Post by: K Frame on March 13, 2008, 06:54:36 AM
She made the comment that the only reason Barak Obama is in the position he is right now is because he's black.
Oops...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080313/pl_nm/usa_politics_dc_22;_ylt=AvMt8568tfagMveAw.5EAYIE1vAI
Post by: Bigjake on March 13, 2008, 07:20:08 AM
Rush was right, It IS fun to watch these morons destroy each other.
Post by: nico on March 13, 2008, 07:26:00 AM
would Obama be where he is now if he were white?
I'm sure I'll be called a racist, but I think she probably just said something that a lot of people were thinking but had the common sense to keep to themselves in public.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 13, 2008, 07:29:07 AM
I have as much fun as anyone watching political hacks destroy themselves, but. . .
would Obama be where he is now if he were white?
I'm sure I'll be called a racist, but I think she probably just said something that a lot of people were thinking but had the common sense to keep to themselves in public.
Ferraro is remarkably perceptive. Her problem is her diplomacy. It is obviously the case that if Obama were white he would not be where he is. The speed with which the Black Leadership has abandoned their friends, The Clintons, is breathtaking.would Obama be where he is now if he were white?
I'm sure I'll be called a racist, but I think she probably just said something that a lot of people were thinking but had the common sense to keep to themselves in public.
In any case, Ferraro was a has-been 20 years ago.
Post by: HankB on March 13, 2008, 07:43:02 AM
But nobody - at least, nobody I've heard - has said she was factually incorrect.
Because she's not.
. . . The speed with which the Black Leadership has abandoned their friends, The Clintons, is breathtaking . . .
That's the ONE part of the campaign that I'm really enjoying! 
Post by: longeyes on March 13, 2008, 08:15:31 AM
This is all good ugly fun.
Ferraro drew attention to the reality of "identity politics," and the Left wants to have it both ways, above it all and yet wallowing in it and exploiting it.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 13, 2008, 08:46:07 AM
But she said it with all the tact and grace of a thrown brick. That never works that well.
Post by: De Selby on March 13, 2008, 07:24:23 PM
There's no affirmative action mode on vote counting machines.
I think her statement was just plain wrong, and another example of the Clintonista tactic of taking the lowest blow possible if it will in any way diminish an enemy of the Clintons.
His race has nothing to do with this election, and Obama has not in any way made his race a feature of his campaign. To understand for whom race is really a factor, you need to look at the people who keep talking about it-and that ain't the Obama campaign.
Post by: nico on March 13, 2008, 07:57:26 PM
His race has nothing to do with this election, and Obama has not in any way made his race a feature of his campaign. To understand for whom race is really a factor, you need to look at the people who keep talking about it-and that ain't the Obama campaign.
do you really believe that? Just about every mindless Obama supporter (meaning the bandwagon jumpers, not all of them) thinks it'll be awesome to vote for the first black president.
Post by: De Selby on March 13, 2008, 08:15:04 PM
His race has nothing to do with this election, and Obama has not in any way made his race a feature of his campaign. To understand for whom race is really a factor, you need to look at the people who keep talking about it-and that ain't the Obama campaign.
do you really believe that? Just about every mindless Obama supporter (meaning the bandwagon jumpers, not all of them) thinks it'll be awesome to vote for the first black president.I don't think that's a major factor driving the election-if it were, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson wouldn't have been getting Ralph Nader level turnouts.
The supporters of most every candidate are mindless-Obama is doing well because of his marketing and public speaking skills. Not because being black and with an Arabic name makes you easier to elect in America. That's really a ridiculous proposition when you think about it, isn't it?
Post by: SomeKid on March 13, 2008, 08:52:42 PM
His race has nothing to do with this election, and Obama has not in any way made his race a feature of his campaign. To understand for whom race is really a factor, you need to look at the people who keep talking about it-and that ain't the Obama campaign.
do you really believe that? Just about every mindless Obama supporter (meaning the bandwagon jumpers, not all of them) thinks it'll be awesome to vote for the first black president.I don't think that's a major factor driving the election-if it were, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson wouldn't have been getting Ralph Nader level turnouts.
The supporters of most every candidate are mindless-Obama is doing well because of his marketing and public speaking skills. Not because being black and with an Arabic name makes you easier to elect in America. That's really a ridiculous proposition when you think about it, isn't it?
First, you forget that both Sharpton and Jackson ran against MUCH better opponents than McStain, or Rodham.
Second, this is the primary, not general. The left wing base (which he needs to vote for him right now, not your average American) has gone further and further left and into anti-America territory (where you probably feel right at home). Now, since your average left-winger is slightly out of touch with reality, thinks America is never good, and always bad, and that it is our fault 9/11 happened, and Muslims/Arabs have been mistreated along with the "legacy of slavery", a black man named Barack Hussein Obama becomes really appealing.
Third, Line up the groups. Blacks? Voting for BHO because of skin color, like a good racist. anti-Clinton people vote for BHO because he ain't Hillary. You can run down a LOT of groups, and see reasons why they vote for BHO over HRC. Identity politics, really simple stuff.
All that said, I admit I am a bit surprised that he has a chance of beating HRC. The woman has been planning this for over a decade. Maybe the Daley syndicate is more powerful than we all thought? Just goes to show, no matter how well you plan, it doesn't mean you survive.
Post by: De Selby on March 13, 2008, 09:31:25 PM
Sorry, these analyses do not stand up to the facts.
Post by: nico on March 13, 2008, 09:57:32 PM
I don't think that's a major factor driving the election-if it were, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson wouldn't have been getting Ralph Nader level turnouts.
I never said that it was the only factor or that race alone = political success, just that it is a factor. Plenty of black people see Sharpton and Jackson as the *expletive deleted*che bags they are, but if they were white, we wouldn't even know who they are. Quote
The supporters of most every candidate are mindless
I can agree with thatQuote
Obama is doing well because of his marketing and public speaking skills. Not because being black and with an Arabic name makes you easier to elect in America. That's really a ridiculous proposition when you think about it, isn't it?
It seems to me the Dems have been trying to downplay his "Arabic name" (see: the response anyone gets from his supporters when they say "Barack Hussein Obama"). Do you really think that everybody would still have fawned over Obama at the 2004 Dem convention (or that he'd have been chosen to give the speech) if he looked like Ted Kennedy? If so, can you at least see why a political party would have a desire to prop up successful blacks/ other minorities to show how diverse they are?
Post by: roo_ster on March 14, 2008, 03:13:29 AM
I'm going out on a limb here and saying that being black and named "Barrack Hussein Obama" not only don't make it more likely that you'll get the nomination, they make it much, much harder to be in such a position.
There's no affirmative action mode on vote counting machines.
I think her statement was just plain wrong, and another example of the Clintonista tactic of taking the lowest blow possible if it will in any way diminish an enemy of the Clintons.
His race has nothing to do with this election, and Obama has not in any way made his race a feature of his campaign. To understand for whom race is really a factor, you need to look at the people who keep talking about it-and that ain't the Obama campaign.
There's no affirmative action mode on vote counting machines.
I think her statement was just plain wrong, and another example of the Clintonista tactic of taking the lowest blow possible if it will in any way diminish an enemy of the Clintons.
His race has nothing to do with this election, and Obama has not in any way made his race a feature of his campaign. To understand for whom race is really a factor, you need to look at the people who keep talking about it-and that ain't the Obama campaign.
Oh, I see you haven't listened to anything spoken by his wife. Or his minister.
Sorry, BHO is a talented speaker who would still be in the state legislature, but for his pigmentation. Joe Biden had his number early on.
Post by: De Selby on March 14, 2008, 10:19:49 PM
Do you really think that everybody would still have fawned over Obama at the 2004 Dem convention (or that he'd have been chosen to give the speech) if he looked like Ted Kennedy? If so, can you at least see why a political party would have a desire to prop up successful blacks/ other minorities to show how diverse they are?
Yes, I do. It already happened-bill clinton is white as snow, and sounds like a good old boy. He won by landslides for the exact same reason that Obama is doing so right now.
This whole thing is silly. The factors he has in common with bill clinton are what are handing him this race; not the color of his skin.
Post by: grampster on March 15, 2008, 07:51:22 AM
Post by: longeyes on March 15, 2008, 01:23:32 PM
Post by: De Selby on March 15, 2008, 01:27:07 PM
Er, Clinton won no federal election by a landslide. He never even got 50% in both presidential elections, iirc.
Those percentages count as easy wins in a presidential election. That's the nature of the system; he easily beat GH Bush and had no real challenge in his re-election campaign.
If people vote out of "racial guilt" or just because the candidate is black, someone please explain to me why Al Sharpton got the numbers he did.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 15, 2008, 03:31:33 PM
Post by: De Selby on March 15, 2008, 03:36:53 PM
Al Sharpton doesn't engender any sympathy. Obama does.
How is this related to his race?
What I see is a lot of opposition to Obama masquerading as explanations other than Obama's skill as a politician for why he is doing so well in the election. There are lots of good reasons to believe Obama will not be a great leader and will not manage the country in the best fashion; that was also true of Bill Clinton. However, his race has nothing to do with these points, and it certainly has nothing to do with why he's winning right now in the polls.
Lots of black people run for political office. There is no one else with his skin tone who has done what Obama is doing now, or even come close. This whole idea that it's somehow the affirmative action effect just doesn't add up.
Post by: Glock Glockler on March 15, 2008, 04:40:40 PM
Post by: wooderson on March 15, 2008, 05:06:36 PM
Quote
would Obama be where he is now if he were white?
Why wouldn't he be?
Post by: The Rabbi on March 15, 2008, 05:11:57 PM
Quote
would Obama be where he is now if he were white?
Why wouldn't he be?And he would have been just another inexperienced noob from Chicago.
Post by: De Selby on March 15, 2008, 08:25:14 PM
Quote
would Obama be where he is now if he were white?
Why wouldn't he be?And he would have been just another inexperienced noob from Chicago.
Yeah, like there are no other reasons to not support the Clintons? News flash: they are in the position they are in because of...them, not because of Barack Obama.
Post by: johnster999 on March 15, 2008, 09:08:55 PM
Post by: Glock Glockler on March 16, 2008, 02:11:15 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on March 16, 2008, 05:13:55 AM
Quote
would Obama be where he is now if he were white?
Why wouldn't he be?And he would have been just another inexperienced noob from Chicago.
Yeah, like there are no other reasons to not support the Clintons? News flash: they are in the position they are in because of...them, not because of Barack Obama.
Huh?
Bill Clinton was hailed as the "first Black president" even by members of the Black community. He assiduously courted them and built up tremendous support in that community. But when a Black candidate with a ghost's chance of winning showed up, they dumped the Clintons. If Obama had been white there would be no reason for them to jump ship.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 16, 2008, 05:14:37 AM
A white Obama = a less experienced John Edwards.
Bingo. Exactly.
Post by: longeyes on March 16, 2008, 11:56:07 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on March 16, 2008, 12:06:50 PM
Bill was never the First Black President. He was the First Teenage President.
They called him that because he came from a broken home, played the sax, ate cheeseburgers and junk food, and tomcatted around on his wife. If that sounds stereotypical to you too I can only say I didnt make it up.
Post by: wooderson on March 16, 2008, 12:13:58 PM
Quote
Because he wouldnt command the support of Black Leaders, who until Obama had been loyal supporters of the Clintons.
If you mean they've commanded the support of the party machine (which involves 'black leadership') - yes. But that's because the Clintons were, in the '90s, controlling the party, and from 2006 on, Hillary was the ascendant Presidential star.But there has certainly been no love lost between, say the Congressional Black Caucus and the DLC (which is the Clinton stronghold, obviously). When there have been challenges to the Clintons and their wing of the party, "Black Leaders" (I really enjoy treating 'those people' as a monolith...) never lined up in support for them.
Quote
And he would have been just another inexperienced noob from Chicago.
All politicians are "inexperienced noobs" - right before they become players. No one has presented - race aside - any reason that Obama wouldn't have made that leap.
Post by: johnster999 on March 17, 2008, 01:15:58 PM
I don't think Ferraro is a racist, but liberals much like her are responsible in part for her being treated as such. They've fostered an environment in which her relatively benign observation, poorly worded and snipped into a soundbite, would be instantly pounced upon resulting in her downfall.
Post by: longeyes on March 18, 2008, 11:40:57 AM
Quote
They called him that because he came from a broken home, played the sax, ate cheeseburgers and junk food, and tomcatted around on his wife. If that sounds stereotypical to you too I can only say I didnt make it up.
I called him The First Teenage President because I think that's the way Bill behaves. I wouldn't hang Bill's terminal immaturity and narcissism on black people.