Obama comments about race and the Zimmerman Martin case

"I just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws," - POTUS (I said it first :)

Obama said it would be useful ‘‘to examine some state and local laws to see if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of confrontation’’ that led to Martin’s death. He questioned whether a law that sends the message that someone who is armed ‘‘has the right to use those firearms even if there is a way for them to exit from a situation’’ really promotes peace and security. -boston.com

THERE YOU GO! THAT'S THE OBAMA WE KNOW HE CAN BE! Use the bully pulpit and tell the country what it needs to hear (and what it isn't getting from other leaders and the media). He doesn't have to be tough or shocking, because truth and decency are on his side (unlike the drones-PRISM issues). Now if only he could do this with Congress and the Pentagon.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/has-president-obama-done-enough-for-black-americans/274699/
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2013/07/19/obama-says-martin-could-have-been-years-ago/8ZsgQWShtvkRA8ZC7NbnTK/singlepage.html

I was about to call out No-Drama Obama for cowardice for being the first minority president who seemed to be avoiding comment on the Zimmerman case (though he is conscientious, and probably wanted to let things simmer down a week after the verdict before commenting). He didn't event spend 24 hrs in Africa during his first term (and that was for the Cairo speech with a predominantly Arab audience), despite a massive outpouring of love (and need) from that continent. For how much Obama discussed his identity in his books, now he tends to duck race, unless he has to diffuse controversy over Rev. Wright or Prof. Gates. And in those situations, he shone - so why not talk about race more (within reason)? I think America wants it and needs it, and he is the right messenger for it. With so much political hostility and economic uncertainty, maybe race is the best medium for Obama to fulfill his promise to bring America together - and part of that involves letting go of bitterness, misinformation, and defensiveness, to start replacing pain with understanding. Only the most douchebag conservatives would cry "race baiting," which is ironic because I think they are some of the biggest bigots in politics and the most opposed to reconciliation.

Obama hasn't really done much that particularly benefits minorities during his time in office, apart from the Dream Act mostly meant for Latinos. Since blacks already vote overwhelmingly Democrat, could they be taken for granted, even by Obama? Martin is the biggest racial crisis of his presidency, so I was glad to hear his presidential and candid comments today. The goal was clear and necessary: provide context and explain to mainstream America why the black community is so upset over the case (they're not just hotheaded rioters, but this is the latest preventable tragedy in a long sad history of highly targeted prejudice). Show them what it's like to be a young black man, feared and under suspicion (and maybe harassed/attacked) even though you're doing nothing wrong. Life is a lot harder and crappier when many signs around you are telling you that you are inferior, scary, and even evil. Though it's sad that we need Obama and the gravitas of his person/office to communicate this to America. This should not be breaking news, unless you have your head in the sand. But that is the first step towards reconciliation and harmony, empathy/acknowledgement for others, even if it's hard to do - freaking obvious but sadly lacking in much of society. We can't keep using our racist past as a crutch/excuse/cop-out, but we can't sweep it under the rug either. So we can't worsen matters, and increase the risk of another ugly incident to set us back, with stupid policies and false beliefs.

On Real Time, Maher mentioned some stats that in the history of SYG in all the states that have it, a white defendant is >300% more likely to be found not guilty for shooting a black person vs. a white person (I know the context of each case could be different). A Tampa study of 200 SYG trials in Florida found that the defense worked 73% of the time when the victim was black. His guest said that 70% of the US prisons and 90% of NYC stop-and-frisk targets are non-white, yet the overall US population is 72% white. So that touches on the profiling and equal justice for all issues.


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/maher-battles-gopers-on-obamas-speech-unless-people-see-burning-crosses-they-think-racisms-over/

---

Also, I heard about half of the rebroadcast Commonwealth Club program below with Jon Alter about his book on Obama's first term and the Obama-Romney election, The Center Holds. I'd like to hear the whole thing later, but he brought up a good point for progressives to remember when we are disappointed with Obama. We have every right to be disappointed, but imagine if Romney won (kind of a false choice I know, since we would hope for and deserve better selection). Like with Carter and Reagan, Romney could have taken credit for the economic recovery started under Obama. Regardless of who sat in the White House in 2013, the deficit was going to shrink (by hundreds of billions), the markets were going to rise, and unemployment/housing numbers were going to improve. It is likely that Romney-Ryan would have repealed Obamacare, rolled back a lot of regulations, gave huge tax breaks to the rich, and implemented many parts of the draconian Ryan budget early in their term. In typical fashion, they would have taken credit for the positive economic signals, attributing them to their pro-business, anti-socialist "reforms". Of course in the fact-based world, that narrative is a joke. But those ultra-libertarian, 1% skewed policies could have gained national traction and a foothold in DC. In Alter's words, "Progressive ideas would have been set back for a generation." Not progressive ideas actually, but the commonly-accepted (by the 99% at least) beliefs that it is good for America that we care for the old/needy, have a fair playing field, and keep the US a nation of, by, and for the people - not the plutocrats.

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/2013-06-18/jonathan-alter-obama-presidency


Jonathan Alter: The Obama Presidency


Bloomberg View columnist and author Jonathan Alter uses his unmatched access and deep knowledge of politics and history to produce an unparalleled account of America at the crossroads. Peering behind the curtain at the White House and the presidential campaigns with exclusive reporting and rare historical insight, Alter reveals the twists, turns and high-stake political decisions of the Obama presidency. Alter also examines Obama's adversaries, providing fresh details about the Koch brothers, Grover Norquist, Roger Ailes and the "online haters" who suffer from what Alter calls "Obama Derangement Syndrome." Alter goes inside what he calls the GOP "clown car" primaries as well as Obama's disastrous preparation for the first debate. The program also meets Obama's analytics geeks working out of "The Cave," and the man who secretly videotaped Mitt Romney's infamous comments on the "47 percent." The conversation is moderated by Joe Tuman, professor of legal and political communications at San Francisco State University, and political analyst for CBS 5 Television.

 
Fri, Jul 19, 2013 -- 8:00pm

Alter's "The Promise" on Obama's first year

If you don't want to shell out bucks for Alter's new book on Obama's first year in office, here's an interview where he summarizes his reporting:

http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R201006161000

I've been harsh on Obama because he entered office with impossibly high expectations and hype (some of it his doing). But Alter reminds us of how hard it was to be president in 2009, and how Obama kept the ship afloat and made some progress on big issues despite massive GOP hatred and obstructionism.

It's admirable how Obama is the type of politician who doesn't care as much about getting credit and gratitude. The stimulus package and TARP were big examples, where the GOP/media gave him hell, and the public never really embraced the positives. The stimulus, despite being infused with some pork and waste (inevitable if Congress is involved) was designed for speed - get passed and get the money out quickly. Sure the economy is experiencing stimulus-withdrawal now, but we avoided a prolonged depression (economists debate how much the stimulus funding actually affected our massive economic machine). It was a real help for medical research, desperately needed infrastructure spending, and assistance for the poor (an increase in the IRS earned income credit and extended unemployment insurance). TARP was started by Bush and Paulson anyway, the big banks survived, people didn't lose their deposits, and Wall Street mostly paid back TARP loans (+ interest), so it didn't really hurt America except for giving arrogant bankers the confidence that the taxpayer will be behind them next time. Both bills cost Obama political capital, and it's hard to get credit and persuade the public that his decisions averted worse outcomes. We'll see how he fares with financial regulation overhaul, despite it being pretty watered down already.

He ignores the political theater and polls almost to a fault, but at least he's trying to do the right thing knowing full well that it's going to cost his re-election chances. Everyone told him to hold off on heath care, but he felt that America needed it in 2009, and there would never be a better time when it could get passed. That hurt him too, but he doesn't need a few insignificant political victories to soothe his ego. He'd rather put his pen to paper so that millions of more Americans can get coverage.

From what we knew of candidate Obama, the M.O. was that he was a gifted communicator but weak on executive experience. At least from Alter's view, it's strange that Obama's first year was marred by poor communication but kept afloat by seasoned, savvy leadership. He is deliberate, analytical, defers to the experts, and his slower pace of decision making (vs. Bush at least) is seen as either a strength or weakness. But his stubborn aversion to sound bites shows respect for his audience, but is also hurting his ability to get messages across. America needs to hear his vision in one sentence and as few syllables as possible. If he wants to gain support, he's got to find a way to boil down Afghanistan, health care, and energy to a bumper sticker. Because his opponents definitely have plenty of anti-Obama bites that stick in the public memory.

One area where his leadership and office were challenged was Afghanistan. Apparently the Pentagon establishment (and Hillary) really ambushed Obama on the troop increase issue, and painted him into a corner. Biden was so upset how they treated the president that he was looking to get people fired. But that also shows weak resolve if a chief executive is pressured into doing what the mob wants. But he believes that Afghanistan is critical for US security, and will withdraw troops next year if conditions show improvement.

Letter to Newsweek on Obama coverage

Dear Newsweek,

I am a Barack Obama supporter, but have been consistently dismayed by your magazine's lopsided, adulatory coverage of him. Your writers' enthusiasm for Obama may have clouded their objective judgment and Fourth Estate responsibility to inform the public and hold our leaders accountable. In order to be a better president, I think Obama needs his supporters to scrutinize and give honest feedback, not add to his ample supply of cheerleaders. While several editorials this year, especially from Jonathan Alter, have justifiably criticized John McCain's campaign decisions, personality, and positions, I have not observed a similar degree of scrutiny for Obama. Apart from exposing "Doodad Pro" and other fraudulent donors to Obama's website in the Oct. 13 issue, he appears almost faultless in the eyes of your journalists. Every politician has faults, and it does not help Obama or America at all by excusing or overlooking them.

As an example of Obama exuberance drowning out reason, consider that in the same issue (Oct. 27), your writers contradict themselves on Obama's foreign policy style. Fareed Zakaria writes that Obama favors greater international cooperation, diplomacy, and would prefer to work with other nations than confront them as adversaries. That sounds excellent to me and many voters who tire of the George Bush approach. Yet four pages before, Alter claims that Obama's "hawkish" comments on unilaterally bombing our ally Pakistan to take out Osama bin Laden proves that he can restore tough defense credentials to the Democrats. So which Obama are we going to get? Obama's aggressive stance on Pakistan is exactly what he criticized Bush for regarding Iraq : go-it-alone hubris, lack of respect for sensitive regional politics, and impulsive use of force that may result in worse anti-American blowback down the road. Our recent brazen attacks within Pakistan have been terribly problematic and destabilizing for the fragile post-Musharraf coalition. Losing our nuclear ally Pakistan to internal chaos is a lot more damaging to our interests and global stability than Osama still alive, but contained in the remote tribal belt. Does Alter or Obama realize that?