Responding to Hudson
Mike Hudson responded in comments to my earlier, Kunzian, jab at his weekly column.
thanks for the traffic alan! i think i got two clicks already!
…
by the way, i didn’t call obama “uppity,” hardly mentioned clinton at all, merely stated that irish, italians and jews have been voting their own for years so why shouldn’t blacks too? and, after pennsylvania, i’ll hold you to the importance you place on the popular vote, alan.
the column was not directed towards obama, who i will vote for if he makes it to the general election, or to his black supporters. it was directed against upscale white suburban twits whose support he would be better off without. you know who you are.
and as for mike, who wants to use a column item about eigth street i wrote two weeks ago to brand me some kind of racist, that’s my neighborhood, buster, and if you want a second opinion you ought to ask (the overwhelmingly black and decent) members of the block club who will tell you the same thing.
So, Mr. Hudson is a kind of free-tabloid, latter-day version of Tom Wolfe, providing biting commentary on white elites pandering to radical revolutionaries. Only with crappier suits.
Let’s begin with the article itself, which claims that Obama has built a unique coalition of:
poor, inner-city blacks and well-to-do white suburban liberals who fled the cities in order to get away from the poor inner-city blacks.
Taken within the context of the entire rest of the piece, Hudson is basically saying that black people are, by definition, poor inner-city denizens. The premise, evidently, is that there are no poor rural black people supporting Obama in places like Mississippi or Georgia. Nor must there by any middle or upper-middle class black people supporting - well, anyone.
After a brief lesson on the all-too-familiar concept of identity politics, Hudson goes after his pet peeve, limousine liberals.
The term “limousine liberal” is always a handy epithet to hurl when one supposes he has the moral high ground. If class struggle is your thing, then go for it. But the revolution is not coming, and if it does, it will be televised.
On Fox News.
Interestingly, and bringing it back to the presidential race, the term “limousine liberal” is now most often used by the right as an epithet against the left. Now, Mike, I thought you were a good anarcho-socialist who lives amongst decent black people, and I therefore figured that your anachronistic epithets towards me would be more current. I mean, they used that one against Lindsay in the 60s. It’s 2008. “Limousine liberal” is now thrown around by the likes of Limbaugh and Krauthammer. And Ostrowski, evidently.
On top of that, I’ve only ridden in a limousine I think 3 times in my entire life.
Although Hudson says the piece was more about ridiculing Obama’s white supporters (which is sort of sickening in itself), he does indeed decry the fact that Obama has mucked it up for Hillary:
Over the past six months, these vermin have combined to turn what was a certain Democratic victory in November into a question mark. The party itself is so badly fractured that the likelihood of everyone forgetting about what was said and done in time to unite against John McCain seems remote.
That’s the Obama coalition and, except for the black people, I don’t think I want any part of it. It’s about enough to make me support McCain myself, as a matter of fact.
There are loads of examples of very heated primary campaigns resulting in the ultimate uniting of the party behind the ultimate nominee, and there’s no question that will happen this year. In fact, Obama and Clinton are in headlines daily, getting their messages out there, while McCain is an afterthought deep in the national section of the paper. And to think all those disingenuous white people have the nerve to support Obama. Hypocrites! [/sarcasm].
Hudson’s allusion to a 40+ year-old short story where the protagonist is alleged to be prejudiced towards black people, instead of against is something I’m not comprehending.
I have my reasons for supporting Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, and the word “black” or “African-American” or whatever the fuck people would like to pin as my motive for said support is not even remotely on the list.
Perhaps I am rather shallow, easily swayed by a good speech and gullible in matters politic. Perhaps I am foolish to believe that a candidate might be able to transcend decades’ worth of idiotic political, racial, and gender cleaves to bring the country together after 8+ years of division so that we work together for a common good.
Perhaps I am naive not to support the wife of the former president, a woman who is despised by half, and adored by the other half. Perhaps she is whom I should support, lest I have too-cool-for-the-room tabloid publishers accuse me of being a reverse-racist hipster tool.
Luckily for everyone, I suppose, I trust Hudson’s judgment as little as he trusts mine. I value his opinion as little as he values mine. Because, as the old adage goes, opinions are, indeed, like assholes.
The moment someone touts his competence to bear witness to the plight of black people because he lives near black people, and that black people “love him”, it’s game over. Unless, of course, that person is, himself, black. Mike, last I checked, you’re as white as I am.
But back to the issue at hand. This blog began as a paean to a Presidential candidate from 2004. It has morphed into the garbage it is today because I like to write things about things that I find interesting. However, I have been finding political candidates who inspire me, or anger me, and I then write down what I think about all that. It’s what I’ve done time and time again for the past 4+ years.
Hudson continues:
[Obama’s] supporters have pointed to his opposition to the war in Iraq back when it started in 2003 as evidence of his great wisdom. I opposed it too, wrote a bunch of columns about it and everything, but I wouldn’t vote for me for president. Opposing a war, or anything bad, when you’re not in a position to do anything about it really doesn’t amount to much.
Hillary Clinton was in a position to do something about it. FAIL.
Anyway, last Tuesday, after weeks of indignantly demanding that Hillary Clinton do the right thing and drop out of the race, the Obama cultists were shocked and stunned when she beat their man like a rug in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas.
For someone who is such a stickler for facts and accuracy, you may want to revisit the Texas results. They’re still being tallied, and by today’s math, Obama has 98 Texas delegates, and Clinton has 95. My math tells me Obama’s winning Texas. But I’m a rich white kid, so what the hell do I know?
In six weeks she will do the same thing to him in Pennsylvania, and thus will have beaten him in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Texas, Nevada and most of the other key Democratic and swing states, while he will have won caucuses for the most part in states like Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, Mississippi, Alabama and North Dakota, where his “O-Mentum” isn’t likely to prevail against John McCain or any Republican in November.
Perhaps not, but what evidence is there to conclude that Ohio or New York or California would not vote for Obama if he is the nominee come November? None whatsoever. Hudson’s talking out his ass.
I realize Hudson is the coolest, if not the smartest, hep cat in the room at any given time, but this blog doesn’t pretend or boast to be anything except for my opinions about things. I realize full well that I’m the dumbest limousine liberal white boy on the planet. Hudson is free to ascribe to me whatever motives he’d like.
So, to Hudson’s point, if you think I’m supporting Obama because he’s black, and because I’m overwhelmed with white guilt about the black plight because I live in a nice neighborhood that is diverse only in terms of the European and Asian countries represented therein, you are welcome to it.
But you would be wrong. And then maybe give Geraldine Ferraro a call. She holds some similarly anachronistic opinions you might find more palatable. She also agrees with you, being one of Clinton’s top surrogates and higher-profile supporters.
Rob Says:March 12th, 2008 at 9:37 am
“[Obama] will have won caucuses for the most part in states like Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, Mississippi, Alabama and North Dakota . . . “
I love the weasel words “for the most part”. Hudson is indeed a true journo; they love that kind of thing. For the record, Obama also won Wisconsin, Virginia, Washington, Louisiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Connecticut, Vermont and Missouri, but for the most part Hudson somehow failed to mention them.
And the last time I checked, Obama polls better against McCain than Clinton does, so I’m not sure how Obama’s white supporters have mucked up a sure Dem victory in the general election.
Calanan Says:March 12th, 2008 at 10:29 am
As an aside, I thought you might be interested in this small piece on Obama’s image in France, via a photography-related blog:
http://www.lensculture.com/webloglc/mt_files/archives/2008/03/prejudice-politics-and-photogr.html
- mike
Russell Says:March 12th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Wow, it seems like Hudson really touched on a nerve.
Man, I love what this race is doing to you Democrats. Keep fighting and calling eachother names. I love to see charges of white guilt, racism, classism, anachronism, kitchen sinkism…being thrown around. I’m sure all this name calling and in-fighting is only going to get worse over the next couple months. I can’t imagine how the party thinks it’s going to heal itself come August or even November. The further this thing goes, the uglier it gets and I think it’s just making it more and more difficult for you guys to come together for a common purpose in the end. No swing voter is going to take any of you seriously if you have to stand up or speak out on behalf of the candidate you are so vehemently fighting against right now, whether the fighting is directly against the candidate or by proxy. And it’s happening at all levels of the party, from the local party members all the way up to some of the party’s biggest names. This is great.
Rob Says:March 12th, 2008 at 10:49 am
As opposed to the unified Republican party. Are Limbaugh and Coulter still saying they’d rather vote for Hillary than McCain? Is McCain still responding to Rove’s advice that Catholics are a hugely important demographic for Republicans by courting an insane pastor who says the RCC is the whore of Babylon? Keep it up, guys and girls.
Jim Ostrowski Says:March 12th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I’ve written about limo libs for years.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski58.html
Russell Says:March 12th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Rob, if you want to cling to that for some comfort, go ahead, but problems in the GOP are nowhere near the level the Dems are encountering. Sure, some mouthpieces are talking up a storm, but you are not seeing this among rank and file members nor among ranking party members. It’s all over the Dem party. Battle lines separate every segment and corner of that party.
Rob Says:March 12th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Couldn’t disagree more. But we’ll see in November which of us is right.
Tbone Says:March 12th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Rob, I dont think any result in November would prove you or Russell right in this debate. That being said, Russell, the Republicans are very divided right now- but the mouthpieces are covering that division not displaying it. The real division is between the so called “religious right” and true conservatives (which by the way the mouthpieces generally are NOT). The problem for the Republicans is that the division between these two wings is not a one time dispute (see: Clinton v. Obama), it is an ongoing one that threatens the future of the party and hence much more damaging then the current Obama, Clinton feud.
Russell Says:March 12th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Tbone, that division has existed since Reagan left office. Since then the GOP has won 3 out of 5 Presidential elections, captured the House for the first time in over 50 years and held both houses of Congress. Yes, they’ve lost some of those gains in part due to that division, but I don’t think it’s as big a threat to the next election as Clinton/Obama is to you guys. The push and pull between the extremes in a party is normal. It’s only a threat when the center and rank and file begin to get divided. I don’t think that’s happening in the GOP, but I’m confident it is happening in the Democratic party.
Rob Says:March 12th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Oh I know - I was just goading Russell, who is fond of making Big Authoritative-Sounding Pronouncements and then running like a frightened squirrel from any objective test of whether they’re correct. No doubt he’ll soon make the same point you just did: “Just because I claim that ‘battle lines separate every segment and corner of the Democratic party’ while the Republicans are relatively unified doesn’t mean I’m saying that McCain will win.” No, of course not.
Russell Says:March 12th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Rob loves to put words in people’s mouth. It’s the only way he can win an argument.
mike hudson Says:March 12th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
oh alan, where to begin? your responses (2) and chris’s (several) have far exceeded the word count of the original column. let’s start here:
“The premise, evidently, is that there are no poor rural black people supporting Obama in places like Mississippi or Georgia. Nor must there by any middle or upper-middle class black people supporting - well, anyone.”
that sentence is so full of shit its writer’s eyes just have to be brown. my “evident premise”? do i write on such an advanced level that readers need a dope like you to explain to them what i mean? if you want to make this about black people fine, alan, but it’s not. it’s about liberal white assholes who do everything in their power to get away from where black people actually live and then profess their solidarity with them. that’s the premise, and that’s the only reason places like clarence exist.
it would be easy for me to mischaracterize each and every word of what you originally wrote, as you have done now over a period of two days with my column, but i’ll leave that to you dilettants, who seem to specialize in it.
i will say, since you’ve chosen not to, that over the past two weeks, the niagara falls reporter has published three full-page militantly pro-obama, anti-clinton columns, also written by upscale, college educated white guys, as well as a raft of pro-obama letters, not one of which came from a black person. it’s funny, alan, but i’ve never been called a racist, or had my writings characterized as racist, by anyone other than white, liberal suburban males in an entire lifetime spent living in mixed neighborhoods and buildings. never not once. last weekend, in the snow-choked alley behind my house, my neighbor helped me push my car out then i helped him with his and, as unbelievable as this may seem, the issue of race never came up once.
and i have never ever ever written that black people “love” me. you’ve statedtwice now that i wrote that, even putting it in quotation marks as having come from my pen or mouth or ass. you are a goddamned liar on top of your other shortcomings.
furthermore, only a fucking pinhead who believed in spitzer’s “straight arrow, tough prosecutor, first jewish president” schtick would be “outraged” by the fact he likes to fuck whores. you actually believe these people and pictures they paint of themselves alan, which makes you a sucker. these people are human beings, no one is larger than life, and they are subject to the same foibles as the rest of us. and that includes obama, kennedy, einstein and everyone else.
i’m outraged that, in 2008, a president or a governor should have to resign or be forced out of office for banging some broad. it’s the most laughably provincial thing i’ve ever heard of.
and as for rob, who boldly pointed out my error in failing to mention that obama also won “Wisconsin, Virginia, Washington, Louisiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Connecticut, Vermont and Missouri,” i would simply point out that these states remain far less important than new york, new jersey, massachussetts, florida, ohio, texas, california, nevada etc. when it comes to democratic politics.
when clinton wins pennsylvania, she will have made a significant gain on obama both in pledge delegates and the popular vote. should she win an upset in north carolina, the young senator from illinois will be seriously rethinking the whole “i’m not running for vice president” thing.
unlike you, alan, he’s a politician. what was your percentage in the clarence supervisor’s race again?
Rob Says:March 12th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Oh my.
C’mon - not mentioning those states wasn’t an “error” on your part - you did it deliberately, in order to belittle Obama’s achievements. No big thing, I simply wanted to correct the record. Err, which is why I said, For the record . . .”.
And yeah, I know Clinton has won almost all the larger states, and this is a problem for Obama. I never said he was a lock (although you did at one point) and I don’t think he is now. It’ll be up to the super-delegates, and who knows what they’ll do? But Obama will in all likelihood end up with more pledged delegates and more popular votes, and I assume that will count a lot with the SDs.
I’ll leave the whole “the suburbs were created solely to enable white people to avoid black people” claim to Alan or Chris.
You sure are an angry young man, Mike.
Buffalopundit Says:March 12th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I figured you’d lash out like a caged rhino.
For someone who claims to be so concerned with facts, I got 28% of the vote for the Erie County Legislature. Not the “clarence supervisor’s race”. What that has to do with anything is for only you to know. I guess it was just a dig. Score one for you!
But let’s get back on track. In your column, you wrote:
I never called you a racist, despite your floundering protestations to that effect, but you don’t see the inherent problem with that sentence, or with the use of the “decent” adjective when describing black people?
Clarence’s existence actually predates that of the City of Buffalo, so you’re factually incorrect on that point. Suburbs exist for a variety of reason, and white flight is probably one of them. Except it’s 2008, not 1968.
On the point of being loved, here you gave us “wannabe journos” a lesson on the use of quotation marks:
So, you may not have owned the “love me” words that Chris used to paraphrase what you had written earlier, but then you essentially bought them by explaining that you have great credibility on African-American issues because, well, some of your neighbors are black and that “most of them are decent people”.
You say the premise of your article is that all of Obama’s white supporters are limousine liberal types. On what, exactly, that conclusion is based has yet to be revealed. At best, it’s anecdotal and therefore hardly worthy of a column to begin with. Unless you have some sort of demographic evidence to show that Obama’s support comes mainly from bleeding heart white liberals and inner-city poor blacks, as you allege. If so, please do cite that.
Your rant then goes off on a Spitzer tangent, which is so irrelevant as to defy comprehension.
Your column is all hung up about the race, residence, and perceived phoniness of Obama’s supporters. I could have shat that column along with my Cheerios on any given morning if I was in the bag for Clinton. It’s a story that even poor Jim Ostrowski could have written in some obscure libertarian rag 5 years ago. It’s a story that any Republican talking head is going to be spouting come July.
I know for a fact that in everything I ever wrote about Obama’s candidacy, I have not made his race, nor the race of his supporters, an issue not once. You have. So, don’t come whining to me like a 4th grader when you’re made to look like a tool for doing it.
Mike Says:March 12th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Well I think i see this coming that “So, don’t come whining to me like a 4th grader” remark is going to get you called out to the playground. Now all we need is Hank to add his two cents about if Obama wins his wife will have to where a burka, which I think would be an improvement.
mike hudson Says:March 12th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
well boys, i have done all i can for your little web page thingee this afternoon, and i shall take my leave. it’s a good thing you’re a lawyer alan, because as a writer or a politician your skills would have your poor family destitute.
Buffalopundit Says:March 12th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Another dig. Typical.
hank Says:March 12th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Pungent Scrotum face—Oh I mean “Mike”
The correct spelling is “WEAR” as in the verb “To wear” a piece of clothing for example.
Mike Hudson and I no longer have issues. He’s not on my side, and I’m not on his. We found out we have something in common that does not allow us to attack each other personally, so don’t look for anything.
I didn’t comment here yet because of that, but this has nothing to do with Mike Hudson. Just noticed the “other Mike” took a time out from hand flogging his needle dick long enough to make a jab at me.
Suck my ass, pal. ALL OF IT.
Mike Says:March 12th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Hank you sure love that word scrotum, it is because of the flash backs you have about your days with your marine buddies?
Rifle Dude Says:March 12th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Mr. Hudson seems very angry and tends to lash out at people rather than ideas. Is he frustrated that BP has made intellectual circles around him and thus the personal (and inaccurate) insults? Why hasn’t Mr. Hudson run for political office? If Mr. Hudson is a modern day Hamilton or Jefferson why has he not tried to contribute to the land he loves?
If talk is cheap then Mr. Hudson would be the Amvets thrift store of local columnists – a warehouse of cast-off ideas that are of little or no use to the majority of people.
Contrary to the band Rage Against the Machine, anger is not a gift but rather a liability. What Mr. Hudson fails to understand is that his rantings are very similar to those employed by the Bushies that the ordinary American yearns to reject and change this November.
Mr. Hudson, why try over-generalize a group? Don’t people act as individuals? Why the divide and conquer strategy? With friends like Mike Hudson, why would Mrs. Clinton need enemies?
hank Says:March 13th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Rifle Dude–You’re a funny guy
First you write “the Bushies”
Then you write
why try over-generalize a group? Don’t people act as individuals?
Answer YOUR OWN FUCKING QUESTION–after you buy the clue.
Mike Says:March 13th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Hank, how many times do you jerk off hudson a day?
Rifle Dude Says:March 13th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Hank, I used the term “Bushies” that is used frequently by various writers of the NFR…. check it out.
When you talk to a native sometimes its effieicent to use their language. A lot can be determined by langauage… what trailer park are you from Hank?