joseph wrote:

    @Latoya
    “Or at least, so says the white Arab-American* man who does not have to worry about people with “low racial sensitivity” mistaking him as a militant reverse hate monger.”

    …I don’t even know what the fuck to do with that.

    Seriously. Do we live in the same America? You know, where an AA man gets pulled off a plane and interrogated for WEARING A T-SHIRT with Arabic writing on it? Where a buddy of mine spent 28 hours handcuffed to a chair being questioned by homeland security because he was taking a picture? (Punchline #1: he is–or was, he walked away after this–a professional photographer. Punchline #2: he is not even an Arab…they just thought he was).

    I get that you are pissed at Nader and you want to blog about it. Great. Knock yourself out. What he said deserves to be deconstructed. But writing that his “status” as an Arab-American man somehow insulates him from having to worry that people will think he is too militant due to his political positions (!) is completely, Alice-in Wonderland, having tea with a disappearing-cat-level INSANELY BACKWARD.

    Did it not occur to you that–despite his fair skin– Ralph Nader is a person of color who has done professional progressive politics in America–with extraordinary success btw–for decades so he might know exactly what he is talking about when he raises these points about the Obama campaign? Or is he not dark enough to have an opinion?

    On a personal level I’m surprised, disappointed and hurt that you–the editor of a site devoted to anti-racist ideals, who otherwise displays an astonishing level of coolness– would go there. And that no one has really called you on it.

    Well, this Sand-Nigger calls bullshit.

  60. Paka wrote:

    “I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is…”

    Where to begin to deconstruct this statement? How considerate of Ralph Nader to share his favorite ‘pigeonholing’ methods for would be black American politicians. I believe Barack is doing the first thing that any politician should be doing…being himself – a human being with a diverse and dynamic background who feels he can affect change in a country that badly needs it.

  61. dt wrote:

    #41, Nader was never a member of the Green Party. The GP gave him their nomination as a way to build the green party and get Nader on the ballot, but he made it clear in every run that he was an independent, not a Green, and therefore it’s not really fair to expect him to endorse GP candidates or to hold him accountable for what the GP has done.

    Latoya, I think you’re flat out wrong to say that Nader does not have to worry about racists interpreting him as a “hate monger” – being Arab and Lebanese is a very different experience than being a white european, and there’s no shortage of people in white america who think that the A-rabs are out to get them.

    @KadiBaby, I think it’s unfair to say he’s not “repping” his heritage. I’m actually shocked that people weren’t aware that he is Arab (what kind of name do people think Nader/Nadir is?) and I just checked his campaign bio, and it’s pretty clear he’s the son of Lebanese immigrants. Nader also comments consistently on issues of importance to many Arabs and Lebanese (google Nader Israel or Nader Lebanon if you don’t believe me) and if the media has europeanized him (which I would contest) it’s probably because the media would portray anyone wearing a suit and talking about politics as european…

    Now. As to Nader, I’m not comfortable with anyone calling anyone else “half” anything, and I’m also not comfortable with people saying what someone should do because they are Black. I have issue with the way that Nader said what he did. But as to the substance of what he said, I agree completely. I think anyone who thinks that Nader was talking about diction has missed the point entirely. I don’t believe he means “talking white” as in “talking like a white person,” I believe he’s using the same definition of talking like the phrase “talking money” or “talking politics” – Obama is talking about white things, white issues. That is the traditional agenda of the US center, it’s what all of the candidates are talking about. I interpret Nader’s words to mean he’s disappointed that Obama isn’t using his opportunity to talk about more, and I agree with Nader on that.

    @georica, I do not think it is an attack on Obama’s integrity for him not to challenge the issues that are important in the Black power movement. He hasn’t claimed that he represents that. He’s not Stokely Carmichael or Huey P. Newton. It is an attack on his politics, and I think it’s a fair one, and I’d be making it regardless of his ethnicity or race.

    @ceecee, After 500 years of colonialism in this hemisphere I’d be fine with a change in leadership in the US that left us with a president who only spoke out for the concerns of people of color. I don’t think that will happen anytime soon because I think the US is way too racist to elect someone like that, but them the breaks.

  62. Dat Homie wrote:

    I feel you Black Canseco. I don’t see why people want to deny that Obama has to throw us under the bus every now and again in order to get elected….because thats what it all comes down to. I could care less about Nader, I notice that here and on other sites, people are focusing their attention towards Nader so that they can avoid talking about the actual meat of what he said.

    We see all this talk of Obama being “post-racial”, yet, his wife can’t even stand up and say some real stuff without being painted as “angry”, or “militant”, or “bitter” or whatever the hell the white media has been throwing at her, and people still wanna act like Obama can be both “black” and “white” at the same time?

    The problem is that people think that every racial inequality in our country can be solved “post-racially”…I’m sorry but that is not the case, when has that EVER been the case? White people own the majority of the wealth, income, and power in this country and the fact of the matter is that blacks are not going to overcome without challenging this system, and maybe, not without overthrowing it. People work on this assumption, and then say “Oh, of course Obama can be completely honest about race, he’s “post-racial”….the truth is that whites don’t accept bruthas unless they are black and cooning or unless they practically shed themselves of any and all racial beliefs that might just upset the white power structure. Racialicious JUST DID a post on OJ being used as a “black litmus test”, how can you understand that reality, yet not follow the train of thought to Naders conclusion?

    People are so quick to say : “Why can’t a black politician being for ALL issues instead of just black ones?”….um, I dunno, WHY CAN’T HE? Why can’t whites accept black politicians that want to end racist profiling? Why can’t whites accept black politicians that call out the government for refusing to spend money on urban schools? Why can’t white accept a black politician that believes Affirmative Action can help curve the WEALTH inequalities that BEGAN and GREW the MINUTE enslavement ended and jim crow era laws and segregation held us back for decades? I’m so sick of this shit…the problem isn’t blacks or black politicians, the problem is that you can NEVER be “too white” in America, but you are ALWAYS at risk of being “too black”.

  63. Dat Homie wrote:

    I’ve gotta come back and add something, because this is a topic that really gets under my skin.

    The “glass ceiling” is not shattered when black people succeed because they can appeal to whites and be seen as non-threatening to the population. The black ceiling is broken when black people can succeed without have to change anything about themselves, and without having to worry constantly about being “too black” and offending people. The glass ceiling is shattered when a black woman can stand on stage with her natural hair and be accepted as much as Hillary Clinton. The glass ceiling is broken when a black professor can speak on the injustices of America with the same fire of his counterparts. The glass ceiling is shattered when a brutha walking around in a rocawear hoody can enter a store without being stared at the same way a white kid can with a hollister shirt on. This is the shit that breaks boundaries, not fucking being accepted just because you held your head low, remained docile, and yassa masta’d your way into an important position. And I’m not saying that this is what Obama does, just trying to talk about this on a more general term.

    White politicians have always been able to get by, regardless of who they offended or attacked in the process. Ronald Reagan be be all gung ho about his issues, and he pissed off a lot of blacks, but it’s okay because he’s white and regardless of what he does he will always be seen as “trustworthy”. Many of these white politicians attack mexicans like you would never believe…the racism I hear from the anti-immigrant movement is appalling, but once again, you can never be “too white”, so it’s okay.

    I was one of the early supporters of Obama. I just couldn’t get past the thought that the Clintons would be back in the whitehouse…there has been a clinton or Bush in the whitehouse for the past 28 years and I just couldn’t accept that. But lately, with more and more issues like this popping up, my opinion of this whole election is really starting to take a sour turn. I don’t even know if I can proudly vote for the brutha at this point, am I voting for a barrier ending, or am I voting to strengthen one? To be honest, I feel a big disconnect from most of his base, I think that it’s great that Obama can get out a bunch of new, young white voters just like he can excite the black community to vote as well, but I’m feeling that many of these white voters are under the impression that racism is dead. That the racial situation in America is as it should be. That Obama is good because he doesn’t remind people of Huey P. or Jesse Jackson (For, who all intents and purposes, is faaar more progressive then Obama has came off as of late). I just can’t accept that all the race problems in America are going to be solved “post-racially”….some of these problems are going to have to be approached from a platform of opposing sides, and when that happens, people nearly always tend to fall back to their respective sides.

  64. Jaggy wrote:

    How does one talk BLACK?

    If I”m not mistaken, the official language of the USA is English (American, not the Queen’s). And most people who are born and raised here can’t (and don’t) speak it PROPERLY!!!

    There is only one way to SPEAK ENGLISH–if you’d like to learn buy a book by William Strunk and E.B. White called “The Elements of Style”.

    When people say things like this, they only prove to the WORLD, that AMERICANS are STUPID!!

    If I were any of you, next Friday (the Fourth of July), I would be very thankful that the USA Founding Fathers didn’t make STUPIDITY A CRIME!! If they did, all Americans would be serving a LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE!

  65. SR wrote:

    It’s puzzling this post berates people like Nader, Wright, etc. who for all their flaws and verbal slips, bring up the same issues which we want to see addressed while giving the default (white) discourse a pass.

    The issue is that the mainstream media doesn’t want to publicize Obama’s social justice achievements, but neither does Obama.

  66. CEdwards wrote:

    Bully,

    Why is it that because Barack is black (or half black, biracial, multi-racial, which ever you prefer) does he have to champion for the black poor? As said so eleoquently in a previous post, white candidates never do, so because he’s black he should? Not to mention, that is exactly what the 15% of Americans who won’t vote for Barack are afraid of: a black president with a black agenda. Barack has to be a man for all peoples…hmmm, think that’s what the presidency is all about..l.

  67. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Joseph, DT –

    I corrected the post. Once again, sincere apologies. I made the correction while I was at work, so I literally saw Amrita’s comment, double checked on Wiki, popped in, fixed the ethnicity, added a note and went to a meeting.

    That is not what I intended to convey, at all, so I apologize for fucking up.

  68. lxy wrote:

    The political catch about the “Post-Racial” concept is that it’s NOT designed to produce racial justice or equality.

    In fact, that’s about the LAST thing a Post-Racial world will do.

    “Post-Racial” ideology is just a more sophsticated postmodern way to maintain America’s 230-year old White racial caste system … this time by denying that racial hierarchy and inequality even fundamentally exist.

  69. Tina wrote:

    I think Nader’s comment is the very problem that we discuss time and time again at my school. Despite a POC’s actual upbringing, they are constantly called upon to act as ambassadors for their race is areas where they are underrepresented. Despite my upbringing as the daughter of two African immigrants who both work in academia, I am constantly called upon to reflect upon and provide representations of lower-class African Americans. Having grown up in an upper middle-class African household, there is no way I could possibly do this.

    I do admit that as a politician, Barack Obama is more obliged to have his finger on the pulses of the US’s various communities that I am as a simple student. However, for him to be restrained to only speak about the issues affecting the ghetto makes absolutely no sense. Mr. Nader is definitely wrong with these comments.

    Also, to be completely picky, Obama is not “half African-American” as Nader states. His father was Kenyan, making him half African and half white-American. So, technically, even if his father had been around while he was growing up, Obama would still not be able to completely speak about what people call “African-American problems” since he simply does not belong to the African American community.

  70. ceecee wrote:

    @dt I feel you, I really really do. But it all comes back to is that really why BO is running? Is that what he said he was running for when he stepped up and said I want to run for the presidency?

    All I’ve heard in his message is that he’s trying to be for the good of everybody…change, hope etc.
    Jackson and Braun said they’re doing this for black people is that why BO said he’s running?

    Also thank you for responding to Kadi baby. I’ve been stuttering replies in my head to the statements KB made. Your response was far better put together than what’s been circling in my head :)

  71. Ron wrote:

    Post-Racial – Many people feared that this day would come when America .

    I Agree with what lxy said. A caste system will definitely be worse than anything we have experienced.

    We have the power though through forums like this to make sure that does not happen.

    We hope that our politicians do the right thing to keep America a land of opportunity.

    The poor through education and hardwork can rise above their circumstances.

    Obama stating that black fathers need to take care of their children can never be considered stereotypical because it benefits us to be reminded and vigilant.

  72. iamnotstarjones wrote:

    Why is Nader choosing to discuss Obama’s supposed flaws as an African American candidate and not McCain’s as a white candidate?

    I don’t understand how his statements are supposed to help Americans have access to quality healthcare, education, housing and a livable wage.

  73. Ali wrote:

    This shit would be published in the Rocky Mountain News. Unbelievable. Considering that Nadar rarely mentions his ethnic background while on the campaign trail on what grounds can he accuse Obama of trying to pass? WTF! I just love that Nadar feels entitled to dictate to Obama what his fucking platform should be based on his ethnic heritage. The last time I checked Nadar wasn’t addressing racial profiling, racist attacks, the Palestine-Israeli conflict or other Arab American issues during any of his presidential runs.

    “President of Blackville” made me chuckle. Thanks for trying to inject some humor into this mess Latoya.

    I am absolutely objecting to what Nadar “meant.” He’s basically calling Obama a Tom and saying that he’s non-threateningly shuffling his way into the White House so as not to offend “whitey.” How dare Nadar come out with this shit! He has no idea what it’s like to be in Barack’s position and how tightly he has to navigate this situation. I realize that Nader is a person of color but it’s not as obvious for him as it is for Barack. A lot of people in this country don’t even know that Nader is a person of color. I am tired of people who have little experience walking the fine racial line in this country (especially in the public eye while dodging idiotic punditry) thinking they can start dolling out advice. Dear Ralph Nader – SHUT THE FUCK UP!

    @deathblossom – I think you may have struck gold with the racist white guy bingo idea!

    @Bang Gully – You said, “Israel is a country that is basically an apartheid state that Obama has cosigned on to get Jewish votes.” You later said, “nowhere did I imply that support for Israel is the ONLY way to get Jewish otes [sic].”
    I agree that you didn’t imply that a pro-Israel stance is the ONLY way to get Jewish votes but you did imply that it is a way. Your first statement implies that all Jews are Zionists and rules out the option of anti-settlement Zionism. Clueless was correct to point out your first statement as offensive due to your poor choice of words.

    You also said, “I really don’t care if somebody calls me a “sand nigger” if his policies and actions actually help my life and chances at success.” Maybe you should. Anyone who would refer to you in such terms could not possibly see you as an equal. Most likely any support their policies lend to your pursuits are incidental not intentional. Would you rather build you life based on luck or guaranteed equal access to resources?

    @dt – You said, “being Arab and Lebanese is a very different experience than being a white european, and there’s no shortage of people in white america who think that the A-rabs are out to get them.” I agree, however, most Americans don’t register Nader as Arab American. I realize that his bio does mention his Lebanese heritage but I think for a lot of people that registers as “Italian” or “Irish” or other similar ethnicities that have been co-opted by whiteness (unless of course you have darker features which Nader happens to not).

    @alex – I understand what you’re saying but it is racist for Ralph Nadar to expect Obama to take up causes that affect the African-American community expressly because he is an African-American.

  74. Joseph wrote:

    Wow. There is a whole lot of “don’t know what the fuck I am talking about” going on in this thread. I haven’t seen this much stupid leashed up and taken for a walk around the block in a long time. And I live in New York.

    @Latoya
    I admire what you do here and–as I said to you off-list–if being a member of an anti-racist community means stepping up and admitting when honest mistakes are made then it is also about accepting that apology in the spirit it is given and moving on. Apology accepted.

    I am still extremely disturbed by a lot of the comments on this thread though.

    I think the tone was set by the original post and, despite subsequent well-intentioned corrections the true context for Nader’s comments has been hopelessly lost. Instead we are being treated to “insight” from commenters who either a) have no idea who Ralph Nader is and what he done or b) are using this thread as an exercise to vent anti-Arab hatred in the guise of corny, left-over “shut-up whitey” sentiments.

    Ralph Nader is arguably the most successful American progressive activist of the late 20th century. The next time you stop short when you are driving and your kid doesn’t shoot through the windshield like a cannon ball you can thank Mr. Nader. He single-handedly took on one of the most powerful corporate cabals of 60’s America–the auto industry–and won. He is the reason your car is not a deathtrap. In the process of winning that fight they did everything they could to entrap and discredit him: investigations, phone taps, even trying to set him up with hookers.

    None of it worked. He couldn’t be bought or silenced through these kind of Pink Panther machinations. So he knows a little something about moving within and against the white power structure in America.

    When someone like Nader, a first generation Arab-American who grew up in the 30s and 40s who has had to negotiate white America his entire life says the phrase “talk white” he knows exactly what the fuck that means. If you don’t understand that you should start fucking trying to understand it. The conversation about race, “blackness,” and “whiteness” is just going to get more treacherous as Obama makes his way (please God) to the White House. And you know what? Despite the best efforts of some, Arabs–who don’t fit neatly into either category but complicate both of them (waves hi to Latinos)–aren’t going anywhere. So if you can’t get that we “count” as people of color when you are talking about “race” in 21st century America then maybe you should fucking crack open a book and raise your game a little.

    Thankfully, despite the excessive nonsense talk on this thread some posters have understood how Nader’s progressive politics and ethnic heritage relate to his feelings about the way the Obama campaign does and doesn’t deal with “white people” in it’s campaign strategy.

    I cosign

    Black Canseco for his thoughtful analysis
    DT for speaking up
    KeShawn for solidarity. I’m extremely grateful for your words.

    It seems very clear to me that Nader did not intend to race bait in his comments. He is a man of color who has run for president what, 3 times now? When he says, as Monie (#49) pointed out, that he was treated as a “nigger” in the 2004 campaign…he is completely right. He was. And he still is. Only this time it’s by people who really should know better.

  75. WisdomSeeker wrote:

    New (but related) question for all those ready to crucify Nader. He’s dared to point out a fact that so many are willing to overlook in the trance of Obama-hope:
    Consider, Nader-Haters – how will you feel if a President Obama deliberately ignores issues and obstacles that disproportionately affect African Americans while continually
    posturing to avoid making White America feel uncomfortable? I’ll take your answers off the air…

  76. Lyonside wrote:

    >how will you feel if a President Obama deliberately ignores issues and obstacles that disproportionately affect African Americans while continually
    posturing to avoid making White America feel uncomfortable? I’ll take your answers off the air…

    You know what, I judge an elected politician by their actions, and take into account other political, economic, and social realities. I don’t blame a president if they can’t get everything they want out of congress, and vice versa. I don’t blame the president for judges that are elected or appointed by former presidents, and so on.

    The problem is NOT individual issues that Nader or anyone else may raise, but his use of racial categories to explain why Sen. Obama should or shouldn’t do something. It’s the idea that any one issue is a “black” issue or any other ethnic group, and that an elected person of a certain identity or ethnicity should look out for only that ethnicity – and still expect to represent EVERYONE in their constituency. In the case of the POTUS, that means all of us, not a single group.

    Also, the idea that the black communities (plural) or any other are monolithic, as others have said. Can you get more insulting than to say that everyone who shares a common heritage looks, thinks, acts the same, and has the same struggles and successes?

    How is that so hard to understand?

  77. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @ Joseph -

    Fair enough, I’ll own the Original Post. This isn’t the first time I read one thing into a statement, posted it, and got a completely different reaction from commenters than what I was expecting.

    I will argue that I still have problems with assigning certain issues to certain communities – even if those communities are disproportionately affected. I suppose it is because in my (limited) experience, minority issues always find a way to become ghettoized as special interest, completely foreign to the majority, rather than something that is a full community problem with full responsibility. And when that happens, things the community needs (a community and job training center) are shelved for what the majority wants (green grass space for frisbee.)

    I feel like the better tactic (government wise, that is) is to paint these kinds of issues as solvable and in the community interest. When citizens of a community are pitted against one another, the most vulnerable members – the people who need these goods and services – tend to lose.

    The Nation just published a really great article on Section 8 and crime, that I need to dig into and write about a little later. But in essence, one of the (many) reasons why section 8 and crime have some correlation
    is partially that NIMBY mentality – where certain neighborhoods bear a large number of people with need because other neighborhoods aren’t pulling their fair share. Or the neighborhoods are willing to accept low income residents, but not willing to accept drug treatment centers or Job Corps locations. They would rather do the hands off thing and campaign for safer streets.

    Because all that other stuff doesn’t appear to be their issue. It’s a black issue, so blacks should deal with it. Or parents campaigning against printing school announcement materials in other languages, even though that helps keep parents involved with keeping their children in schools. Some people strictly see it as a minority issue, with no benefit to them, without looking at the whole picture.

    So, that’s where a lot of my issue with dicing up issues comes with.

    I will also throw one in for you – people who do not read Nader as non-white. Like I said way back at the beginning of this election cycle, I don’t follow politics closely – I am only interested in where politics intersects with social justice, and when I was interested in politics, I quickly came to realize the two were much further apart than I thought. So, there’s that.

    I also offer the idea that some of this hatred comes from the perception of Nader as an election spoiler. I was not able to vote in 2000, but one of my friends was old enough and she started wearing a Nader tee shirt to school. I still remember how people we didn’t even know came up to scream at her in the halls for Dems losing the election.

    And our friends were worse. Personally, I think having a viable third party would help reform a lot of what is wrong with politics and Nader came the closest. But when it actually mattered, I was too young to vote. We’ll see.

    I offer these not to negate your very valid points (particularly after reading some of the comments to the Yglesias article on the Atlantic site which illustrate your position beautifully), but to offer another perspective.

    @ Wisdom Seeker –

    That depends. I don’t doubt that people would feel betrayed. But I don’t think that’s how things are going to go down. I would think that his coalition politics would lean toward restoring more power toward traditionally Republican interests, but I haven’t finished that post yet. I think that’s more likely to happen than him throwing blacks under the bus.

  78. ansel wrote:

    Obama’s policies are not nearly as progressive as Nader’s. But when Obama talks about healthcare, Iraq, the economy, environment and pretty much any campaign issue, he definitely is not talking white. And it’s pretty much racist to say that it is.

    But when Obama paternally calls out black men on Father’s day without any critique of white and corporate racism, the prison industry, or the criminal injustice system, in paternal fashion, I can see how that might be called “talking white.” It was a transparent attempt to appeal to white voters and it perpetuated a racist stereotype. I still think it’s a inapt phrase, but at least in that context it’s more accurate and doesn’t seem so racist.

    Problem is, it seems like Nader used the phrase in the former context rather than the latter.

    Beyond that, I agree with most of what Joseph said.

  79. Black Canseco wrote:

    Let’s pretend that what Nader said had come from the mouth of Tavis Smiley or better yet, Carol Moseley Braun or MLK, III or INSERT-WHICHEVER-COOL-BLACK-INTELLECTUAL/POP-CULTURE-FIGURE-YOU-APPROVE-OF-HERE.

    I think this thread would’ve gone down much differently.

    Personally, i didn’t know that Nader’s a 1st gen Arab-American. Maybe that colors his thinking some. (no pun intended). Maybe those expeeriences gave him so sense of what it means to negotiate the status quo. Who knows.

    All i know is that when you look at the substance of his argument, his points are at best valid and at worst, worthy of discussing without writing him off as a bigot.

    And yeah, the guy’s arrogant. Anyone who thinks enough of themself to run for an an office that overseas 300 million citizens has an ego as big as the country they’re trying to represent.

    And that would separate Nader from the rest how?

    Again, I’m from Chicago. I remember Obama’s run for state senate and his time in office. His work in the hood stopped soon as the “downstate illinois” crowd (read: white) demanded that he show them he was more about them than urban communities.

  80. dt wrote:

    @Lyonside – It is not that the Black community is monolithic, but there are in fact common struggles that we face because we are Black, and this is in fact why “Black” is our identity, why we are a nation – we have had the same challenges because of how people in the West see us. I think that there are at least two different major schools of thought here that are causing some of the conflict here. Some people are looking at this as “who do we elect in 2008″ and others are looking at it as “how do we advance the standing of Black people in this society.”

    Approach it from the POTUS angle, and the question is McCain versus Obama, and how the policies they each have affect the world. Approach it from the liberation angle, and the question “is an Obama win a win for ‘us’, and if so how, and what should we expect either way.” Personally I largely identify with politics that are often called “anarchist” and I believe that our liberation will come in spite of the system that creates the ballot box, not because of it. But it is clear to me that there are wide implications of an Obama win and it’s worth knowing what they are. Discussing what we’re going to get is important because it is an alienating experience to feel like you’ve been “sold out,” so if people are expecting an Obama win to cause the prison industrial system to collapse, Leonard Peltier and Mumia to walk out of jail, and an end to US imperialism, then they’re going to get disappointed when Obama wins and doesn’t deliver. People need to know what to expect, and this conversation is part of that.

    Personally I’m happy whenever there are Black people on TV who aren’t just simple street criminals. I don’t believe Obama is as realistic, positive, or as attainable as a role model as Huey P, Stokley Carmichael, and George Jackson were (and are), but he’s better than 50 cent.

    “KAY: You know how naive you sound? Michael: Why? KAY: Senators and Presidents don’t have men killed. MICHAEL: Oh, who’s being naive, Kay?”

    @Ali – I don’t think it’s fair to say Nader is accusing Obama of trying to pass. I’ve always admired that Nader has consistently been the only candidate who 1. consistently didn’t stand for Israeli aggression or oppression of Palestinian people, and 2. got any attention at all. Google for ‘nader israel.’ Check out youtube videos like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rD_rWcDRZQ The reality is if you haven’t seen this face of Nader, I don’t think it’s fair to blame him. I think it’s the media’s fault. Nader has done quite a bit to inject quite a lot of issues into the debate, but it’s hard, especially on issues that the other candidates are all exactly the same on. You want to get the media to talk about Israel when all the Dems and Republicans are talking about is Afghanistan? Good luck, that’s not easy, and if you can figure out a way to do it reliably, tell us how. It’s the same issue with any Americans out there who don’t see Nader as an Arab. 1. People who try to pass are victims of racism, not racists, 2. Nader has not done anything to “pass”, and 3. What? He has some obligation to be more “Arab” for you? That’s a fine idea for you but calling for Obama to be more “Black” isn’t? BO is Black and Ralph Nader is Arab, plain and simple, and I have every reason to believe that both of them not only self identify as that, but are proud of it.

    Rereading Nader’s quote, it’s actually even more clear to me that people are taking his statement out of context. He starts it off by saying how he differs from other Democratic politicians, and he (correctly) says that his background is different, but that he doesn’t know if it will make any difference [in causing him to deal with issues that Nader has worked on and advocated with but the Democrats ignore]. Nader’s clarification is the only part that strikes me as a smelling of racism, for him to have said what a “Black [person] … should be” bothers me, but the reality is that even if his language was racist his message is still correctly attacking larger racist systems, so I don’t want to give him a pass but it certainly makes it hard for me to get worked up about it.

    This is an interesting thread to be a part of as someone who is mixed Black and Middle Eastern (albeit non-Arab).

  81. A. wrote:

    Ralph Nader needs to have a seat and shut up.

    I wouldn’t expect any less from someone who has run so many times and lost that he’s considered as being a joke candidate.

  82. Lala wrote:

    Nader is just another old idiot bigot. Since I;m hispanic I guess my place is immigration. Arrogant idiocy.

  83. Joseph wrote:

    @ Latoya
    Oh, don’t get me wrong, I agree with you. I am not in love with what Nader said either–at all–for all of the reasons you’ve laid out here. I never thought it was wrong to take apart his comments–I hope I haven’t given that impression. And I wasn’t berating you for the OP–my comments re: “crack a book” were not directed at you, but rather at some of the more ignorant posters. I was pissed and I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear. You have been awesome.I was just arguing for considering Nader’s words in their proper context.

    I totally understand residual bitterness about his Presidential bids. Part of the reason I have reacted to HRC and her most vocal supporters as I have during the run up to the nomination is because I have been worried that we will have a repeat of that kind of division, which always seems to benefit Republicans in the end. Although I think a lot of the newfound enthusiasm for Cynthia McKinney is powered by residual bitterness over HRC’s failed bid there is no question her politics mirror my own much more closely than Barack Obama’s. If she had a chance to be competitive for the White House as a Third Party candidate I’d vote for her in a minute. But I think we all know that she doesn’t. And I think this election is too pivotal for the country to cast a grudge-vote.

    One thing that has struck me thus far in the campaign is that Barack Obama has a particular genius for negotiating race in public that I cannot remember from another public figure–let alone a politician. He has not only neatly avoided all of the traps and land mines the Republicans usually lay out for Democrats (of any color) he has survived the inevitable race baiting so far beautifully. I truly admire his poise in the face of this ignorance. But, like a lot of progressives, I am holding my breath as we move into the general election because of the inevitable drift to the right Obama has to have in order to win the election. It would hardly be fair of me, after telling HRC fans they needed embrace the compromise so a Democrat can win the White House, to cry bloody murder when Obama prostrates himself before AIPAC.

    So I can’t agree with Nader’s underlying point–that Obama is selling out to win. I have my fears (and I hope they are unfounded) but as I have said to my fellow posters who supported HRC, I am trying to think long range. Nevertheless, I think we are going to start hearing more critiques like Nader’s–as the left reminds Obama that he needs to stay connected to our concerns even as he courts the middle-right (i.e. Hillary’s army). Some of these critiques may have a racial subtext but not all of them will…they are questions any potential POTUS should have to answer. John McCain is having to do the same thing with the conservative wing of his party even as we speak.

  84. yrag wrote:

    This sickens me. I’m a white guy and I can’t believe it! White— Black— Obama knows both, but he should be defined by neither. He’s an American with a vision. People just can’t stop with the race thing. It’s so dispiriting. Nader is now officially a resident of Cranksville. “Take the last train to Cracksville, Ralph will meet you at the station . . . “

  85. Lala wrote:

    As I said I am hispanic. I am young, a student. I live in the BX and I voted for Obama because of what I care about: Iraq and the economy. I’m sorry if my interests aren’t “ethnic” enough for this old white guy and he is white be he arab or not.

  86. A wrote:

    Obama is promoting war with Iran, although ABC news took his most recent pro-war speech down for some reason.

    Obama disowned everything Trinity stood for.

    People have this idea that a black man would somehow be different. Obama has no more qualification than “being different”, while he is just as much a hypocrite and liar as the rest.

    I think it is worth mentioning at least once by somebody with a public voice. If we want real hope for real change, Nader actually is the only one representing peace and an economy not under the stranglehold of large corporations.

  87. Karin wrote:

    Note to Abu Sinan (Post number 12)

    Ralph Nader speaks about the oppression of the Palestinian people and U.S. support for dictators in EVERY SINGLE SPEECH he gives. His special knowledge of the subject informs his daily work. If you don’t have knowledge of a subject, then you are morally obligated to SHUT UP and RESEARCH it before sounding off.

    If not, you can happily join the ranks of millions of hebetudinous Americans, Obamabots included.

  88. Joseph wrote:

    @Lala
    If Ralph Nader is “white” then so are you, my “hispanic” friend.

    Pepper, Bitsy and I will meet you at the country club. Tee-off time is at ten. Make sure to bring your birth certificate.

  89. Abu Sinan wrote:

    Karin,

    I personally think Nader is a bit meek on the Palestinian issue, hence like he did, I feel the right to say he is trying to sound “white”.

    Sucks when you dont live up to other people’s expectations doesnt it?

    Fact is racial labeling like he did isnt good for anyone.

    Joe,

    Some great comments here by yourself. I think some people who are into the “anti-racism” movement tend to leave out or marginalise certain groups, Arabs and Muslim Americans being two that are common victims.

    I am a white American and I got grief once because of Arabic script on a shirt of mine. Seems the Arabic language is a threat to national security.

    As for Obama and AIPAC, I am hoping what he said there was “kalam fadi” as they say in Arabic, “Jamile kadaba”. He knows he cannot do anything else but that if he hopes to get elected, sa7?

  90. StevenAttewell wrote:

    I don’t think people noticed what fanita wrote.
    Beyond the racial politics of Nader’s statement, he’s just factually incorrect:
    http://www.racialicious.com/2008/06/25/ralph-nader-obama-wants-to-talk-white/

    Barack Obama HAS proposed policies and worked on: payday loans, lead paint, and the like. He does have a poverty program, and a health care program. I’m not saying he’s as progressive as Nader is on these issues – after all, Nader doesn’t have to worry about passing any of his proposals into law – but Nader’s just wrong to say that Obama hasn’t spoken on black issues.

    Moreover, when it comes to Ralph Nader, I think people overvalorize his achievements. Yes, he was an effective consumer safety advocate – thirty years ago. But let us ask, what has he accomplished for the progressive movement since then? By his own admission, he doesn’t do that kind of activism work any more, because he believes that Washington has prevented any kind of reform from being viable. So his activism today consists of running for president.

    To my eyes, Nader is nothing new than another Max Shachtman – a well meaning leftist whose own ego causes him to self-margainalize at every alternative, and then turn on any viable camp left of center.

  91. Karin wrote:

    Oh Abu,

    The notion that a politician has to get to the right of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush regarding Israel -(care to revisit his Jerusalem comment?) is absurd. Most Americans, Jews included, just don’t know enough about the oppression of the Palestinian people to object to his disgusting remarks. If he truly understood the nearly genocidal situation there, and he were a competent leader, then he would be in the ideal position to explain the facts to Americans. He would be given as much airtime as required. It’s necessary that somebody of political stature finally does. As a Jew it takes me about 10 minutes to fully convince average people who the real victims are in that scenario. Yes, zionist Jews and Christians take a bit longer, but they make up a miniscule part of the electorate, and are unlikely to support anybody but McCain ANYWAY. There is no evidence for the canard that one can’t get elected without pandering to AIPAC. And if there were, then the very best thing he could do for our country would be to risk a little political capital on behalf of people who many Israeli Jews concede are living in conditions similar to Nazi Germany, circa 1936.

    He lost many more votes for his shameful pandering to the fascist AIPAC crowd than he gained. (Including 3 Jews that I know personally!) And please consider the fact that he will not be able to simply change his position in office. He has specific promises to keep.

    Anybody who has a deep knowledge of this issue and still votes for B. Obama is committing an absolutely disgraceful crime against the Palestinian people. If enough people promise to WITHHOLD their vote from any politician who contributes to the continued violation of international law then the stooge politicianss would be forced to stop doing it. They are not going to take such stances without that kind of direct pressure.

  92. brad wrote:

    Uh, it is possible to be both Arab and white. In fact, if you went to the “Arab” world, many would be happy to tell you that while they are not European, they are ‘white.’

    Saying that Nader is not Arab is like saying that Fidel Castro or Andy Garcia is not white. Castro and Garcia are white Latinos/Hispanics.

    Nader has not stood out in our society as an Arab-American, but as a white man with Arab ancestry. Just like Republican John Sununu. Nader’s whiteness has never been a question in his public life while running for the presidency. Has it?

    In 2000, was Nader called the Arab-American candidate? Was there any reference to his ancestry in the media? No.

    A while ago, an Arab-American woman wrote an article about how after 9/11, she felt that her white privilege had been revoked. Until then, she was accepted as white in many.

  93. MistressBeatz wrote:

    1) In the 2000 election, more democrats voted for Bush than for Nader. It is an urban legend that Nader cost Gore the election. Actually, Gore had the opportunity to take all of Nader’s votes, but he refused to even meet with Nader or to discuss the possibility of coalition. (Now that is arrogant!) Effective politics requires coalition and compromise. During the primary, I recall HRC saying that she and BO were friends and that they would remain so after the election. I think BO’s statement that sexism played a part in her losing the primary, and her influencing her financial backers to support BO is a great example of the coalition and compromise principals.

    2) Historically in the USA, real change never comes from the status quo (the two-party system). It is the third parties and social/civil/etc movements that effect change.

    3) Nader has been speaking about other candidates lack of discussion about the issues effecting “the ghettos” and all working Americans, in all of his elections.

    4) Beginning with Reagan, politicians for national office began to focus on middle class issues, thereby removing from discussion and debate the issues of the poor. This effectively produced a mind-set of us vs them in terms of financial well-being. I find this sad and pathetic as it is the wealthy that are the ones benefiting from the economic policies implemented since Reagan. Even the middle-class is becoming poorer.

    5) Nader has never been so arrogant as to expect to win the presidential election. It has always been about bringing to the table the issues that are important to the people, issues that are often ignored in the campaigns. His primary purpose this time is to develop community coalitions to work together so as to effect real change at the local, state and federal level. Voting is only the first step to affect change. Nader is taking a long view.

    Lastly, Nader continues to be used as a scapegoat preventing people for honestly looking at the issues and finding effective ways to resolve the ills of our world. Some of the solutions are going to be very painful for members of a consumerist society. Our politicians and media are not forthright with us, preferring to maintain the delusion.

  94. A. wrote:

    To the Nader fan A –

    “Obama is promoting war with Iran, although ABC news took his most recent pro-war speech down for some reason.”

    So wait a minute…you can’t find it? You can’t even find a source? A lot of people don’t buy things if it doesn’t have a source. If you can’t find a reputable source, then your assertion is bunk.

    “Obama disowned everything Trinity stood for. ”
    He did it simply on a political basis. He has to get votes. That’s what is important.

    “People have this idea that a black man would somehow be different. Obama has no more qualification than “being different”, while he is just as much a hypocrite and liar as the rest.”
    …but yet, Nader is so much better. Continue to smear, my dear. I’m sure you can give me good reasons as to WHY Nader is better instead of smearing Obama as a candidate because you have no case. Thanks for playing, though.

    “I think it is worth mentioning at least once by somebody with a public voice. If we want real hope for real change, Nader actually is the only one representing peace and an economy not under the stranglehold of large corporations.”

    Again. There is a reason why people don’t vote for Ralph Nader. Again. If you can give me some examples of why Ralph Nader is so much better than Obama, then be my guest. Otherwise, take that crap elsewhere.

  95. Mae Jackson wrote:

    Message from the grass roots,
    Thank you Mr. Nader for saying what the so-called Black Leadership didn’t have the balls to say.

  96. Hokayshenao wrote:

    I believe that Barack Obama has a lot of issues that he plans to cover, but has not gone public with them. Concider “white talk” his biggest challenge.”