Why are Obama supporters ashamed of his middle name?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Descartes
I couldn't care less if his full name was Barack Hitler Saddam Hussein Mussolini Stalin Obama. I don't really take objection to people using his middle name either, because it just reflects the immaturity on the person that tries to use it in a pejorative sense. No one that would ever think of supporting Obama in the first place would give credence to silly superficialities, imo.

Furthermore, I find all of the pejorative names given to politicians silly and immature. Billary, McSame, Hitlery, etc.
Hitlery, that's a new one for me:laugh:
 

cumhail

Senior member
Apr 1, 2003
682
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sandorski

If you have always used Middle names, continue on, but I'll take a chance and say you're FOS.

I have for quite some time. BHO, Obamarama, etc. It's only recently been an issue to some people here.
What I believe he meant is whether you regularly use the middle names of people (or at least politicians) when discussing them. Do you regularly say "George Walker Bush," for example, or "Richard Bruce Cheney" or "John Sidney McCain?" If not, then what is so special about this particular middle name that compels you to include it?

All that said, what sickens me more than anything else is that we're still so unabashedly bigoted in this country that his faith is something to defend, deny, etc. The right accuses him of being Muslim, the left goes into a furor that these false accusations have been made... But why is neither side troubled by the fact that being thought to be Muslim is a problem? Why does neither side take and promote the position that those who use any religion as a source of contempt or shame or denigration are not only bigoted, but unamerican?

If I liked or disliked Romney, as a candidate, it had nothing to do with his being a Mormon; but with his positions. And yes, it upset me that this was presented as an issue. If I like or dislike Lieberman, it's not because he's Jewish. And my opinion of Bush is not colored by the fact that he's a United Methodist. If and when any of those people allows his personal religious convictions to supercede their willingness and ability to uphold the Consitution and perform his elected duties, then it's a problem. Until then, though, it's none of my damned business nor anyone else's.

And yet with Obama, we don't even have his faith being used as a source of controversy (as we saw with Romney). Worse, we have accusations of his possibly being either a secret adherent or a sympathizer of a religion being invoked to scare voters. We have the candidate, himself, denying it with all the passion of an accused communist or communist sympathizer in the McCarthy era or a Nazi-sympathizer during WWII.

When in 2000, supporters of George W Bush (initial, you'll note, just to specify which Bush... not the full middle name) sought to scare voters away from McCain by implying that he'd fathered an illegitimate black child (would an illegitimate white one have been ok, I wonder?), it was just such a disgusting example of playing, appealing, and campaigning to bigotry. We saw it, as well, when Harold Ford, Jr. was running for election in 2006. And now we have it again with Obama's middle name, with his father's religion, with his implied links to that religion. But at the end of the day, at least most people saw these earlier attempts as being grounded in bigotry. And yet, time and again, this issue with Obama gets revisited with nary a peep from him, from his opponents, nor even from the media regarding the fact that it is every bit as grounded in bigotry, in racism, in hatred, in fear... as those earlier cases were.

It just sickens me, plain in simple. It makes me disgusted with the Republicans, with the Democrats, with the Media, with many of the people I interact online, and with the public at large that so few people have deemed this form of bigotry as acceptable. I don't care if he's a bisexual Animist who's married to a transgendered Wiccan. So long as he well represents my views and is willing and able to perform the duties of the office, and so long as his personal life choices don't supercede his constitutional duties, that's his business and his alone.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,425
4,810
126
Originally posted by: cumhail
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sandorski

If you have always used Middle names, continue on, but I'll take a chance and say you're FOS.

I have for quite some time. BHO, Obamarama, etc. It's only recently been an issue to some people here.
What I believe he meant is whether you regularly use the middle names of people (or at least politicians) when discussing them. Do you regularly say "George Walker Bush," for example, or "Richard Bruce Cheney" or "John Sidney McCain?" If not, then what is so special about this particular middle name that compels you to include it?

All that said, what sickens me more than anything else is that we're still so unabashedly bigoted in this country that his faith is something to defend, deny, etc. The right accuses him of being Muslim, the left goes into a furor that these false accusations have been made... But why is neither side troubled by the fact that being thought to be Muslim is a problem? Why does neither side take and promote the position that those who use any religion as a source of contempt or shame or denigration are not only bigoted, but unamerican?

If I liked or disliked Romney, as a candidate, it had nothing to do with his being a Mormon; but with his positions. And yes, it upset me that this was presented as an issue. If I like or dislike Lieberman, it's not because he's Jewish. And my opinion of Bush is not colored by the fact that he's a United Methodist. If and when any of those people allows his personal religious convictions to supercede their willingness and ability to uphold the Consitution and perform his elected duties, then it's a problem. Until then, though, it's none of my damned business nor anyone else's.

And yet with Obama, we don't even have his faith being used as a source of controversy (as we saw with Romney). Worse, we have accusations of his possibly being either a secret adherent or a sympathizer of a religion being invoked to scare voters. We have the candidate, himself, denying it with all the passion of an accused communist or communist sympathizer in the McCarthy era or a Nazi-sympathizer during WWII.

When in 2000, supporters of George W Bush (initial, you'll note, just to specify which Bush... not the full middle name) sought to scare voters away from McCain by implying that he'd fathered an illegitimate black child (would an illegitimate white one have been ok, I wonder?), it was just such a disgusting example of playing, appealing, and campaigning to bigotry. We saw it, as well, when Harold Ford, Jr. was running for election in 2006. And now we have it again with Obama's middle name, with his father's religion, with his implied links to that religion. But at the end of the day, at least most people saw these earlier attempts as being grounded in bigotry. And yet, time and again, this issue with Obama gets revisited with nary a peek from him, from his opponents, nor even from the media regarding the fact that it is every bit as grounded in bigotry, in racism, in hatred, in fear... as those earlier cases were.

It just sickens me, plain in simple. It makes me disgusted with the Republicans, with the Democrats, with the Media, with many of the people I interact online, and with the public at large that so few people have deemed this form of bigotry as acceptable. I don't care if he's a bisexual Animist who's married to a transgendered Wiccan. So long as he well represents my views and is willing and able to perform the duties of the office, and so long as his personal life choices don't supercede his constitutional duties, that's his business and his alone.
Good post and noteworthy for the fact that it is the first post that used McCain's middle name. :D
 

Descartes

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
13,968
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Descartes
I couldn't care less if his full name was Barack Hitler Saddam Hussein Mussolini Stalin Obama. I don't really take objection to people using his middle name either, because it just reflects the immaturity on the person that tries to use it in a pejorative sense. No one that would ever think of supporting Obama in the first place would give credence to silly superficialities, imo.

Furthermore, I find all of the pejorative names given to politicians silly and immature. Billary, McSame, Hitlery, etc.
Hitlery, that's a new one for me:laugh:
Glad I could contribute! ;)
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: RaistlinZ
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Foxery
His supporters aren't the ones who are concerned about it. It's just a name.

Did you have a point?
Wrong. It's his supporters that seem to be throwing fits about it being used. I'm sure there are many reasons why this is the case but I'll let them tell us why.
I think it's because the right is making a point of saying it to make people think he's some kind of Muslim. You don't hear Democrats going around saying John McCain's middle name do you?
Not that this topic is about McCain.... McCain's name has been butchered by his detractors which is not much differ than your opinion that "H" is divisive.
At least McCains "butchered" name is Witty. Nothing like insisting on speaking Obama's middle name.
IMO, using BHO's middle name(like I just did) is proper usage as it is his REAL name. Why is using his REAL name any more wrong than butchering one?
If you have always used Middle names, continue on, but I'll take a chance and say you're FOS.

I have for quite some time. BHO, Obamarama, etc. It's only recently been an issue to some people here.
there is a difference between you saying bho and the op calling him simply by Husein. Noone has ever called me James for instance (that being my middle name ofc), and i don't know why anyone would.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
People hated Hillary Clinton because originally she didn't take her husband's last name (I personally don't give a crap). The right started calling her Hillary Rodham Clinton. No one here thought it mattered.
ummm Hillary called her self "Hillary Rodham Clinton" until she started getting in trouble in the press then she dropped the Rodham.
When Bill Clinton took office as president in January 1993, Hillary Rodham Clinton became the First Lady of the United States, and announced that she would be using that form of her name.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Foxery
His supporters aren't the ones who are concerned about it. It's just a name.

Did you have a point?
Wrong. It's his supporters that seem to be throwing fits about it being used. I'm sure there are many reasons why this is the case but I'll let them tell us why.
i don't have a problem with the fact that his middle name is husein, i have a problem with it being used as a diversion and the implications that come from it, and obnoxious use of it as witnessed by the op for instance.
I don't have a problem with his middle name either. I have a problem with the fact that some seem to think it's off-limits to use it even in initial format. But whatever, it just shows the immaturity of his supporters IMO.<--you need to remove those initials. Some people might find them offensive.
 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,194
0
0
I love the way racist assholes always find a way to squirm out from under their point. At least have the decency to state what you think, rather than take cheap shots and then throw up smoke screens pointing to all the other cases where a middle name is used.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,085
126
I'm glad the righties have finally found something "truly important" to ask questions about. The last eight years of being deaf and blind must have been rough on them....
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
I'm not ashamed.

I can't get enough of Hoo-sain!
 

naddicott

Senior member
Jul 3, 2002
793
0
76
There's nothing shameful about the name.

I am, however, ashamed to have any shared identity with people like the one at 2:23 in this clip who say their vote was based on the "Hussein thing".

Let's be honest though. Anyone who comes up with something as stupid as a middle name as a reason to not vote for Obama probably has other reasons as well, and still wouldn't vote for him if his name was Barak Washington Obama.

I suspect the main reason Barak's middle name gets used outside of very formal occasions is to mobilize a small portion of the American electorate who may otherwise be too lazy to come to the polls in November. They need some motivation to counter the 2000 "black daughter" smear on McCain, otherwise they'll just stay home and grumble about a crappy choice between a "half-breed" and a "n* lover".

As much as I love democracy, it wouldn't trouble me to see those voters stay home in November.

What Republicans with integrity (eg. McCain) need to ask themselves is, if their causes are right and just, why do they need to get idiots who vote based on a middle name on their side in the first place? That's likely why McCain has repudiated party members who have filled their speeches with "barak HUSSEIN obama" references - he'd rather find a way to win without the 10 IQ hate based vote.

The question will be, can McCain (and Obama) have the management skills to persuade 3rd party "supporters" to keep the campaign civil, or will they play nice in person but wink, wink, nod, nod to the 527 groups who do the mudslinging far enough detached for "plausible deniability"? If you can't be in control of a campaign message, are you really ready to manage the country?
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
12,941
363
126
Well, apparently the current political situation between the U.S. and many middle-eastern countries isn't the most desirable, so there is no reason to bring up a middle name with a stigma. And I hate the incredibly moronic 'patriotism' issue that pops up every election season.

I personally don't understand the demonizing of Arabs (nevermind the middle name), either. Arabs living in America are U.S. citizens just like any other races. (other than tourists or illegals, etc., of course) This country is only 200 years old and every family came here as foreigners at one time or another. Are German Americans more patriotic? Or Korean Americans? How about Italian Americans or Mexican Americans? How long a family should have resided in the U.S. territory in order to be considered 'true' Americans? 50 years? 100 years?

Mentioning Obama's middle name with underhanded purposes should be justly denounced, but demonizing U.S. citizens from Arab ancestry is utter nonsense as well.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
3
0
Still can't believe so many of your people will vote for a MUSLIM who's name is just one letter away from OSAMA, the greatest criminal in a generation! And middle name the same as Saddam's last!

j/k, but unfortunately a lot of people really do say things like that. Unfortunately, some of them will vote.
 

fallout man

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,787
0
0
"I don't trust that Hussein thing. I've had enough of Hussein.

Thank you, America!!!

We'll be here for the rest of your life, bringing down your country's literacy level. Try the pickled roadkill, and remember to tip them there waitresses!" - West Virginia
 

Foxery

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2008
1,709
0
0
Cue the scene from Office Space where the new managers ask Michael Bolton how much he loves the singer.

I had actually never heard McCain's middle name until this thread. I will most likely not remember it in the morning. Everyone here knows that the noise is generated by his competitors, and repeated because of the people shown in the recent West Virginia primary interviews. Educated voters aren't the problem.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
13,441
5,475
136
just like fox "news" regularly bringing up the "problem" that some people have with barack's middle name, the rightie "_ _ _ _ _ _ " on this forum do the same to keep the "controversy" that they created in people's minds.

to couch this agenda with imaginative slanted reasons for them bringing this up again and again and again has entertainment value alot like watching the ball bearings drop down across the face of a pachinko arcade game.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Better to just have a name like that than to be like the scum below - they liked the taste of HUSSEIN when it was good for them

Rumsfield
Cheney
Pearle
Wolfowitz
Powell

^^^ or any other hypocritical murderer
 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
Originally posted by: cumhail
what sickens me more than anything else is that we're still so unabashedly bigoted in this country that his faith is something to defend, deny, etc. The right accuses him of being Muslim, the left goes into a furor that these false accusations have been made... But why is neither side troubled by the fact that being thought to be Muslim is a problem? Why does neither side take and promote the position that those who use any religion as a source of contempt or shame or denigration are not only bigoted, but unamerican?
It is not acceptable, and you're not alone in thinking this way. Naomi Klein for example has expressed similar ideas.

It takes some guts and vision to get to say that, and when you're dealing with a part of a nation which doesn't even appear to recognize the need for change and hence questions that as if it's non-existent, you have to simplify the message and dispute a great deal. What purpose is really served by taking Obama or his camp to task on such issues at this time? Does it really inform those of us who are inclined to understand this position? I submit it doesn't at all. I submit that we who understand that, are sometimes better silent simply because those who raise the question are so far removed from such a position that they're not going to be able to think about it in this way, and to try to make them do so at this point would only serve to alienate them further. Alienation and divisiveness is not the goal, so it should be avoided in the interim as well.

It's also true that this silence has a cost, as Klein implies and your post shows. However, I disagree that the silence is correctly construed as a wrong message, as that would imply that Obama agrees with his opponents and is appeasing them accordingly. The important part is not the apparent appeasement, but rather whether or not he agrees with them in this. Apparent appeasement fits with unification. Agreement doesn't fit with his specific messages and history.

Pearls before swine... He's already accused of being too high brow. He understands that he's not going to fix bigotry overnight, even if he's elected. Let's understand that it has been, and will continue to be, a long process of continued improvement, and we're not in a position to behave as if the problem's already gone.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The name Barak Hussein Obama would normally mean nothing nothing to the American public. Just another name in a sea
of other non traditional names that often come from non WASP backgrounds.

Except this one particular name happened to belong to someone who is extraordinarily intelligent, talented, and with very strong political skills. Even in the crowded political arena, a talent like that paired with the rare quality of charisma comes only once every two of three generations. In short, he is the real deal, and like all talents, its no respecter of the parent's background, and more like an very lucky roll of the genetic dice. That paired with American opportunity allowed him the rise to the top a Harvard law, no small feat, and talent and hard work proved his ability as a community organizer.

All this happened while the name BHO flew under the American's public radar screen and the name itself neither detracted from or added to the the quality of American life. Now the that name BHO is a household name, why should it bother us at all.
 

cumhail

Senior member
Apr 1, 2003
682
0
0
Originally posted by: Madwand1
Originally posted by: cumhail
what sickens me more than anything else is that we're still so unabashedly bigoted in this country that his faith is something to defend, deny, etc. The right accuses him of being Muslim, the left goes into a furor that these false accusations have been made... But why is neither side troubled by the fact that being thought to be Muslim is a problem? Why does neither side take and promote the position that those who use any religion as a source of contempt or shame or denigration are not only bigoted, but unamerican?
It is not acceptable, and you're not alone in thinking this way. Naomi Klein for example has expressed similar ideas.

It takes some guts and vision to get to say that, and when you're dealing with a part of a nation which doesn't even appear to recognize the need for change and hence questions that as if it's non-existent, you have to simplify the message and dispute a great deal. What purpose is really served by taking Obama or his camp to task on such issues at this time? Does it really inform those of us who are inclined to understand this position? I submit it doesn't at all. I submit that we who understand that, are sometimes better silent simply because those who raise the question are so far removed from such a position that they're not going to be able to think about it in this way, and to try to make them do so at this point would only serve to alienate them further. Alienation and divisiveness is not the goal, so it should be avoided in the interim as well.

It's also true that this silence has a cost, as Klein implies and your post shows. However, I disagree that the silence is correctly construed as a wrong message, as that would imply that Obama agrees with his opponents and is appeasing them accordingly. The important part is not the apparent appeasement, but rather whether or not he agrees with them in this. Apparent appeasement fits with unification. Agreement doesn't fit with his specific messages and history.

Pearls before swine... He's already accused of being too high brow. He understands that he's not going to fix bigotry overnight, even if he's elected. Let's understand that it has been, and will continue to be, a long process of continued improvement, and we're not in a position to behave as if the problem's already gone.

I understand what you're saying... and at the end of the day, I consider Obama the least of the evils and intend to vote for him if he wins his party's nomination. But what you argue in support of is political expediency; and that is something I cannot accept.

It was politically expedient for the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to put off any discussion of ending slavery; and what did it give us? It gave us another century of legal slavery in a nation that had supposedly been founded on the principle that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." It gave us yet another century, beyond that, where segregation was openly and legally practiced. And it left us here, some 23 decades after our nation's founding, still wondering if a black man (or a women) can win a party's nomination, let alone the presidency of the United States.

There was a time when it was deemed politically expedient to continue denying women the right to vote; when the idea that we had a God-given right to rule this land, from shore to shore, led us to all but exterminate the tribal nations and wage a war of agression to rob the Mexican government of its lands; when it was expedient to put first and second generation American citizens into internment camps and strip them of their property because they were of Japanese descent; when lives and careers could be ruined on the mere accusation of communist/socialist sympathies and leanings because the few politicians who dared speak against it were termed unamerican and risked losing political standing. And no one person could have changed any of these things overnight or all on his own. But if none of them tried, they may never have changed at all.

I'm reminded of the words of Henry Clay, who, in response to warnings that his anti-slavery positions would render him unelectable as a presidential candidate, stated, "I'd rather be right than be President!" And while he never did win that office, at least this was one compromise that the "Great Compromiser" didn't choose to make, just for the sake of political expediency. Our history is full of people and events that demonstrate that political expedience often gets things done. But the people who most stand out, whom we most often invoke as heroes to a cause, are those who put what they think is right ahead of what they think is most expedient. And whether a majority of voters agrees with me or not, that's the kind of person I would most admire and most like to have the opportunity to vote for and see become my president.


P.S. Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen that particular article before.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY