BrendanLoy.com: The One Blog | Photoblog | Weatherblog | Linklog | Old blog archives | Photos

About me


I'm Brendan Loy, a 26-year-old graduate of USC and Notre Dame now living and working in Knoxville, Tennessee. My wife Becky and I are brand-new parents of a beautiful baby girl, born on New Year's Eve.

I'm a big-time sports fan, a politics, media & law junkie, an astronomy buff, a weather nerd, an Apple aficionado, a Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter fanatic, and an all-around dork. My blog is best-known for its coverage of Hurricane Katrina, but I blog about anything and everything that interests me.

You can contact me at irishtrojan [at] gmail.com, or donate to my "tip jar" by clicking the link below:

June 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member

« January 13, 2008 | Main | January 15, 2008 »

January 14, 2008

Obama rips up the race card

By Brendan Loy

Hey, maybe he did read my letter, after all. :) Okay, probably not, but in any event, Barack Obama is finally doing the right thing -- disavowing the race-card nonsense and criticizing the Clintons on the substance of what they said, not on racial innuendo that plainly wasn't there.

Sen. Barack Obama told ABC News Monday there is nothing in Sen. Hillary Clinton's record that would give him any cause for concern about her in terms of racial politics.

Asked how Obama interpreted two recent remarks by the Clintons that prompted an angry reaction from some in the Black community, Obama sought to damp down the racial dynamics of the controversy. ...

"I don't think it was in any way a racial comment," Obama told ABC News [in reference to Hillary Clinton's comment about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.].  "That's something that has played out in the press.  That's not my view."

He then proceeded to criticize the substance of Hillary's comments about experience versus ideals, and similarly, to criticize the substance of Bill's description of Obama's Iraq position. Bravo. You can read all that here.

Later, according to the article, Obama "stress[ed] that he, former Sen. John Edwards, and Clinton all share the same goals when it comes to civil rights and equal justice issues."

Amen. (Hat tip: TPM.)

Of course, some will argue that Obama is playing the old Clintonian game here, letting his surrogates do his dirty work for him, then taking the high road once the damage is already done. And maybe that's exactly what he's doing. On the other hand, the race-specific rhetoric was never coming directly from anyone high-level within his campaign. (His wife did distort Bill's "fairy tale" comment, but she didn't take it to an explicitly racial place; she just suggested that Bill was calling Obama's campaign a "fairy tale" rather than only his Iraq position.) My issue was always that, for all his rhetoric about a more hopeful, less divisive brand of politics, Obama hadn't taken the lead in putting this thing to rest, even though it was some of his supporters and surrogates who got the ball rolling. Now he's actually displaying some leadership to match his lofty rhetoric. I'm not prepared to let him totally off the hook, but I'm a lot happier with him than I was 24 hours ago.

UPDATE: More from the New York Times:

“I don’t want the campaign at this stage to degenerate into so much tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, that we lose sight of why all of us are doing this,” Mr. Obama told reporters at a news conference here. “We’ve got too much at stake at this time in our history to be engaging in this kind of silliness. I expect that other campaigns feel the same way.”

Mr. Obama was seeking to be seen as taking the high road in the ongoing feud between his campaign and that of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. First, he conducted three back-to-back interviews with the major television networks here. Then, he hastily called a news conference at the Reno Events Center.

After speaking to hundreds of Nevada voters at a rally here, Mr. Obama urged Democratic voters not to become embroiled in racially-charged or motivated discussions.

“If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or in some way is unfair, I will speak out forcefully against it,” he said. “I hope the other campaigns take the same approach.”

Hurrah! I couldn't have said it better myself.

P.S. That last part is, it seems to me, incredibly important. Obama is now on the record pledging to "speak out forcefully against" future race-baiting by his supporters. That means that when something like this happens again (and you know it will), Obama won't be able to rely on the argument that it's "not his job" to "bail out" his opponents -- nor, seemingly, on the argument that he "can only be responsible for what he says or what his paid campaign staff say." He has now assumed an affirmative obligation to have Sister Souljah moments whenever his "supporters" engage in race-baiting.

Will he keep that promise? Maybe, maybe not -- but if he doesn't, the media and his critics will be able to throw this quote in his face -- "Senator Obama, you pledged in January that you would 'speak out forcefully against' any misleading or unfair racial criticisms by your supporters. Why haven't you spoken out against _______?" -- and it'll be much harder for him to duck the issue.

The skeptics, I'm sure, will remain skeptical. But just imagine the possibilities, if he's actually sincere. President Obama, America's first black president, making a habit of actively debunking his supporters' attempts at inventing fake racism for political purposes -- and thus giving himself all kinds of moral authority to speak out against real racism when it occurs. That would be fantastic for the country.

In any event, we'll have to wait and see how things play out in future race-baiting incidents, but his statement sets an excellent precedent going forward. And he has to know people will be watching closely to see whether he's true to his word. I certainly will be.

Heh.

By Brendan Loy

Obama: It Took Men to Give Women the Vote.

ScrappleFace is on fire with this story.

UPDATE: In a related story... another "Heh" for this. Warning: profanity!


Poll: Bull***t Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

Slap thyself, John L. Smith: Hawaii says no

By Brendan Loy

Ladies and gentlemen, I dreamed the impossible dream, but alas, it looks like that dream -- of former Michigan State coach John L. Smith "doing crazy s**t while wearing a Hawaiian shirt and a lei" -- will not happen. It appears Hawaii is going to keep things in-house, hiring defensive coordinator Greg McMackin as June Jones's successor.

Continue reading "Slap thyself, John L. Smith: Hawaii says no" »

The bet, basketball edition

By Brendan Loy

"Irish Bruin" Mike Tran -- he of the stylish car with the gorgeous flag -- is eager to redeem himself after going 0-3 against me in football this past fall (ND 20, UCLA 6; USC 38, ND 0; USC 24, UCLA 7). Luckily for Mike, basketball season has arrived. With his Bruins ranked #4 and my Trojans unranked, Mike sees an opportunity to win his first bet against me since The Game Which Must Not Be Named led to this fashion atrocity and this pack of lies. So he's been harassing me to come up with a basketball bet before USC visits UCLA at Pauley Pavilion on Saturday.

Because individual regular-season basketball games aren't nearly as important as individual regular-season football games, and because the teams will play each other at least twice and possibly three times (maybe even four, in the unlikely event they meet in the NCAA Tournament), I wanted to bet on the season series, not the individual games. But Mike said he's not patient enough to wait all those weeks for what he seems to view as an inevitable victory. So we compromised and made a pair of small, relatively low-stakes bets on the individual games, plus a much higher-stakes bet on the season series.

Full details are published after the jump, but the basic gist is this: each individual regular-season game will cause either Mike or I to profess our man-crushes on O.J. Mayo and Kevin Love, respectively, for the following 24 hours. Also, if I lose, my blog's subtitle will change to "Mike Tran owns me," and if he loses, his Facebook profile will change similarly. As for the season series: if USC wins it, either 2-0 or 2-1 counting the Pac-10 tournament (any potential NCAA Tournament matchup doesn't count), you'll be seeing -- repeatedly, throughout March and early April -- a lovely photo of Mike wearing a USC shirt and doing the victory sign in front of Tommy Trojan. On the other hand, if UCLA wins the season series, the 13th annual Living Room Times men's basketball pool will be renamed "the 13th annual Living Room Times men's basketball pool, presented by the UCLA Bruins," and I'll have to say that in every pool update on the blog, and in the official logo to boot.

Full bet terms after the jump.

Continue reading "The bet, basketball edition" »

Racism kerfuffle update

By Brendan Loy

An Andrew Sullivan reader criticizes Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" remarks the right way: on their substance. Bravo. (Similarly, from a few days ago, a legit rebuttal to Hillary's MLK comments.)

Meanwhile, Michelle Obama pretends that Bill was talking about something other than what he was actually talking about. Ugh.

Am I overreacting to this whole controversy? Probably. That Obama is putting his purported principles to one side for the momentary political benefit of watching the Clintons squirm is disappointing, but hardly shocking. And anyway, in the purely binary sense -- i.e., wherein everything bad that I say about Obama redounds positively upon Clinton, and vice versa -- it surely should be noted that the Clintons are by no means pure as the driven snow when it comes to identity politics. They've played the gender card shamelessly, and they've arguably played the race card (through surrogates) as well. (Apropos of which, in retrospect, I wish I had left out the fourth paragraph of my letter to Obama. It's true that the Clintons aren't racists, but it's also true, as Stephen pointed out, that "[w]hether or not the Clintons are racist personally is not the question. The question is, will they use racist tactics in pursuit of their ambitions." I'm not sure the answer to that question is an unequivocal yes -- the "cocaine" issue, for instance, is more complicated than people make it out to be, though that's another post for another day -- but it isn't an unequivocal no, either.)

The Clintons clearly weren't playing the race card in this instance, which is why my criticism of Obama is still valid. But I don't want people to get the impression that I think Bill, Hillary & co. are somehow totally innocent. Indeed, a big part of the reason I drifted away from the Clinton camp in the first place is because I was sick of their old-style political tactics, their divisiveness, etc. I just didn't blog about that as much, because I wasn't as engaged with the campaign yet (and, not unrelatedly, it was still college football season!). But it's something I'm well aware of. There's a reason why I said that this kerfuffle has thrown me back into the "undecided" column, rather than back into the Clinton column. (Heck, it may throw me into the McCain column. I haven't decided which party's primary to vote in on February 5. I can choose either one on primary day. And stopping Huckabee is a high priority!)

Anyway, this whole thing has left me somewhat disillusioned, but I do recognize that it's a bit of a tempest in a teapot. And I'm going to try to stop obsessing about it so much. No promises, though. :)

Friends & family