An Insult, Then An Apology

To make it clear.... it wasn't just that Bill Cunningham used Barack HUSSEIN Obama's middle name over and over and over again when introducing John McCain today in Cincinnati...

"Well my friends now we have a hack, Chicago-style Daley politician who is picturing himself as change. When he gets done with you, all you’re going to have in your pocket is change..."

McCain was aghast; his apology was abject, according to CBS's Dante Higgins.

I regret any comments that may be made about these two individuals who are honorable Americans. We just have strong philosophical differences. And so I want to disassociate myself from any disparaging remarks that may have been said about them.I have never met Mr. Cunningham but I will certainly make sure that nothing like that happens ever again."

An Obama spokesman later responded in kind: "We appreciate Senator McCain’s remarks. It is a sign that if there is a McCain-Obama general election, it can be intensely competitive but the candidates will attempt to keep it respectful and focused on issues."

True that.

But the incident -- I'll call it an incident to give it a sinister cast -- deserves to be put in some context. Some conservative talk radio hosts and activists like to use Obama's middle name in order to highlight his... foreignness? otherness? crypto-Islamist-ness? -- something... fairly regularly. Because "Hussein" happens to be a very common name in what the Brits call Asia, and it happens to be the family name of the Iraqi leader who, well, you know..., it has acquired the motive force of a direct, ethnically-tinged insult. Today, McCain has disassociated himself from all of that.

Going forward, McCain has vowed to better vet those who will introduce him. That will be hard. The White House has an entire department of folks whose job it is to make sure that no one who appears with the President will embarrass him.

These days, the GOP has a complex relationship with race, and the Republican whose job it is to beat the first black nominee of a major party with a middle of Hussein has a particularly sensitive mission.

Comments

Kudos to McCain. It's good to see he remembers what it's like to be on the receiving end of Republican ugliness. Hopefully this has the effect of watering down some of the revolting attacks sure to come Obama's way.

Posted by SDinIA | February 26, 2008 4:02 PM

Agree, but I think McCain blanket statement suffices pretty well:

"I regret any comments that *may* be made about these two individuals who are honorable Americans."

Not only disassociates himself from Cunningham's remarks, but any of these remarks going forward.

Posted by Adam | February 26, 2008 4:04 PM

Good for McCain for distancing himself from that sort of talk. Using Obama's middle name that way is obviously a transparent attempt to tar him as somehow unamerican.

Having said that, it's worth mentioning that Hussein is his middle name. If his candidacy can't stand up to that being known then it doesn't have a very strong foundation.

I hope we're not going to be subject to 6 months of walking on eggshells where every slight or perceived slight against Obama has to be viewed through the lens of racism.

Posted by Tim K | February 26, 2008 4:07 PM

So let me get this straight, nobody is allowed to call The Oracle by his own name? Is it OK to refer to the Republican nominee as John Sidney McCain? I think we we can all see where this is going. Any criticism of Obama whatsoever will construed by the media and online left as racism. Liberals have been waiting to play this card for a long time, how pathetic.

Posted by JBJB | February 26, 2008 4:09 PM

Mark - Two rather perceptive posts in a day. I feel a change in the air perhaps?

But let's face reality. The right wing will interject race and ethnicity into the general election and all that McCain's statements are aimed at doing is appealing to the swing/suburban voter who is uncomfortable with racial issues but doesn't really want to vote for someone who is "different." Don't expect the ethnic attacks to stop.

Posted by rts | February 26, 2008 4:10 PM

This is going to be an ugly election. The liberal blogs, 527s, and activists are out for blood. On the other side the demonization of Obama as already begun.

At least the tone from the top will be refreshingly civil though.

Back in 2004 at Bush's convention speech McCain recounted how after 911 all the divisions dissapeared, including democrat/republican. He warned that the party should not question the patriotism of the other side. If you buy the Obama plagarism charges look up that speech on YouTube and you'll see that Obama's political persona is essentially McCain's.

Posted by Jesse | February 26, 2008 4:11 PM

While it seems classy on the surface, I don't believe it speaks of a civil election to come. I have no doubt this will be a very ugly campaign. McCain couldn't control the right wing even if he wanted to. The amount of false, racist, jingoistic crap they'll throw will be breathtaking. These are the true dead-enders. Even when the rest of the country repudiated Bush and the GOP, they dug even deeper, spinning paranoid fantasies that are truly frightening. (I have a few relatives who squat in this cesspool and get regularly fed what they're consuming.) But I wonder how much McCain would want to stop these people, if he could. He can denounce the craziest ones and still run a deeply negative campaign. The press will focus on his denunciations and let his slurs slip by. Not that I believe Obama will act like a saint. I just don't think the left has the same infrastructure to push the craziest ideas into the mainstream. Get ready, BHO. The Orcs are marching.

Posted by NHCt | February 26, 2008 4:12 PM

As opposed to right now, Tim K, where every slight or perceived slight against Hillary is viewed through the lens of misogyny?

Posted by SDinIA | February 26, 2008 4:13 PM

John Sidney McCain. Is that a slur because it sounds nerdy? It's all in the context, my friend. Bill Cunningham has said some pretty horrendous stuff about Obama. He's no innocent.

Posted by JZ | February 26, 2008 4:15 PM

Ah, let 'em say it. It makes them sound racist and paranoid. Which they are. But at least it lets us know where they stand. And come November, is anyone going to be unaware that his name is Barack Hussein Obama? No. So let them make hay of it now, it will get old soon.

Posted by Craig | February 26, 2008 4:26 PM

While McCain's statement is, on its face, a good one, I would implore you and the rest of the media to consider the possibility throughout this campaign that McCain and the VWRC will merely play good cop,bad cop with the public.

The VRWC will do a lot of dog whistling/swift boating and John McCain will plaintively condemn the remarks as he simultaneously benefits from them. And predicatbly the media will look at John McCain and say, "Bravo, Bravo!!!"

Remember, this is a man who rails against lobbyists and special interests, but is also utterly dependent on them as well.

Even "straight talk express" John McCain is perfectly capable of being disingenuous and letting others do his dirty work for him.

Posted by RKA | February 26, 2008 4:32 PM

Today was a great day for McCain, and i say that as an Obama supporter. I am heartened by this. But obviously this will not die simply, I have faith in the Obama team doing a good job beating back this attack as it has in Iowa onward. It's an insidious attack propogated by talk radio but Obama's massive rallies and his media has done a lot to reach out to media (especially in local markets) and has done a lot I think to beat back these rumors.

Today made me happy, through, if Obama is the nominee in the fight he and McCain have should remain substantive.

Posted by Rhoda | February 26, 2008 4:33 PM

" . . . the GOP has a complex relationship with race . . . " I love it - you bet it does. "Complex", meaning vile.

As for "can't they call Obama by his name", gee, for what specific purpose was that bozo Cunningham (like others of his ilk) repeating the middle name over and over? Duh.

Get your umbrellas Americans, the conservatives are going to heap shit on us (and blame us for noticing) for the next 8 months (err, 8 years more likely - sigh).

Posted by SamSinister | February 26, 2008 4:34 PM

"Is that a slur because it sounds nerdy?" Is Barak Hussein Obama now a slur? It's his name, jeebus. Why is the left so ashamed of this mans name? It's all in the context? Who gets to decide, you? LMAO.

Posted by JBJB | February 26, 2008 4:39 PM

JBJB,

Let me turn that question around. Why would you include a (very) well known candidates middle name? Is there really more than 1-2% of the adult population that doesn't know who John McCain and Barack Obama are? Is using someone's middle name a common convention? I use middle names only when my kids have done something wrong...

Posted by Adam | February 26, 2008 4:44 PM

I wish people would quit calling Obama black!

His mother was white. That makes him--whatEVER!!!!

It's as bad as those in the Deep South (my home) who fixated on the one-drop rule! Because Obama has darker pigmentation than most white folks, the media constantly refer to him as a black man. Now, you tell me who's fixated on pigmentation!

Posted by Leslie | February 26, 2008 4:51 PM

This is an old GOP scam. The surrogates make the ethnic slurs and do the fear-mongering, while McCain disavows that stuff and looks noble and decent. It's a two-fer for the Republicans-- they get to hurl some muck toward Obama, while their candidate pretends to be above it all.

We've seen this act before...

Posted by cousin vinnie | February 26, 2008 4:58 PM

JBJB, if you don't know racism by its true colors, or seek to dismiss this disgusting diatribe of wackjob Cunningham's as mere "any criticism", then you are one eye hole short of a KKK hood yourself.

There's a huge difference between criticism and hatred. Not that it's been easy to separate them in the last several years of right-wing Republican sewage spewing rhetoric.

Posted by James Lawrence | February 26, 2008 5:00 PM

Good on John Sidney McCain the Third.

I'm pretty taken aback at the notion of painting the man who wants to be the next Harold Washington as the next Daley. Seems like there have to be stickier slanderous comparisons out there.

Posted by Boring Commenter | February 26, 2008 5:03 PM

To all those who want to praise McCain it is useful to consider he has a history of saying things like this that McCain should have known about.

http://barbinmd.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/26/152128/409/232/464547

Posted by RKA | February 26, 2008 5:15 PM

The "Hussein" stuff is dispicable, but Obama's Chicago Machine ties are fair game. Obama has had many chances to back reform in local politics, both before and after his election in 2004, and has consistently backed the machine. In a critical election where the county government was at stake, the corrupt black incumbant (it's a little complex because the incumbant had a stroke during the election and his alderman son took over) beat a reform candidate by less than 2% of the vote, primarily because of a strong African-American turnout. And yes, he has been very close to our very corrupt Mayor Daley (google "hired trucks" for starters, berge police torture for another).

Posted by Rusty | February 26, 2008 5:30 PM

Divide and conquer
Racism
Discrimination

Republicans thrive on them. They have discriminated for so long and against so many groups in society that eventually they are going to die by it. As they say, "you live by it and you die by it". This is what's going to happen to republicans this year and for many more years to come.

Posted by rethugs | February 26, 2008 5:52 PM

SDinIA:

The difference is the sexist remarks against Clinton have never ceased and have never helped her, and there hasn't been backlash. With Obama, he has been helped immensely by this perceived affront against his ethnicity.

Posted by Tim K | February 26, 2008 6:00 PM

The difference is also that Hillary would probably be winning if she were a man, while Barack wouldn't even be running if he were white.

Posted by Tim K | February 26, 2008 6:06 PM

"The difference is also that Hillary would probably be winning if she were a man"

Tell that to John Edwards.

Posted by mad6798j | February 26, 2008 6:14 PM

And Hillary wouldn't even be running if she weren't married to Bill Clinton. And George W. Bush would be managing a McDonald's if his last name wasn't Bush. Lots of people get to where they are in life based on things other than pure merit.

Posted by Jon | February 26, 2008 6:16 PM

I have no sympathy for a party that regularly referred to George Allen as "George Felix Allen". The Democrats peddled in slurs two years ago, and now are crying that someone is using the same slur back them? Right.

And it wasn't just Jim Webb supporters that used the "Felix" slur - it was the Webb campaign itself that used the "Felix" slur.

What goes around comes around. The Democrats like to use middle names as slurs, then they have no right to complain when it comes back to be used against them.

B. Hussein Obama it is.

Posted by Al | February 26, 2008 6:32 PM

mad6798j:

John Edwards made a substantial contribution to this campaign, but before that he was a haircut.

Jon:

I agree with that. But read Carl Berstein's book or any of the other accounts of the Clintons' lives and you'll realize how much of an important part of Bill 's success was because of Hillary: as a political strategist, chief defender, surrogate, policy reformer, and confidant. At that place and time a successful political career just wasn't an option for her, so they focused on Bill. It wasn't because she was ever somehow unqualified.

People on this blog mock the "35 years of experience" line as if those were lost years when she did nothing productive. I think that's a real insult to women. All she did was have a successful career in law, be an activist for children, education reform and health care, support her husband politically every step in the way (including saving his political hide many times), and raise a child. No, that's not experience at all.

Posted by Tim K | February 26, 2008 6:36 PM

Sorry, but George Felix Allen is not the same as Barack Hussein Obama. One is attempting to smear someone as a finicky nerd and the other is attempting to smear someone as a terrorist or tyrant. Now if if McCain's middle name were "Adolf" or Rudi's were "Benito" and Dems pointed it out, THAT would be equivalent.

Posted by Jon | February 26, 2008 6:44 PM

Oh, please. "Felix" is a reference to Allen's Jewish heritage, which became an issue in the campaign.

It was pure anti-semitism.

Posted by Al | February 26, 2008 6:53 PM

I'll assume you're joking, Al.

Posted by Jon | February 26, 2008 6:59 PM

I am outright furious with Obama backers who just last week questioned McCain's ties to lobbyists.

Now there's word that Obama gave tax breaks specifically tailored to benefit the very companies that are contributors to his campaign.

Money quote:

"Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign has accepted $54,350 from members of a law firm that in 2006 lobbied him to introduce a tax provision for a Japanese drug company with operations in Illinois, according to public records and interviews. The government estimates the provision, which became law in December 2006, will cost the treasury $800,000."

Here's the story:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-25-tax-breaks_N.htm

John McCain, by the way, has a policy of not introducing these kinds of tax breaks because he considers the practice unethical and corrupt.

Posted by Jesse | February 26, 2008 7:02 PM

He went by Barry for years and for some reason he change it to Barak. He must be proud of his paternal roots. Fine. I have no problem with that, but for the press to say that it's OK to say Barak but not Hussein, is stupid. The name of Barak Obama doesn't get changed substantially by adding Hussein.
The talk show host made himself look stupid by repeating it 3 times.
The press looks stupid by finding the middle name addition as some racist slur.
Let's not get wrapped up in identity politics. Barak Hussein Obama either has substance and can win or he doesn't. Same goes for McCain. Ya either like what he's offering or you don't. Neither are victims.
Personally, I find much more to dislike about Barak Hussein Obama aside from his name. McCain has been an irritating jerk for years.
If you are looking for a victim, I'm here. My middle name is Carol and I've always hated it. Does that make you feel sorry for me. Do I get victim status? I suppose not, cuz it is very Anglo. ( Not even that nerdy) What if I told you I am left handed and short? I am a woman and that's got to get me something on the victim scale. My parents were divorced. Nah. Ok.

Posted by linda | February 26, 2008 7:22 PM

McCain's apology is hollow. His campaign knew that Cunningham is a loony and was set to emcee his event. The right (and Hillary, for that matter) loves to throw out these weirdos and their false provocative statements about the oppo and then run away from them once word leaks out.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | February 26, 2008 7:34 PM

Al,

The Felix thing was mostly just because it drove Allen nuts. It also emphasized that he was a rich kid with a privilidged background and not the blus collar salt of the earth aw-shucks type he portrayed.

Posted by Eric k | February 26, 2008 7:38 PM

Linda,
Get real. The reason right-wingers mention his middle name is because it convinces ignorant rednecks that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist. Barry and Barack are not Muslim names, but Hussein is. If you can't see why this isn't on another order of magnitude of sleaze then you are ignorant or dishonest.

Posted by Elrod | February 26, 2008 7:40 PM

matt:

The Obama campaign loves this kind of stuff... they get to play the "poor me" act.

Posted by Tim K | February 26, 2008 7:41 PM

Elrod:

Well those "ignorant rednecks" are Americans and they don't need to vote for somebody with a Muslim middle name if they don't want to, or a gay man or lesbian or atheist or black man or woman. People can vote for whatever reason they like, even if it offends liberal sensibilities (or conservative sensibilities for that matter).

Posted by Tim K | February 26, 2008 7:46 PM

Tim,

Your right Hillary's intelliegence and background could have led her into a very sucessful career in politics. She could have started out as a community organizer, gone to law school and then gotten elected to state office eventually miving up to Senator for example.

But the fact is she she didn't do that, she took advanatge of her position as first lady to enter politics as a senator in a gimme election for a Democrat. Senator is not normally an entry level position. I'd say one of the reasons her campaign has been so poorly run is she has never had to actually campaign for something before. Obama may have had an easy race against Keyes, but he had to run in Democratic primaries and general elections to win his state senate seat and become a factor in Illinois politics in the first place.

As far as him not being in the race if he were white, really you want to go there? Obama is doing what Dean, Bradley, Hart and pretty much every insurgent Dem candidate back to McCarthy talked about, but actually pulling it off and Hillary bots like you still cling to this "wah, wah he only beats us cause he's black" crap. Face it your candidate is simply losing to a vastly superior politician.

Posted by Eric k | February 26, 2008 7:49 PM

Dear Elrod, your identity politics is a lefty game. Much of the rest of the nation doesn't care. Women should vote for Hillary. Blacks should vote for Obama. Whose a racist, whose a bigot, who is trying to keep women down, and what is your tribe that's all the lefty idea of society.
As I understand it, Obama is half white so what makes him black? You guys do. So does the press.
Don't pin this on conservatives. You've made your pathetic, shallow beds, so now you are down to, who is the biggest victim, the woman or the black man with the foreign name?
The dem party has been patting themselves on the back because they are down to a woman and a "person of color". My, my. Aren't you guys special.
I do not want a president who is elected on victim status. I assume I'm not alone.

Posted by linda | February 26, 2008 8:02 PM

Tim, of course people have the right to vote based on whatever reason they choose, even if it's a repugnant or silly reason. I know someone who votes on the basis of who she thinks is better looking. (She chose Bush over Gore on this basis--I'm not making this up!) That doesn't mean that we don't have the right to mock them for it. Actually, I think we have the duty to mock them for it.

Posted by Jon | February 26, 2008 8:02 PM

"where every slight or perceived slight against Hillary is viewed through the lens of misogyny?"

I guess you haven't seen the pro-Obama "Bros before Hos" t-shirts?

Or the You Tube video by an Obama supporter featuring half-naked, knarled tooth and/or toothless "Clinton supporters," -- including one hilarious shot of a toothless fellow sitting on a toilet on a porch.

But I suppose you would argue that's not misogyny, or ugly class prejudice, it's just hip humor.

Concern about the success or failure of Hillary Clinton's candidacy is the last thing on my mind -- it has nothing to do with why so many women are shocked and angered by the blatant misogyny that has been so freely displayed in the media, on the web, and by supporters and spokesmen of the Obama campaign. Or why they are sickened by the fact that that misogyny is more often defended rather than condemned by liberals and progressives they have long supported with their time, money and votes -- and once counted as political allies.

Clinton's candidacy has revealed the problem, but her likely failure to become the nominee is not the problem.

The serious concern for women like me is this; is there a respected place for me in the Democratic party? Even more important, how can genuine, effective "progressive" reform arise from an environment that at worst promotes, at best excuses, these attitudes and prejudices?

The DNC, of course, is happy to call me up and ask for a renewal of my monthly contribution. And I'm still getting regular requests for money and support from a whole host of Democratic and "progressive" entities. In that sense I'm still "important."

But I'm no longer so happy to oblige.

I simply no longer believe the party can play an important part in the real change I think is needed. And I'm no longer willing to make excuses for its many failures on progressive issues. Not because Obama will be its likely nominee, but because whoever becomes the nominee will head up a party that has totally lost my respect -- and, most important, revealed the deep dishonesty and hypocrisy that are the real reasons for its chronic lack of effectiveness.

Posted by mary | February 26, 2008 8:04 PM

Well, Tim K actually made a rational statement. People can vote for or against whoever they want for whatever reason.

In terms of Clinton winning if she were a man, that is questionable, particularly since that would mean she wouldn't have had the rather formidable boost she received from being Bill's wife. Also she would be hard pressed on the experience claim as she wouldn't have been first lady, wouldn't have been a sentor, etc.

And as for the "poor me" act, that seems to pretty much be monopolized by Clinton and her supporters such as Tim.

I will happily vote for Clinton if by some miracle she wins the nomination, but she isn't half the candidate Obama is or have half the potential to be a great president that Obama has.

Fortunately for her, McCain isn't one tenth of either.

Posted by John M | February 26, 2008 8:05 PM

Eric K:

I would be very happy to go there. First of all, Dean, Bradley, Hart and McCarthy all lost. It's Obama's almost universal support among black voters that is putting him over the top. But that wasn't even my point. There is just no way that a US Senator of only two years (right out of a state legislature) could start running for president unless there was something especially compelling about his candidacy. And for Obama it's the combination of the fact that he is smart, articulate , well-educated, a greater public speaker and African American. Without that last part why not nominate Evan Bayh. Well, actually, he was a governor so it's not a fair comparison to Bayh. It's the only thing that makes his candidacy in any way novel or fresh. Or as he says himself: "historic." It's just a Joe Biden said early last year in a moment of honesty. That's often what a gaffe is in politics: when you tell the truth.

Posted by Tim K | February 26, 2008 8:15 PM

Good on Senator McCain. I saw on The Page, however, that his campaign then called on Obama to denounce Dean's remarks about his campaign finance actions. I believe Obama's campaign should respond that Dean's tone may have been slightly excessive, but there should be legitimate concerns about McCain's gaming of the campaign finance system he himself helped create.

Frontal assaults on McCain's character will get us nowhere. People have made up their minds that he's a good an honorable man. It's gotta be a fair fight with politely raised concerns or the electorate will punish us for it. It's too bad McCain has also figured out the mood of the electorate this year.

Posted by John M. | February 26, 2008 8:17 PM

Good on Senator McCain. I saw on The Page, however, that his campaign then called on Obama to denounce Dean's remarks about his campaign finance actions. I believe Obama's campaign should respond that Dean's tone may have been slightly excessive, but there should be legitimate concerns about McCain's gaming of the campaign finance system he himself helped create.

Frontal assaults on McCain's character will get us nowhere. People have made up their minds that he's a good and honorable man, and they're not wrong. He simply has been wrong on a couple of major questions (Iraq, Bush tax cuts) and has the wrong prescription for America moving forward (health care). It's gotta be a fair fight with politely raised concerns or the electorate will punish Democrats for it. It's too bad McCain has also figured out the mood of the electorate this year.

Posted by John M. | February 26, 2008 8:18 PM

I will be so, so, SO happy on March 5 when Hillary loses and Tim K will be forced to shut up for a little while......

Posted by C.Michol | February 26, 2008 8:29 PM

For a little while. But don't get used to it.

Posted by Tim K | February 26, 2008 8:37 PM

linda, the right plays victim politics too: for example, the liberal media is out to destroy us, the pc crowd is out to destroy our freedom of speech, Hollywood is waging a war on our cultural values and secularists are waging a war on religion (not to mention Christmas!).

Posted by Jon | February 26, 2008 9:04 PM

Tim K, you're right to some extent...but I don't think it means what you think it means. Yes, part of Obama's appeal, and the historic nature of his candidacy, is that he is black. However, Clinton is (as you may have noticed) a woman, and we haven't had a female president either.

Obama's candidacy has sparked such excitement for a bunch of reasons, among them:

1. There's this war, which is massively unpopular. He's one of the few folks running for President who have consistently spoken against it.

2. There's this President, who's massively unpopular. Obama is much less associated with Washington, and with this President's policies, than the other candidates running.

3. Obama is, as you've noted, a very talented public speaker.

4. Obama is also, as it turns out, a very talented grass-roots organizer.

5. Obama has a very compelling life story, part of which is about him being black, part of which is about him being multi-ethnic, part of which is about him writing a very popular book which framed his life story in an attractive way.

I suspect you'll take issue with all or many of those points (I think I've seen you argue that his stance against the war doesn't matter or isn't credible, for example.) The point is not to convince you that you should vote for him (you've obviously made up your mind on that point.) Instead, the point is that your effort to diminish him by reducing his appeal to his ethnicity is, I think, extremely wrong-headed.

Basically, I think you're dislike of the man is causing you to underestimate him. That's all right, of course. I mean, Clinton did it, and if she hadn't, she might have won, which would really have depressed me.

Posted by NoahB | February 26, 2008 9:11 PM

Perhaps Bill Cunningham didn't get the memo about the reaction to the Drudge photo.

John McCain did the right thing, which reinforced his statement earlier (about the NYT story) that he does what's right for the American people, not what benefits him personally.

I'm still supporting Obama, but I admire McCain for his efforts to bring the Republican party back to being respectable.

btw - this is why I would really like to see Mike Huckabee as a 'conservative radio host' instead of these losers. He's insightful, funny - and shows plenty of class.

Posted by Tom J | February 26, 2008 11:22 PM