Barack Obama is a worse bowler than we are. That is very sad. Also sad is that fairly innocuous statements by certain pundits are being criticized as terribly racist by the politically correct crowd.
On March 31, MSNBC's Chris Matthews noted that "the fact that he's good at basketball doesn't surprise anybody," but the fact that he has horrible bowling form "makes you wonder." Analyst Howard Fineman added, "He should have stuck to shooting hoops!" Leftist watch dogs got their panties in a bunch over these statement and cries of racism were heard throughout the Interwebs -- even Jon Stewart took the opportunity to criticize the comments as racist.The statements were not racist. Let's look at this rationally, folks: First of all, would anybody really be surprised by the fact that a black man is good at basketball? Of course not! Lots of African-Americans are great at basketball -- and pointing that out does not make one racist.
African-Americans are not inherently good at B-ball, any more than Asians are inherently good at playing the violin. (I am going to get so much hate mail.) The fact remains, however, that different ethnic groups tend to enjoy different recreational pursuits. Why is it racist to state that black kids like to play basketball? As Mr. Matthews said, it might be an "ethnic" observation, and yes it's a stereotype, but sometimes stereotypes have a ring of truth. Just look around: basketball is a traditional recreational pursuit for many African-Americans. That is not a racist statement.
Barack Obama is a good basketball player, but not because he's black. Obama rocks at basketball because, like many African-Americans, Obama has played the game for years. On his high school basketball team, he was known as "Barry O'Bomber" for his kick-ass jump shot. At Harvard, he routinely played pick up games with friends, and even today he squeezes it in to unwind. As the New York Times reported last year:
“He didn’t know who he was until he found basketball. It was the first time he really met black people.”So, well-versed on Obama's basketball history, Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman made the comparison between his rancid bowling score (37??!!!) and his storied days as Barack O'Bomber, noted he "should have stuck to shooting hoops," and the Left instantly -- and wrongly -- called foul.Now, Mr. Obama’s friends say, basketball has been his escape from the sport of politics, but also a purer version of it, with no decorous speeches, no careful consensus — just unrestrained competition.
“He can be himself, it’s a safe haven, he can let his competitive juices flow and tease his buddies,” Mr. Nesbitt said. “It’s just a relaxing respite from the every-moment and every-word scrutinization that he gets.”
If the Intelligent Independent were wont to throw around the racist term, he might find it just a little racist in itself for the MediaMatters crowd to accuse white commentators of racism for simply pointing out that Obama was a better basketball player than a bowler. Intelligent Independents know that anyone who is so eager to cry Racist! has got some issues of their own. (And Intelligent Independents know that were black commentators to have made the remarks, no one would have had a problem with it.)
It just so happens that we happen to agree with Messrs. Matthews and Fineman: Obama should have stuck to basketball, or at least practiced before attempting to play a game which he had clearly hardly played in his life. Luckily, one's bowling score does not necessarily indicate the quality of one's leadership. That said, the Intelligent Independent would at least hope that, if he becomes president, Mr. Obama would practice on the White House bowling alley until his average score is at least as high as the number of presidents America has had. Is that too much to ask?
*
It is hard to imagine how anyone could make a misstatement of such proportions. It is equivalent to me claiming that, when I landed in Tel Aviv after a 13 hour plane ride in 1992, I had to run from the plane to the tarmac while dodging suicide bombers. As exciting and adventurous as my Israeli bar mitzvah was, I'm afraid the only dodging I did was from overzealous vendors in one of Israel's many outdoor markets. ("You would look marvelous in this hijab! Please, please, just come here and we can try it on. And please, taste my hummus! You will love my hummus!")
It appears to the Intelligent Independent observer that Hillary Clinton was, if not outright lying, then at the very least playing fast and loose with the facts. It reminds me of another famous prevaricator, the brilliant William Jefferson Clinton. The difference is that Bill was much better at spinning yarns.
On the campaign trail, he often told stories of his youth -- complete fabrications -- meant to get the audience to shed tears as they empathized with him. Not only was Bill Clinton far more adept at deception, but also, he had the good fortune of not having been videotaped for the last several years. There is something about the cold, hard light of archival footage that tends to get in the way of exhilarating yet fabricated stories.
Charles Krauthammer had an interesting column in the Washington Post yesterday discussing Hillary's gaffe. Like me, he finds this less of a moment of "confabulation" -- the phenomenon of actually believing the stories we tell -- and more outright "pathological" lying on a "Clintonian scale."
Whether or not Hillary's half-truths will become as prevalent and frequent as Bill's remains to be seen. Regardless, if Hillary wants to have a chance of unseating front-runner Obama, she will have to be incredibly careful with what she says, now that everyone is on the lookout for fudging. This is difficult enough for a scrupulous politician. I cannot imagine how difficult it might be for a Clinton.
(NB: Intelligent Independence does not mean refraining from pointing out the foibles of any particular side; on the contrary, it requires you to do so of all sides.)
