Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Mickey is so right. What with being black becoming such an asset in the past in Presidential and Statewide politics. If only Bob Dole had colored skin, I bet he would have taken Bill Clinton to the proverbial woodshed./snark
Mickey is so right. What with being black becoming such an asset in the past in Presidential and Statewide politics. Well, it's not just being Black. It's being Black and not racist (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson) or crazy (Alan Keyes).The only other Black politician bruited about as a potential presidential candidate is Colin Powell. Who is not-racist and not-crazy. And who, many people think, would have taken Bill Clinton to the woodshed in 1996. If he had decided to run.
Sure, if Obama wasn't black he wouldn't be where he is. If Hillary wasn't a woman she wouldn't be where she is unless Bill has a latent homosexual streak we don't know about yet. If Mccain wasn't a white man he probably wouldn't be where he is. My question to people who bring these things up is 'what's your point?'
Dix has, of course, hit the nail on the head.Ferraro didn't have a point, other than to argue that Obama isn't qualified, and he's only where he is because he's black, advancing the stereotype of the token. Of course, she could have just said "Obama's not qualified to be President." Instead of focusing on the content of his character, she focused on the color of his skin.Like all good racists do.And, it's deliberate. Hillary's campaign is counting on, indeed must count on, latent and hidden racism in America for her to succeed. Since she's not winning at the polls, she has to do something to get the Superdelegates to wake up to the fact that Obama is a negro.And negros shouldn't be President. That's what Ferraro and her ilk believe.Have you noticed the marked uptick in news stories about crooked black politicians and young blacks killing pretty white girls? That's the media doing their part to advance the story that you "just can't trust the darkies at three in the morning, when that red phone rings."Hillary knows this will be effective. She grew up in Arkansas and understands exactly how to play the race-baiting game with skillful aplomb.Watch for more of it.
And negros shouldn't be President. That's what Ferraro and her ilk believe.That is not what she said, but that is the response coming out of the Obama camp. In your view any discussion of race is racist.Obama has the thinnest resume of any presidential candidate in modern history. It's worth asking why then is he getting so much support. Frankly, I think it has as much to do with people hating Hillary than Obama being black, but at the same time Obama shouldn't cry foul everytime race is brought up.
Note that in the article by Sullivan that Kaus refers to it's taken for granted that a brown face projects good vibes and a white face...not so much. On top of which it's taken for granted by Sullivan that his readership will agree with that, er...point of view. As I'm sure many do. Ah, brave new world.
Dix is making the non-snark point. The fact is that those who are successful all owe some debt to who they are. If GWB was Hispanic he wouldn't have been born to a former President, probably wouldn't have been able to galvanize evangelicals, and probably wouldn't have been President. As someone on another forum said, when did we start playing with politicians like this is some Marvel "What if?" comic book. Nobody would even expend a minutes worth of thought to whether Reagan or McCain was lucky to be white or a man, so why go through this process with Obama?
Slim--Are you sure Hillary grew up in Arkansas?
If GWB was Hispanic he wouldn't have been born to a former President, probably wouldn't have been able to galvanize evangelicals, and probably wouldn't have been President. Maybe. George P. Bush isn't born to a former president yet, but he might be someday, depending on how Jeb Bush's fortunes turn in the next 10-20 years. And he's Hispanic. On the flip side, though, I guess he probably is Catholic, like his mother and his father, so perhaps it is true he wouldn't be able to energize Evangelicals, who abhor Romanism and Popery and all that.
I think Mickey, as usual, misses the point that the purpose of Ferraro's statement was to stoke white resentment by making an Obama presidency out to be an "affirmative action hire."That's what's going on here. No one is denying that for at least some of the Democratic primary electorate, Obama's ethnicity is an asset. But doesn't excuse Ferraro's statement, because it was much broader than that. "He's lucky he's who he is." She didn't even have the balls to say "black."
Kaus is right of course. Before selecting a candidate, a plurality of white Iowa Dems considered the effect of their choice on hypothetical Pakistani Muslims, 11 months hence.In fact, staring at their faces the morning of caucus day, (while shaving and/or applying make up, as appropriate) these voters fell into the following Sullivanian reverie:It's November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees the newly elected President. Will it be the brown-skinned jug-eared new face of America, ratcheting America's soft power up exponentially? Or will it be the troweled-on made-up old face of America, ratcheting America's soft power down a notch? S/he alone can make the right choice on the all-important soft power issue.
Obama has the thinnest resume of any presidential candidate in modern history.How soon they forget John Edwards.
Obama has the thinnest resume of any presidential candidate in modern history.How soon they forget John Edwards.Well, true, there are others with thinner resumes. Pat Buchanan, for example, who served in government in minor non-executive positions for years, and ran for President. Or Alan Keyes, who was an Ambassador.But while they have occasionally managed to get past the first few legs of the race -- I think Buchanan might have beat Bush I in a primary or two -- they've always been weeded out pretty quickly. The same is true of John Edwards.
First: Mickey is so right. What with being black becoming such an asset in the past in Presidential and Statewide politics. If only Bob Dole had colored skin, I bet he would have taken Bill Clinton to the proverbial woodshed.Strawman.Ferraro said that Obama wouldn't be a leading Dem nominee, on such a thin resume, if not for his race and gender.She did not say that his race is an "unalloyed good." (I'm not the first to point this out, but I forget who did.)You know that what Ferraro said is 100% true. So you change what she said in order to attack it. That's dishonest.Second: For the record, I made the same point here before Mickey did, but with more snark and verve (I don't blame anyone for not being snarky when they discuss race):How do we know Obama is the first post-racial candidate? Maybe the first post-racial candidate was a white guy, and nobody noticed.Third: In fact, Hillary's whole argument is that Dems must pick her because she's more electable. If you Dems start fretting about much harder it is for a black man to get elected in America, you're playing right into her hands 100%. Good work, geniuses.Hillary is playing the race card because she wants the outcomes in black-heavy states to fall along racial lines. That's going to be a part of her argument in Denver: that she can pick up the white swing voters necessary to win, but Obama can't. Whether that's true or not, that's what she wants Dems to think.Of course, the results of the primaries only tell us who Dems prefer, between two Democrats. They don't tell us anything about who swing voters prefer between a Dem and Sen. McCain. Two elements are different between primary and general elections (voters and their choices). That's too much of a difference for the results of one to be a meaningful prediction of the other.
Double Duh!Hillary did not grow up in Arkansas, she grew up in a upper middle class suburb of Chicago. Of course she may have grown up politically in Arkansas.How thick is Hillary's resume? In all seriousness, her resume is about as thin as Obama's. But she is the one running on experience; without proof.
How thick is Hillary's resume? In all seriousness, her resume is about as thin as Obama's. Hey, she's got a whopping 7 years in the Senate to his 3. That looks like over 200% to me!True, there's a point of diminishing returns for Senate experience -- John McCain or John Kerry's eons in the Senate aren't much better than, say, two terms, and are arguably worse. But neither Clinton nor Obama have hit that point, in my opinion. So let's give credit where credit is due -- she's twice as experienced as he is, even if we don't give her bonus points for her husband's administration and all that.
If I were Obama I would be less concerned about a 70 yr old Democrat speaking in front of a small audience, and much more concerned about the press starting to pay attention to his crackpot spiritual mentor and pastor, saying we should sing "God Damn America", and that the "chickens came home to roost on 9/11" because of our "state sponsored terrorism against the Palestinians".It's the front page lead on abcnews right now hereThis is making the rounds as well.
I think also that looking at the character of the experience is helpful. Politics is, as people say, the "art of the possible," and one of the things I think it's important for a President to have is a reasonable sense of what can and cannot be done within the constraints of the political system as presently constituted. True, they'll often be wrong and overreach, as Clinton I did with health care, and as Bush II did with immigration reform, but that sense of what is and is not possible is important.We can guess that McCain has developed that sense, because he's been successful at ramming through bipartisan accords (e.g. campaign finance reform) over strong opposition, and because he's also been defeated from time to time as well (e.g. immigration reform). He's not willing to admit defeat on immigration, but he has been willing to back down and acknowledge (grudgingly) that what he wants is not possible in the current political climate.I feel comfortable that Clinton II has had and absorbed similar experience, because her first major task in national governance -- Hillarycare -- was such a complete fiasco. People point to that experience, almost 15 years ago, as evidence that she's totally unqualified to run an administration and engage in the give-and-take necessary to get things done now. But, as I've noted here before, anecdotally, she seems to have learned from that experience, and as a Senator has proven much more capable of . . . well, listening to the other side and working with them.Obama has not had any such experience, and I am not at all confident that, behind his utopian, messianic facade, he really is the pragmatic fellow many people (at least on the Right) hope he is. He doesn't seem ever to have pushed forward his preferred policy in the face of real opposition. In the Senate, for example, one of his few achievements has been a bipartisan bill about nuclear proliferation. But on nuclear proliferation, all the heavy lifting has been done already, because pretty much 100% of Congress already agrees that nuclear proliferation is a Bad Thing, and Ought to be Stopped. There's complete agreement on goals, just disagreement and uncertainty on means. That's radically different from something like Healthcare, Immigration, Campaign Finance Reform, or the war, where there is strong and principled opposition about goals, not just tactics. And I have not seen any evidence at all that Obama will be effective in that kind of situation.
saying we should sing "God Damn America"All we need is the video of Obama singing along and he is finished.At the very least Obama should condemn such talk....will he? Or is Obama living a double life.The media hounded Romney for Mormans practicing polygamy in the 1800s, will they hound Obama for his church in 2008.
and much more concerned about the press starting to pay attention to his crackpot spiritual mentor and pastor,I just heard this guy speak. Why would Obama be part of this church and for so long. This is pure hate speech. It is disgusting.Obama has a double life.
The world wants a US president they can have their way with. It's that simple. For whatever reason, this go around Barack Hussein Obama appears to be that person. It pisses them off that they don't get to choose. It's why there's so many foreigners throwing cash at his campaign, he's their best bet. They would have another Carter of any color. In their view, Carter was the most malleable.
I just heard this guy speak. Why would Obama be part of this church and for so long. This is pure hate speech. It is disgusting.The media hounded Romney for Mormans practicing polygamy in the 1800s, will they hound Obama for his church in 2008.I believe that I brought this very subject up in a comment thread several weeks ago. This is going to be a big problem for Obama. If he didn't tacitly agree with these sermons, he would have changed pastors and churches some time ago. The fact that he hasn't speaks volumes to how he and Princess Michelle actually feel about the people that they are trying to solicit as voters.You are judged by those that you call your friends. If McCain had a family member or good friend who was a KKK member...do you think the media would just go...Ho Hum... "Nothing to see here, move along." **everyone should be able to guess the movie reference for that one.
In the guilt-by-association sweepstakes, I can't vote for McCain till he denounces the outrageously anti-Catholic Pastor Hagee and rejects his support. Hagee has publicly stated that the Catholic Church is "The Great Whore," the "apostate church," the "anti-Christ" and a "false cult system"?I am shocked that the media are giving McCain a free pass on his embrace of anti-religious hate speech.
I am shocked that the media are giving McCain a free pass on his embrace of anti-religious hate speech.Good try, but McCain hasn't been attending Hagees church for 20 years. Are you mad about these quotes made by Hagee“The Crusades were a motley mob of thieves, rapists, robbers, and murderers whose sins had been forgiven by the pope in advance of the Crusade.” [Jerusalem Countdown, p. 109] “When Hitler became a global demonic monster, the Catholic Church and Pope Pius XII never, ever slightly criticized him.” [ Jerusalem Countdown, p. 115]
I love seeing liberals struggle.Attack Obama and you're racist, attack HRC and you're sexist.Fortunately, come September they can go back to S.O.P - attacking Republicans as racist and sexist, 24/7.
Kaus'theory about the unstated rationale for Ferraro's comment is not plausible, given that she made exactly the same "he wouldn't be where he is if he wasn't black" point about Jesse Jackson back in the 1980's.
sloan: got it.Attend church and listen to bigot is bad. Seek out a bigot and take his money and support is not so bad.
If Barack Obama weren't black, he'd be John Edwards.
Are you mad about these quotes made by Hagee“The Crusades were a motley mob of thieves, rapists, robbers, and murderers whose sins had been forgiven by the pope in advance of the Crusade.” [Jerusalem Countdown, p. 109]The First Crusade was the Coalition of the Willing of its day, which was shortly after Guillaume le Conquerant took over England. The Eastern (Orthodox) church, besieged by Muslim Turks, cried out for help from its brother Christians. Pope Urban II promised that anyone who died for the cause would have his sins forgiven. I don't understand the criticism, unless Hagee secretly supports Islamoterrorism.“When Hitler became a global demonic monster, the Catholic Church and Pope Pius XII never, ever slightly criticized him.” [ Jerusalem Countdown, p. 115]At the time, provoking such a madman's wrath in any way was widely thought to be a bad idea. Elected in 1939, Pope Pius XII was responsible for millions of Catholics throughout Nazi Europe, which under Hitler's leadership was engaged in the elimination of the Jews. Priests, seminarians, nuns, and other Catholics were being sent to the extermination camps as well. Nazi reprisals against the resistance were harsh: For example, the assassination of deputy Reichsprotektor Heydrich resulted in the massacre of the 192 men of the village of Lidice, and the sending of the women and children to concentration camps where most died. In terms of practical help, the Church was instrumental in saving as many as 860,000 Jews from the Nazis. (Israeli diplomat Pinchas Lapide, in his Rom und die Juden: "Der Heilige Stuhl hat mehr getan, den Juden zu helfen, als jede andere Organisation des Westens, einschliesslich des Roten Kreuzes. Pius XII. hat während des Krieges direkt oder indirekt das Leben von etwa 860.000 Juden gerettet." - Rom und die Juden, Freiburg, 1967, S. 188)
If Mccain wasn't a white man he probably wouldn't be where he is.Why not?
Attend church and listen to bigot is bad. Seek out a bigot and take his money and support is not so bad.Obama has taken money from the Black Muslims, who are worse than Hagee. So even if your attempt to draw an equivalence held water, Obama would still be out in front in the Hanging Out With Bigots Marathon.But the equivalence doesn't hold water either. When you regularly attend the religious services of a crazy bigot, cite him as your spiritual leader, and name your best-selling book after the guy's sermon, that says in great big block capitals that YOU ADMIRE THE MAN AND HIS TEACHINGS. Taking a check from a bigot just implies that you're willing to associate with scumbags if there's money in it -- sleazy, yes, but not proof that you yourself are a bigot.Really, MM, get serious here. I criticized Ron Paul for taking money from white supremacists, but I didn't try to pretend that that was actually the same thing as regularly attending Klan rallies. You shouldn't try it either; you're usually more honest than that.
I don't care when candidates take money. But when they actively court a bigot, and stand next to them on stage and act like they're his friend, well that says something.Obama's attendance at that church may be a serious error in judgement (Of course, we don't know the whole story -- yet). The same is true of McCain and Hagee.
Obama's attendance at that church may be a serious error in judgement A serious error in judgement that he continued to make for 20 years. A mistake is something you do once and try not to repeat. Associating with bigots and racists for several decades indicates a pattern of beliefs and core values that are unsavory, to say the least.
Dust Bunny Queen -- as I say, we don't know the whole story. I am waiting to hear BHO talk about it. Maybe someone in the press will ask him. You'd think it would be newsworthy.
I don't care when candidates take money. But when they actively court a bigot, and stand next to them on stage and act like they're his friend, well that says something.Obama has done the same thing with far worse bigots than Hagee -- Farrakhan, for example. But he's also cited an atrocious bigot as his personal spiritual leader.Dust Bunny Queen -- as I say, we don't know the whole story. I am waiting to hear BHO talk about it. Maybe someone in the press will ask him.So as long as Obama refuses to discuss the matter, you refuse to think about it. Interesting.What exactly do you think is missing from the story we already know? We know Wright's a bigot and a nut. We know Obama admires him and considers him a mentor because Obama himself has said so. What do you think Obama might add to that story that would make all of that ok? What, is he going to reveal that Wright blackmailed him into attending those church services by threatening to reveal that Obama is a closet Barry Manilow fan?
"Dust Bunny Queen -- as I say, we don't know the whole story. I am waiting to hear BHO talk about it. Maybe someone in the press will ask him. You'd think it would be newsworthy"You would think that wouldn't you. But the press only wants to present the agenda: not the news. Obama would have to have been deaf, blind and dumber than a box of rocks if he didn't sometime in the last 20 years realize that the "church" he as attending was nothing more than a fount of hate and racism. If he didn't figure that out, then either he:1. Agrees with this divisive message of hatred of whites, hatred of our country and black separatist movements that praise the Nation of Islam or....2. He is too stupid to be elected dog catcher, much less President of the UNITED States.or....3. He is so corrupt and devoid of any moral compass that he will pander to anyone to get elected. Pander to the black racists to get his local seat. Pander to the liberals and play on their desire to have a "black" elected to assuage their collective guilt over slavery. Pander pander pander. If that is the case, we might as well get Clinton, because we know the evil that she is, and at least she would protect her own ass and ours by default.
By whole story, I mean: Are the lectures (I'd hardly call them homilies) from the Priest a weekly event? Does he do it to provoke his congregation? Is this normal for a black church? What does BHO do when he hears them -- goes up and shakes the guys hand, or engages him in debate? (What I read of BHO's mother suggests the latter). What does he tell his kids about the lectures? Does he actually believe them? Are there churches nearer to his house than this one? Why's he go there?All I've heard are outrageous quotes cherry picked. What are the contexts for such quotes? I don't know the whole story.Dust Bunny queen, if you don't think a politician -- any politician -- is pandering (Pander Pander Pander says jan), you're not paying attention. Charging BHO with pandering is like charging him with breathing. He's a politician.
if you don't think a politician -- any politician -- is pandering (Pander Pander Pander says jan), you're not paying attentionActually, I vote for numbers 1 and 3 at the same time. He believes all of this racist hate America crap AND he is pandering to all sides. I also believe that we are too soft and stupid as a nation to actually call him on it.
Well, I'd say you think the worse of him because of his associates. I don't judge people by who they hang around with. I judge them by their actions, and I don't see compelling evidence of him believing any hate America crap.
My last statement is too broad. It's especially true for me for people who attend a church, like I do, where they disagree with what is preached.So why do I still go? Well, there are parts of the service that remain spiritually comforting. And there's the whole inertia thing. (Read: I'm lazy)
Post a Comment