Progress Illinois

On the Chicago Tribune's political blog, The Swamp, DC bureau reporter Frank James has penned a piece asking what Barack Obama's apparent lack of anger "is about." Citing Obama's press conference on Rev. Wright yesterday afternoon, James asserts:

If ever there were a perfect opportunity for Obama to really show what most people would recognize as anger, it was yesterday. [...]

But while Obama seemed sad yesterday, there was little fire. He came off like Star Trek's Mr. Spock, mostly passion-free at a moment when searing emotion was called for.

James goes on to compare the "tamped down" Obama with Hillary Clinton (a self-styled fighter!) and John McCain (he was called "McNasty" in high school!). He then posits that this contrast could be a major liability for Obama in the eyes of voters:

Perhaps Obama doesn't have a mean bone in his body, which would justify Maureen Dowd's name for him, "Obambi." Or perhaps he intellectuallizes away his anger to the point where it's highly diluted. That could the legal training, though it really seems to be more about personality.

If that's the case, he may be in real trouble.

Because I'm guessing many Americans want to see some fight in their presidential candidates. They want a president who at times will kick a little you-know-what and take names if the situation calls for it. A candidate needs to show that ability.

But amazingly, not once in James' 800-word post does he mention the challenges posed by Obama's race when it comes to the issue of his public temperament. In simply asserting that voters want to see a "popping vein" in the forehead of their candidate, James comes across as completely blind to the tightrope Obama has to walk as a black man running for president.

As my friend Chris Hayes has pointed out in our discussions about the election, the Obama campaign seemed to realize from day one that he cannot appear overly aggressive or confrontational for fear of being categorized as an "angry black man." This is the "box" Obama finds himself in and it's a particularly uncomfortable one when the temperature begins to rise on the campaign trail, as it has lately.

But while Obama has not offered overt displays of anger -- as James apparently thinks he should -- he has shown himself to be quite pugilistic, pushing back sharply against attacks from Clinton, McCain, and the media. Rather than do so in an angry tone, Obama has responded with biting humor, exhibiting an ability to mock the constant distractions that weigh down our political discourse.

When I saw the headline of James' post -- "Can Obama show real anger?" -- I hoped for a reasoned discussion of how Obama's race limits him in this way. After all, it's the central quandary faced by the Obama campaign (and one which I think they've handled masterfully so far).

Not surprisingly given the media's shallow election coverage, James' approach was nothing of the sort.