On Thursday, political commentator Touré upset the Romney campaign and a lot of supporters during an appearance on the show The Cycle. When he and other guests were asked about a campaign speech by Romney that called President Obama “angry” twice, and tells him to take his anger back to Chicago, a discussion was started about whether or not this language is what is called “racial dog whistling”.
Wikipedia defines the term “dog-whistling” like this:
Dog-whistle politics, also known as the use of code words, is a type of political campaigning or speechmaking which employs coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has a different or more specific meaning for a targeted subgroup of the audience. The term is invariably pejorative, and is used to refer both to messages with an intentional subtext, and those where the existence or intent of a secondary meaning is disputed. The term is an analogy to dog whistles, which are built in such a way that the high-frequency whistle is heard by dogs, but is inaudible to humans.
Touré explains exactly what the message is: “You are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear”, conveyed by the use of the word “angry” twice. It’s awfully hard to imagine any other president being called “angry” and it’s not the first word that comes to mind when you ask most people to describe our president. Even his detractors don’t often use that word. The worst non-Romney words I could find were “liar” and “fascist”, neither of which are great words, but don’t immediately invoke the image of “the angry Black man”.
But it wasn’t the statement about Romney that got Touré into trouble, but rather his phrase describing the dog-whistling against Obama as the “N***er-ization” of our president. He notes that this is “othering”, and that Romney is telling voters that Obama is truly not one of us.
Of course, the use of the N-word is almost always problematic, and Touré experienced some fallout from those who believe that Touré is dog-whistling in his own way, implying that Romney is a racist and that he uses the N-word. This plays upon the stereotype that Mormons are racist against Black people. Historically, the Mormon church has held racist policies, and until 1978 were people “of African decent” were not allowed to be members. In the modern-day mainstream LDS church, people of all races are allowed, but the notion of racist Mormons continues.
On Friday, Touré publicly apologized for using the N-word to describe the campaign. In his apology, he does not retract his statements about the racial dog-whistling in the campaign, but explains that the use of the N-word muddied the conversation.
What do you think? Should Touré have apologized for using the N-word or stuck his ground?
How about the racial dog-whistling at the hands of the Romney campaign?
Watch Touré’s comments watch below, fast forward until 4:50.
About Joanna Schroeder
I do not think he Touré should apologize for saying what he meant. He is paid to share his opinion. Why should he apologize for it? It is not as if he called Romney a racist.
I stay away from drawing broad conclusions, however, it is hard not to agree that there is some racial element to the attacks against President Obama. When has Obama showed any anger? Even when the right attacked his wife for wearing “communist red”, he did not go off. Even when they deny his citizenship, his academic achievements, and his faith, he does not go off. Even when accused of lying, he does not go off. This is a man who maintains his composure and lets the insults slide, yet here Romney and his campaign are calling the man “angry”. It just sounds like there is something racial at play there because I cannot think of any other politician being treated with this level of antipathy and suspicion based on nothing.
“It is not as if he called Romney a racist.”
If Toure feels entitled to inject his own interpretation onto others, then others are entitled to do so to him as well. He clearly inferred Romney was racist. His inference was by far more clear than anything Romney said.
“When has Obama showed any anger?”
Obama himself wasn’t directly accused of anger, his presidency and constituents were, and he was accused of having a campaign of division and anger. Given how Obama’s campaign pushes “the war on women” meme, and Biden’s racially charged comment which Toure himself acknowledged was divisive, it isn’t unreasonable to assert that the Obama campaign is trying to stir up anger in his followers, IE, a campaign of anger, largely anger directed at white heterosexual, religious men. I think the lady in the blue dress spoke volumes, and I think Toure knew it, as he had to keep backpeddling.
http://videos.mediaite.com/video/MSNBCs-Tour-Romney-Engaging-In;recently_viewed
We’re not talking about Biden, he’s just so clueless. He’s like GW Bush in the cluelessness range. I never assumed GW Bush was mean when he did stupid stuff, he was just a gaffe-r, like Biden.
As far as saying that Obama’s CONSTITUENCY and PRESIDENCY, not Obama, are angry? Watch the clip again. Does it matter if he’s talking about his presidency or him? I think GW Bush’s PRESIDENCY was one of an idiot puppet for conservative, warmongering businessmen who wanted to get rich killing Iraqis – innocent Iraqis, too. And our service men and women. His presidency was one where an idiot spineless puppet was at the helm so that Halliburton could get wealthier and wealthier.
And I don’t feel this way about all Republicans. I don’t feel this way about GHW Bush at all. He was an odd guy, but he was strong as a president. There were great things done by Reagan. Not the removal of regulations that allowed banks to take over and ruin our economy… Not de-funding shelters and mental hospitals that created a state of homelessness in our nation that continues. But there were great things. And even better as you go back in history.
But don’t take some cheap, semantic argument to excuse Romney’s speechwriter’s statement, and absolve Romney of responsibility. If I call my husband an asshole, but say “Your husband-ness in this marriage has been just fucking horrible, and you’ve been an asshole of a husband” (I would obv never say these things), you can be sure that what is being said is that he’s horrible and an asshole.
“We’re not talking about Biden, he’s just so clueless”
But we are. Romney accused Obama’s Campaign and his presedency (not Obama himself) of being about division and anger, and whether you like it or not, Biden is part of that campaign. Biden was OBAMA’s choice in vice presedent. You can’t just dismiss him because he proves Romney’s point and you don’t like that.
“Watch the clip again.”
“this is what an angry and desperate presidency looks like.”
“Take your campaign of division, anger and hate back to Chicago”
“Does it matter if he’s talking about his presidency or him?”
Yes, it does. His presedency includes Biden, as much as you want to deny it. His presedency has very much promoted the war on women meme, which very much promotes anger, and the constant accusations of racism, classism and sexism agains Romeny very much demonstrate an angry and hateful perspective. Obama Doesn’t need to be personally angry for his presidency to be. And pointing this out isn’t racism, because his presedency isn’t all black. Biden, one of the easiest examples of this promotion of anger, is in fact, white.
“But don’t take some cheap, semantic argument to excuse Romney’s speechwriter’s statement, and absolve Romney of responsibility.”
Absolve him of what? Saying something that racists are able to inject their racism into in order to promote and encourage division and anger towards Romney? Doesn’t that kind of prove Romney’s point? Fact is, Romney can not make a single criticism of Obama without being open to having someone inject racism into it, and others here have asked for examples of what Romney could say and gotten no responses. Fact is, Romney will be accused of racism regardless of what he says, and that promotes anger and division, so Romney is calling them on that very tactic, and getting the racist card throuwn in his face, thus proving his point.
“If I call my husband an asshole, but say “Your husband-ness in this marriage has been just fucking horrible, and you’ve been an asshole of a husband” (I would obv never say these things), you can be sure that what is being said is that he’s horrible and an asshole.”
You would need to have multiple husbands and attack their husbandry in general, not just one of theirs, for the anaology to work.
The burden of proof should be on the Toure’s of the world to prove that Romney is “niggerizing” President Obama. Politics, especially currently, is dirty. Political opponents level all sorts of charges against each other. I’m sure white politicians have called other white politicians “angry” before. But Toure used this loaded word without much proof because he knows how much it hits home with the Democratic base and black voters in particular.
But when guys like Toure make these accusations against Romney and other Republicans, they should at least recognize that they are relying on this myth that every disagreement with President Obama is based on his race. By their logic the only way that Romney could prove he isn’t racist is to not criticze Obama at all. But what kind of political campaign is that?
You say that you want Toure and such to prove that Romney is “niggerizing” Obama. (Side note: i had no idea that was even a phrase, it sounds like it should have an infomercial and a free travel-size niggerizer). The problem is that you will never believe it’s happening. Toure says that calling Obama ‘angry’ for no apparent reason is a dog whistle meaning ‘angry black man’. Then you proceed to disagree.
How could anyone prove, in your eyes, that it is happening. The whole point of dog-whistling and ‘southern strategy’ and the like is that they are deniable. When Laura Ingraham wrote that steaming pile of pages that was filthy with racial undertones, she could just deny it because people like to believe that racism is hard to achieve. To paraphrase Chris Rock; to be a racist, you don’t have to shoot Medgar Evers.
When someone calls me (6’1″ 185) a ‘big black guy’ they are saying that i’m scary. The “big black guy” jumping you in the street myth is still alive.
I’m not scary. Obama isn’t angry.
apologies, a very important question mark is missing. Chuck Ross, how could anyone prove that dog-whistling or “niggerizing” is actually happening?
Agreed; there’s no good way to “prove” that someone is using dirty politics, particularly when what they’re doing is dog-whistling, as defined. Our President has a mature, measured demeanor; he has gravitas and a calm, even cool tone. Joanna is right; it’s hard to imagine why Romney should call Obama angry for any other reason than the associations for insecure, conservative-leaning racists. They beat the foreign-born Muslim thing to death for more than four years; I guess the Republicans need a new story to distract the voters with.
Christian, ask me how much I would pay… it’s late and I’m feeling suggestible
$29.95 plus shipping and handling…but wait! Order within the next 11 seconds and you get the niggerizer, the travel niggerizer and your choice of watermelon or fried chicken scented car air freshener.
FYI: only black people like melons or chicken breaded then fried.
You see, racial undertones are so ubiquitous that Obama is walking a very fine line. He will never be photographed eating fried chicken or watermelon. My grandmother told me never to eat either of those in front of white people (forgive me Big Mom, for I have sinned).
Someone once told me that being white means having the privilege of denying race and I think it’s true. When Fox News called Obama’s birthday party a “hiphop barbecue”, they made a racial statement with plausible deniability.
If you imply that President Hernandez (I don’t know any other hispanic surnames) spent the weekend cruising the block in his el camino, you are making a racial statement.
It’s pretty simple to identify racial language if you’re being honest with yourself .
And i’ll also throw in the spic-erator for free. After three applications of the spic-erator to the waistline, you’ll be dancing all hips.
I doubt Obama has ever been photographed eating fried chicken and watermelon because he’s a yuppie who doesn’t enjoy the simple pleasure of delicious fried chicken and watermelon. Remember the arugula comment from 08?
Justin,
“Dirty politics” is redundant. I sort of just wish that both liberals and conservatives would realize that the entire process is dirty all the way through. Both sides are going to engage in low blows. One could make the case that Obama is content to let everyone think that Romney is anti-black which could be seen as a racist attack as well.
Point is, where does this circular argument stop? It’s all a feedback loop of political lunacy. Obama is no better than Romney and vice versa. They’re both shit heads who will pull out all the stops to get elected. I wouldn’t so much support Romney as not support Obama over Romney.
Because he didn’t call Obama angry, he called his campaign a campaign of division and anger, and given his use of “the war on women” meme and the constant accusations of racism and Biden’s racially charged comments, Romney isn’t wrong. His campaign is about stirring up the peoples anger against Romney, and heterosexual white religious males in general.
http://videos.mediaite.com/video/MSNBCs-Tour-Romney-Engaging-In;recently_viewed
I’m not saying that I want Toure to prove anything. I’m saying that if he makes such a charge and wants it to be some sort of accepted truth that he should back up the claim and show in some way that when a Republican politician calls a Democratic politician who happens to be black “angry” that he’s dog whistling. All kinds of dirty shit was said about Bill Clinton through the years. I’d kind of like to see a list of what Romney could say about Obama that would not be considered racist by liberals. And at the same time, Obama and his surrogates have charged Romney with being a murderer and a felon. Harry Reid has said he’s a tax evader. Obama brought up the whole Seamus incident from three decades ago. Obama’s press staff have not backed away from the PAC ad accusing Romney of kicking a person off of their insurance who later died from cancer. I mean, this is all politics. It’s dirty on both sides. Mostly I scoff at liberals who think that their guy is any better than their opponent.
And when you get down to it, the main issue of this election is the economy. And even though I don’t believe that a President has much control over the economy, plenty of idiot voters do. So the candidates are playing to them. And Romney’s strongest plank is that “Obama’s economy” continues bleeding jobs. Of course, Obama has to play along with this myth too. And since he knows that this economy is trash he has attacked Romney in various ways. So it’s not far-fetched to characterize a candidate who is on the attack as being angry. This is politics. Understand the freaking game.
But wait, here’s what you’re missing. Neither of these candidates seem ANGRY. That’s the point. He isn’t angry, he doesn’t seem angry. If his dirty political ads (which Romney has just as many of) are considered “anger” then Romney’s just as angry.
But the fact is, to say “dirty politics” would be more accurate. Why wouldn’t he say that if he meant that?
Because someone very clever realized that Americans, for hundreds of years, have been taught that Black men are big scary animals. When I was a child, my best friend’s mother, said to me “You need to wash the top of your pop can, because a Black man might have touched it.”
I was maybe six or seven but recoiled at it (my parents were major hippie liberals and we were taught about racism from very small) and knew its as wrong but as a child of course said nothing. However, it’s odd how it’s stuck with me. I look at soda cans and I think about who might have touched it and this phrase rings through my head, “a Black man might have touched it.” And it’s this horrible, intrusive terrible thought. Every time I think, “God what a horrible thing to have said” but it echoes there and the underlying message that Black men are these filthy, diseased animals was placed there in my child mind. Thank God even at that time I knew it wasn’t true, so it was never a “truth” to me, but the message is there, even when I recoil at hearing it every single time in my own ind.
That being said, we all have these messages within us, and we’re lucky for the ones we realize aren’t true (like the story above). But there are stories clanging around in our brains about people of other races all the time, stories we don’t realize affect our daily actions. Not just white people, but from my conversations with all my friends of all different races, these messages clang around in everyone’s brains if they’re honest enough.
And in politics today, there are masters of spin who know what messages are clanging around and they’re looking for a way to put the key into that lock on a subliminal level.
Please note that one could say there’s racial dog-whistling right back at Romney’s campaign, feeding upon the fact that Romney is a Mormon, who have traditionally been not just prejudiced against Black people but institutionally racist against them. For many people, you say the word “Mormon” and the first thought is of a racist guy with six wives. So while Joe Biden looks like a racist creep when he makes the “chains” comment, he seems just really oblivious in a way, whereas Romney seems conniving.
I don’t know whether Romney is bright enough to know that his speechwriter was using dog whistle politics or not, but the best thing we can do in our society is what Touré did, and say what we believe is true, and then start the conversation.
We should be rejecting this sort of shit, and we should be calling out Joe Biden, both, regardless of what our political leanings are. Because in order to progress in this society, we need to talk about the ways in which racism is alive and well.
Denying that Romney was using dog whistling, or that Biden said something inappropriate will get us nowhere. Let’s look at it, talk about how it was wrong, and move on.
Denying that Romney was using dog whistling, or that Biden said something inappropriate will get us nowhere. Let’s look at it, talk about how it was wrong, and move on.
Who do you mean by “us”? Do you mean the American population as a whole? If so, then I disagree. I think that this sort of mentality is dishonest, almost a witch hunt of sorts. The exact quote was “This is what an angry and desperate presidency [Me: he says presidency, not president] looks like.”
So unless your point is that the word “angry” should never be used in political rhetoric, your post and comments make no sense.
“But wait, here’s what you’re missing. Neither of these candidates seem ANGRY. That’s the point. He isn’t angry, he doesn’t seem angry.”
Do you deny that Obama’s campaign stratigy, and his presedency in general, has focused largely on stiring up classism, sexism, racism and gay and religious division (admittedly, some of it deserved)? His presedencies “war on women” meme is evidence enough of that on it’s own. One doesn’t need to BE angry in order to foster and fuel anger.
“If his dirty political ads (which Romney has just as many of) are considered “anger” then Romney’s just as angry.”
It would be nice if the left could turn that kind of criticism inwards and self reflect from time to time. For example, Obama’s claims of Romney being rich and not understanding, while Michelle wear ~$7,000 jackets (not saying she’s not allowed, just pointing out they aren’t poor themselves) and going on $2,000,000 vacations.
“T”And in politics today, there are masters of spin who know what messages are clanging around and they’re looking for a way to put the key into that lock on a subliminal level.”
You mean like the message of the religious white man being racist and sexist and anti-gay? The messages the left are attempting to play off when they accuse every word Romney says as being bigoted, and that you’re eating up?
“So while Joe Biden looks like a racist creep when he makes the “chains” comment, he seems just really oblivious in a way, whereas Romney seems conniving.”
And you don’t think the left plays on the. You keep trying to dismiss Biden’s impact. Regardless of what you think of him, he IS Obama’s choice for vice president. And worst, you keep trying to dismiss him, but he’s still saying those things, and as the black man who touch your pop can’s will attest, those messages can stick whether you know him to be an idiot or not.
And how Biden appears vs how Romney appears doesn’t in any way deny the fact that the left is dog-whistling the right with implications of all sorts of isms.
“I don’t know whether Romney is bright enough to know that his speechwriter was using dog whistle politics”
You don’t know if dog-whistle politics are being used at all, you’re just assuming so because it fits into the messages you have running in your head about the religious right white man. Fact is, nothing that comes out of Romney’s mouth will ever been seen by the left as anything other than dog whistling.
“but the best thing we can do in our society is what Touré did, and say what we believe is true, and then start the conversation.”
Then do so for both sides. Don’t just pretend it’s only Romney that does it. And don’t preted Biden is the only one that does it on the left.
“Denying that Romney was using dog whistling, or that Biden said something inappropriate will get us nowhere. ”
While you’re not denying Biden said anything inappropriate, you have repeatedly tried to deny it as insignificant. Fact is, the accusation of dog-whistling is no different than accusations of misogyny or mansplaining. They are designed to silence the opposition. If the left wants to prove Romney was dog-whislting, then should they not prove first that his accusations are completely untrue (and by accusations, I don’t mean the accusations you all say Romney made of Obama himself being angry, but rather, that he is running a campaign of division and anger)?
Of course Romney’s constituents aren’t the slightest bit angry.
Of course many of Romney’s constituents (conservatives) are angry. I think this sort of proves the point that people can be angry and be accused of being angry without there being a racial connotation behind it. It seems that liberals leave very little room for conservatives (and Romney) to play the very same politics that they’re playing.
Of course someone can be accused of being angry without it having a racial connotation. But when there’s already a cultural construct in place like “the angry black man,” you can capitalize on it just by breathing the “A” word. That’s “dog-whistling.”
Justin,
Ta-Nehisi Coates has a column at The New York Times today about how Obama was perceived, in the 2008 election, as soft and weak. Coates writes of conservatives’ reaction to Obama and his political team: :”Now he has earned their fear.”
This is Coates, also a black journalist, taking the stance opposite of Toure. Coates sees an aggressive politician in Obama, one who creates fear in his opponents which is a feeling that could also be spoken of in terms of anger if one wants to spin it. Is Coates evoking the image of “the angry black man”? If so, he seems to be applauding Obama for being that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/opinion/sunday/coates-obamas-perceived-transformation.html?_r=2&hp
Yes, contrary to convenience and what Jesse Jackson says, there is no monolithic black hive-mind. We are allowed to disagree. Toure does not speak for any person other than himself and neither does Coates.
I think it’s important to understand that feeling the ‘angry black man’ stereotype affect your life makes it more real. A dog-whistle only seems particularly loud to the intended audience and the insulted parties.
For example, if a politician were to accuse Joe Lieberman of being stingy with a budget proposal, that statement would definitely warrant some investigation.
Did you hear the dog whistle?
I remember when a whole group of people were labeled angry. Remember the stories about the angry white man back in 94 as if there were enough white men in the U.S. to affect any measure of political reform. I’m certain there were many women and probably some minorities who also supported those changes. What were the pundits implying about the movement? That it was inherently racist? That they were scary and dangerous? That only men are racist, scary, or dangerous?
I’m half Filipino and hung out with many Asians and Hispanics in my youth. I can’t say how many times I’ve heard the phrase go back to your own country or something similar. I can’t remember that phrase being used with any black friends of mine. Still “tells him to take his anger back to Chicago” strikes me as painting someone else as different or un-American. It might come from personal experience and might not have been dog whistle unless his target was Asians and Hispanics and using that language would probably lose him points.
Yeah, and without a doubt Romney’s camp was harkening to the fact that Chicago now has the highest murder rate and has this notorious image of South Chicago’s gang problems.
Romney also did the whole “welfare queen” bullshit too, talking bout how Obama wants to just keep paying out welfare to lazy people.
FYI Romney – white people receive more welfare than anyone else.
One must ask, does calling Romney racist not promote divisiveness and anger amount non-white communities? Does the accusations of waging a war on women direct the anger and division of women at Romney? Does doing this not reflect the promotion of division and anger?
The term welfare queen doesn’t indicate anything racial. And I do believe women DO make up the majority of social benefits recipients.
Could you stop repeating this lie? See table a.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/annualreport9/9th_report-to-congress_3-26-12.pdf
Can you synopsize where you’re seeing anything about race and welfare benefits in this document?
Does no one else see te hypocrisy in Toure complaining about the “othering” of President Obama?
The entire thrust of the campaign against Romney has been that he is the “other,” usually by characterizing him as “the 1%” He’s “not like us” because he’s got all kinds of money, and we’re supposed to hate him for that.
If characterizing your opponent as “other” is dirt politics, then the entire Obama campaign is neck-deep in it. It’s pretty classy of Toure to criticize the Romney campaign for usin the same tactics the Obama campaign does.
Wow, I can’t spell anything from my iPad, sorry!
The lady in the blue dress certainly saw it and commented on it.
http://videos.mediaite.com/video/MSNBCs-Tour-Romney-Engaging-In;recently_viewed
That’s not what is meant by “the other.” “The other” is always someone who is not the primary default status. In our culture, that’s the straight white alpha male: Romney. He can’t claim to be an outsider: he is a mover, not the disenfranchised. That’s what it is to be the one percent.
Justin, for the purposes of a federal election, “the other” certainly does exist. That’s half of what political campaigns are all about. “He’s someone I could have a beer with” or “Hell, he doesn’t even know the price of a gallon of milk,” or “He put his dog on the roof of his car and drove cross-country” or “He’s not even an American citizen” are all political attacks of equal measure in our democratic system.
You mean rich is the primary default status? Because the Obama campaign has most certainly tried othering Romney via “he’s the white religious rich man who doesn’t understand anyones problems”. So, by using your rather self serving definition of othering, it still applies to his being rich, and to many, his religion allows him to be othered as well. You can try playing off that those who are religious in the US outnumber those who aren’t, but that doesn’t change the fact he’s attempting to use Romney’s religion to stir up the dissent in those who are against religious influence AKA othering.
Justin,
It really sounds like you are trying to conveniently define “default” in order to ignore the obvious; the complaints about Romney’s riches are specifically designed to tell us he is NOT the default.
Indeed, the entire rhetoric behind “We are the 99%” is clearly designed to argue that the “1%” is not the default.
At the end of the day, there is no question that those on the left are attempting to paint Romney as “the other” because of his money. The “default” is clearly not a rich person, and thanks to democrat campaigns, we’re reminded of this on a daily basis.
Justin’s exactly right. He’s not an outsider. That’s like saying that there is racism against white people. No, there’s not, because racism is the institutionalized discrimination against a race. There is essentially no institutionalized discrimination against white men.
What people mean when they say that is that there is prejudice against every race, perpetrated by any particular person of any race.
In this case, you’re misusing the term “Othering”.
Romney is not an outsider, no, but neither is Obama. Obama is in no sense an “outsider” to the political system, nor is he disenfranchised. Pretending that Obama – not some poor working class blacks, but Obama in particular – is an outsider is fundamentally dishonest.
*sigh* the word “redefining” was autocorrected to “reducing” for some reason.
“That’s like saying that there is racism against white people. No, there’s not, because racism is the institutionalized discrimination against a race.”
And we all know, white isn’t a race. we’re something else, some “other” thing. Just like there is no sexism against men, because men have all the power and so can’t be discriminated against.
“There is essentially no institutionalized discrimination against white men.”
See, no discrimination against white men. Not white people, but white men. Men can not be discriminated against for being men, only for being something other than white. And white’s can’t be discriminated against for being white, only for being something other than men.
Is not the systemic denial of something due to race or gender the definition of discrimination? So wouldn’t denying a white or male persons victimization due to race or gender be discrimination?
“What people mean when they say that is that there is prejudice against every race, perpetrated by any particular person of any race.”
And again, white isn’t a race… but what is it then?
PS: Romney very much is othered through use of his being in the 1% as well as his mormon beliefs. Do you deny this?
There is a glaring problem with the whole dog-whistle thing as it relates to Obama: he’s obviously black. If voters don’t want to vote for him because of race there is no need for wink wink nod nod.
It increasingly seems that it’s the left side that is incapable of letting go of stereotypes. They find them everywhere and in everything. It must stink to constantly think about how scary black people are and the like.
By historical standards this is a tame race. In the 1800s candidates would really get nasty. They essentially called one another things such as “mothefucking prostitute lover.”
Your president is a war criminal. Being called “angry” twice should not burden him too much.
WTF does that mean?
Torturing detainees, war of aggression, violating other countries’ borders (and killing their soldiers) ?
The problem is that there are enough white and black stereotypes for people to play on to make any election with a white and a black candidate about nothing more than racism.
Virtually any attack made by one side against the other can be framed in terms of racist stereotyping. It would take a tightrope walker successfully navigating a live greased wire over a tank of sharks to get through this campaign without being called racist or a race-baiter.
Romney just needs to ignore these arguments and focus on his opponent and winning. Anything else is a distraction. The left has already decided that any vote not for Obama is the result of racism- there’s no reason to vote against Obama but being a skinhead Nazi who wants to put black Americans in camps.
And the commenters above had it right: Obama can’t be the angry strong candidate and the weak, hapless candidate at the same time. Either he is or isn’t.
There’s no dog-whistling going on. There’s nothing here that either candidate wouldn’t do if the other were of the same race.