NY Times weblog reprinted Allen's false suggestion that Obama flip-flopped on the origin of his name
In a February 9 entry in the New York Times political weblog The Caucus, reporter Kate Phillips linked to Politico chief political correspondent Mike Allen's February 9 article on Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), excerpting a section in which, as Media Matters for America documented, Allen falsely suggested that Obama has been dishonest about the origin of his name, asking, "Why has he sometimes said his first name is Arabic, and other times Swahili?"
From Phillips' February 9 entry on The Caucus:
Mike Allen, formerly of The Times, the Washington Post, Time magazine and now at The Politico, jumps in early with this post today, foretelling the scope, the microscope, under which Mr. Obama will find himself:
The charismatic Illinois senator has enjoyed a lifetime of hagiography, starting with an 800-word story in The New York Times the day after his election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.
Now, Obama's about to endure a going-over that would make a proctologist blush. Why has he sometimes said his first name is Arabic, and other times Swahili? Why did he make up names in his first book, as the introduction acknowledges? Why did he say two years ago that he would "absolutely" serve out his Senate term, which ends in 2011, and that the idea of him running for president this cycle was "silly" and hype "that's been a little overblown"?
Watch for more. The coverage will obviously get more intense, as he gets flyspecked like other candidates who have been out there a lot longer.
As Media Matters and others including blogger Brad DeLong noted, Obama's first name derives from both languages. According to Yale University's Kamusi Project -- the "Internet Living Swahili Dictionary" -- the Swahili word "baraka," meaning "blessing," is derived from the Arabic word "bariki." According to a January 12, 2004, Copley News Service article: "In an interview last week, Obama said he decided to call himself Barack -- a Swahili derivative of Arabic that means 'blessed,' as 'baruch' does in Hebrew -- after his father died."
Media Matters also noted that Allen claimed one of Obama's "big vulnerabilities" in the 2008 presidential race is "his frank liberalism in a time when the party needs centrist voters," citing Obama's support for same-sex civil unions. Allen ignored recent polling that shows majorities of Americans and "Independents" support either same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions.
Reminds me of a northeastern elitist from Connecticut and Maine whose daddy was head of the CIA, vice-president, and then president, who recently ran for president as an "outsider" from Texas.
Jeeez.. what nonsense.
Sometimes I wish Obama would just change his name to Bob Smith and, once and for all, get all these bullsh*t things about his name out of the way.
Then they'd jump all over him for being ashamed of his Madrassa up-bringing...
I Don't Really Think You're Serious But
It’s probably a good idea that Obama not change his name. The time has come for all Americans to familiarize themselves with Semitic languages and history. After all our colossal ignorance is staring us it the face each day. With more than 300 million Afro-Asiatic people on our socio-political doorstep, hysterical reactions to names, religious convictions and cultural differences will serve to acerbate a problem that only intelligence and information can resolve. Isn’t it better to know that Hussein and Kenneth are popular names that share the same meaning rather than behaving as though one is the harbinger of doom?
Maybe living here in western CO exposes me to more bigots than some of the rest of you posters here. Believe me, around here some one who would choose a "not normal" name like Barak is instantly suspect. It might be ok to hire them to float a concrete patio,as long as you keep an eye on him, but President?? Innuendos go along way here. My great uncle believed to his dying days that Hilary Clinton had lesbian orgies in the white house, "cuz it said so in the enquirer, right next to the alien rabbits eating up all the coal!!"
if'n you want to see how low can it go, come on down to Texas. Colorodo will look like child's play...
Try Kentucky.
Just yesterday I spoke with a woman who is just certain we found nuclear weapons in Iraq.
Georgia was one of the few states to send more Republicans to Washington and the state capitol in the last election. Too much war is not enough for these people, it seems. It is a pretty scary place at times. You should hear the conversations they have.
For all the outrage about anonymous sources on the spinonymous thread...here come Simon Maloy with anonymous sources.
He makes the dubious assertion that "recent polling" shows that a majority favor same-sex marriage or civil unions...without listing his sources.
"Recent polls"...conducted by the AP and Quinnipiac pollsters show a majority of Americans OPPOSE same-sex marriage and civil unions.
More evidence of political pandering...media watch dog my foot.
I agree with you. He should have cited which polls he used. Very good point.
Now, do you think the senior whitehouse official should have been granted anonymity to spout criticism of a political opponent? I never read your objection to that.
Are you consistent here?
I view all reports from unnamed sources with a squint.
"For all the outrage about anonymous sources on the spinonymous thread...here come Simon Maloy with anonymous sources. He makes the dubious assertion that "recent polling" shows that a majority favor same-sex marriage or civil unions...without listing his sources. "Recent polls"...conducted by the AP and Quinnipiac pollsters show a majority of Americans OPPOSE same-sex marriage and civil unions. More evidence of political pandering...media watch dog my foot. "
its funny how you also make the dubious assertion that according to AP and Quinnipiac pollsters a majority of Americans OPPOSE same-sex marriage and civil unions. which is completely FALSE! its easy to say somebody said something but fail to provide proof. for all interested in knowing what the polls actually say please view
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
"Recent polls"...conducted by the AP and Quinnipiac pollsters show a majority of Americans OPPOSE same-sex marriage and civil unions.
- wesley / Monday February 12, 2007 05:37:35 PM EST
The AP poll only asked about gay marriage and even then split was 51/45. The last Quinnipiac poll I saw was in 11/06 which showed a majority against it but oddly enough a FOX News poll done around that same time showed majority support for it. Was there a more recent poll?I just took a quick look and found these polls...don't know if there is more recent data.
Simon Maloy's statement would have been easy to verify if he had listed sources. Since mmfa is very good at providing supporting info...it makes me think that Maloy is out on a limb.
This type of reporting is what mmfa condemns all the time as dubious...so lets call this one like it is...dubious.
The missing polling data reference http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm was mentioned in another recent topic. However, the reference should have been provided here as well.
As for the polls, the one that most recently addressed both civil union and marriage was the Quinnipiac Universit Poll of Nov 2006. The results of that one seem self-contradictory. However, it is possible to construct a Venn Diagram that supports MMFA's interpretation. However, my confidence is less than 100% in that explanation.
The Quinnipiac poll finds a majority opposed to civil unions and same-sex marriage when asked in an either/or manner.
Oppose civil unions 52-45...oppose same-sex marriage 63-34.
The respondents were opposed to a constitutional amendment 53-43. One could make the assumption that they are opposed to civil unions and gay marriage...but think it is more of a state's right issue.
When forced to make a forced choice between civil unions and gay marriage...they opposed gay marriage almost 2:1...with 27% adamantly opposed to either...despite being told they had to make a choice.
Maloy's statement is dubious and borders on outright fraud...until he lists his source material to rebut the polls we just looked at.
MMFA may be cherry picking a little, but there is support for their argument: "recent polling that shows majorities of Americans and "Independents" support either same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions.
The CBS/NYTimes, Newsweek and Pew Research polls support the MMFA contention above. You need to take a chill pill, Wesley.
But when this question is asked
"Which comes closest to your view? Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Same-sex couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR, There should be no legal recognition of a same-sex couple's relationship."
A majority choose the civil union/ marriage option and a minority choose no recognition. The polls are all over the place. I dont think in another 20 years it will be an issue. I also bet that similar results would have been seen in the early 60's if they took a poll about miscegentation laws.
Well, trends are going pro gay marriage, to a degree:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=273
It really depends on which poll you look at, for instance, polls of college age or younger students show overwhelming support for gay marriage, but polls of older citizens tend to indicate the opposite (time is on our side!)
Check out my answers below, do you think they'r reasonable?
1. Why has he sometimes said his first name is Arabic, and other times Swahili?
Media Matters has already explained, the name comes from both. As an Indonesian, I can testify that a lot of Indonesian words and names are derived from Arabic. For example, the name "Usman" is very common in Indonesia for generations, but few Indonesians realize that it is actually an Arabic name and is also popular in the Middle East.
2. Why did he make up names in his first book, as the introduction acknowledges?
Two reasons: 1) to protect the privacy of people. 2) To make the book more exciting and dramatic, perhaps by combining several personalities into one character. This is quite common in the publishing world. After all, he is trying to sell books. Of course people are free to question him on specific details contained in the book, if they think it is important. But the point is that he was not dishonest.
3. Why did he say two years ago that he would "absolutely" serve out his Senate term, which ends in 2011, and that the idea of him running for president this cycle was "silly" and hype "that's been a little overblown"?
Very simple answer: he changed his mind. Was anyone hurt by this change of heart? Is it somehow immoral? People are allowed to change their minds you know. He probably changed his mind after seeing the high level of support and encouragement from a lot of people, which he didn't expect to receive.
Thanks for flagging this latest outrage from the NYT. I must, however, correct the interpretation cited for the origin of the name Barack. I checked out the Kamusi Project's "Internet Living Swahili Dictionary", referred to by Brad DeLong, and its entry for the derivation of the word baraka is simply wrong. Very simply, baraka means "blessing" (or "benediction") in Arabic (I write as an Arabic speaker). The adjective mubarak means "blessed", as in the common holiday greeting "Eid Mubarak". Readers may also be familiar with the word mabrouk, meaning, roughly, "congratulations", which stems from the same root. To my ear, based on many years in Africa, bariki, kibaraka and tabaruki, which are cited as Arabic words on the Kamusi Project website, sound distinctly like Swahili words, so perhaps the translations got reversed. (Unfortunately, the Kamusi Project website has been suspended for a year and cannot take corrections at this point.) In any case, the word "bara(c)k" is familiar to anyone who has ever been around Arabic speakers: if you congratulate someone by saying "mabrouk", the inevitable reply is: "Allah yi-barak feek", meaning, "God bless you, too"! That said, the fact remains that the coastal countries of East Africa were greatly influenced by centuries of trade and interaction with the Arabs, and the language of Kiswahili is significantly infused with Arabic influences and cognate words, so it is in essence correct to say that the origins of Barack lie in either of these two great languages. And as far as Sen. Obama's life story or political suitability goes, of course it does not make the slightest difference.
William Lee, Brooklyn, NY
Thanks for the interesting and insightful post. These are the kinds of posts I look forward to most when visiting this website. I mean that sincerely.
Oh, please. From the quote you've provided, the Times post simply states that Obama is going to be raked over the coals, and gives some examples of items that are already floating about. It doesn't address whether or not these questions are fair. Stop wasting column inches on such trivial matters, you're giving yourself a black eye.
Thats YOUR opinion, mine is that these kinds of baseless smears are EXACTLY what MMFA does best
Yes, THAT'S my opinion. And I wasn't aware that MMFA was in the business making baseless accusations.
Even IF the post was meant to smear Obama's character and reputation, the questions are lame and tractionless. This is the worst he can expect?