Even if you don't like Barack Obama, I think you should be happy that the country has, with really very little fuss, nominated a black man with a very good shot at the presidency. (I didn't support Clinton, but I would have been glad to know that we could nominate a woman--not that I'm saying this is the reason we didn't nominate her.) Ezra Klein puts it rather better:
Towards the end of the 1967 movie "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner," Dr. John Wane Prentice, played by Sydney Poitier, sits down with his fiance's white father, played by Spencer Tracy. "Have you given any thought to the problems your children will have?" Tracy asks. "Yes, and they'll have some...[But] Joey feels that all of our children will be President of the United States," replies Poitier. "How do you feel about that?" asks Tracy, looking skeptically at the black man in front of him. "I'd settle for Secretary of State," Poitier laughs.Written in the late-1960s, the exchange was, indeed, laughable. The Civil Rights Act had been passed three years prior. Two years before, the Watts riots had broken out, killing 35. Martin Luther King Jr. would be assassinated a year later. But here we are, almost exactly 40 years after theatergoers heard that exchange. The last two Secretaries of State were African-American and, as of tonight, the next president may well be a black man. John Prentice's children would probably still be in their late-30s. They could still grow up to be cabinet officials or even presidents, but they would not necessarily be trailblazers.
I think we're still, though perhaps asymptotically, moving towards a time when worrying about someone's race will seem almost charmingly quaint, like debating how many petticoats a decent woman wears to church. Until then, it's a happy improvement that people seriously wonder whether Obama's race gave him an unfair advantage in many quarters.
Race will always be an issue because liberals will see that it is. Race hustling is still a key arrow in the liberal quiver. The only people who really care about race (or gender for that matter) are liberal democrats and political hacks.
JBJB-
You seem to care about race a lot, and I would bet you aren't a liberal democrat. So that leaves...
Oh, please, "JBJB." Next you'll be advising us that there is no economic inequity, & that "class warfare" is when dirty, lazy poor people whine about executive compensation, or $10.00/hour jobs that aren't enough to support even one person in a large city, as opposed to the actual, structural class warfare waged every day against those not born to good fortune & position in this country & the rest of the world.
I want to see qualified individuals nominated for President. I really don't care what color their skin is. I am not sure what to make of the fact that we've nominated a half-black candidate with a thin resume, questionable patriotism, and ideology out of step with that of most Americans. It's good that he was not rejected because of his race, but that's not what I'm looking for in a President...
"Questionable patriotism"? Are you kidding me?
Bouffant "actual, structural class warfare waged every day against those not born to good fortune & position in this country & the rest of the world."
Are you kidding? Evidence please? (Note - by "evidence" I mean something more than the mere existence of rich people and their efforts to provide opportunities for their children)
I don't know why I bother responding, but this kind of "stupid goes to college" socialism drives me nuts. Please take your idiocy elsewhere.
To what, specifically, are you referring?
jmo:
My guess is that that would be his staunchly anti-individualism ideas. But I can't speak for Earnest Iconoclast, he probably has a boatload of other examples.
What ideas, specifically?
Health insurance mandates?
Other examples please?
What ideas, specifically?
Health insurance mandates?
Other examples please.
RMH-
Can you point to a policy proposal that he has that makes him out of step with most Americans? Anyone?
How about his extremem-leftist voting record, rather than his thin as hell "policy proposals" - "Hope and Change" are a little hard to quantify. His voluntary associations with extreme Amerikkka haters and unrepentant terrorists might factor in too...
Nevermind.
I was offering to pick your brain but all I got was the nose.
Until then, it's a happy improvement that people seriously wonder whether Obama's race gave him an unfair advantage in many quarters.
I don't think he really needs any advantages. I mean, he reads good speeches well and is gifted at looking off into the distance. Who could ask for more? Hand the man the keys.
I didn't know that a lot of "extreme-leftist" legislation made it to the floor of the (until recently) Republican controlled Senate.
To what specific votes are you refering?
And as to Sen. Obamas early involvement with "extreme Amerikkka haters" did you hold Ronald Regans membership in the Democratic Party, staunch support of FDR and his heading of a major Labor Union against him?
"Next you'll be advising us that there is no economic inequity"
I agree there is economic inequity, but I don't really have a problem with it. Some people are productive, some not so much. If you think Barak Obama or John McCain are going influence ecomic inequity, you live in a fantasy world my friend.
some choice lines from his commencement speech at Wesleyan:
"You can take your diploma, walk off this stage and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should. But I hope you don't.... Fulfilling your immediate wants and needs betrays a poverty of ambition ... Individual salvation depends on collective salvation... We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."
That's about as anti-individualistic as you can get. His campaign rhetoric is rife with this.
And I'd say that being told what kind of car to drive, how much we can eat and whether or not we can run our air conditioners is pretty contrary to how many ordinary Americans feel.
Now - whether that kind of "change" would be a good thing or a bad thing is a different discussion.
RMH-
Well now, it looks like we have a dilemma. See Obama hates America, and he's a communist. But wait--he talks about how individuals should do unselfish things that make America better... I DONT GET IT! Maybe he reconciles these two ideas through Islam.
Is it that conservatives are dishonest, or just stupid? Take, for example, RMH's reading of an Obama statement. He does not tell you "what kind of car to drive", but rather points out that there may be consequences for all based on your actions. Could it be that other countries are resentful of the American lifestyle? Signs point to yes. How is that anti-individual? I mean really, what claptrap.
"Well now, it looks like we have a dilemma. See Obama hates America, and he's a communist. "
I don't think Obama hates America or is a communist. He is just a token liberal democrat, nothing more nothing less less. Despite Megan's nonsensical belief that he is some kind of liberatrian in hiding.
RMH - as I recall from the previous debate, McCain feels (more or less) the same way.
Yes that’s a perfect example of Obama’s hostility to individualism. Under current law, health insurance is largely regulated by the States who impose various mandated benefits on any health insurance policy sold within their borders which makes health insurance more expensive (about 20-30% of the cost of a health insurance policy is from the various mandated benefits that it’s required to carry). Obama has proposed that on top of these existing State mandates, to create a new federal bureaucracy (a “national exchange”) that requires by law that every private health insurance plan sold anywhere in the United States must be as “generous” (read: carry the same mandated benefits) as his new health care entitlement. That means that if someone wants to buy a less expensive policy that covers major medical expenses and pay for their routine costs out-of-pocket, it would be illegal under Obama’s health care proposal.
McCain on the other hand not only opposes nationalizing insurance regulation with a new series of federal mandates, but has proposed allowing consumers to buy an insurance health plan anywhere in the United States rather than just those sold within their State’s borders.
sigh... is that really the best you can do rickm?
At no point did I say that Obama hates America, that he's a communist, or a Muslim.
Which part do you disagree with, that Obama's rhetoric promotes sacrifice to a greater good with in a framework of collective action, or that many, if not most, Americans don't conduct their lives in this fashion?
jmo: I'm not sure to which debate you refer, but I'm also not sure how it is relevant. How does a criticism of McCain serve as rebuttal to criticism of Obama?
RMH-
I disagree with your assertion that Americans are not aggressively and myopically selfish. Many people do things everyday that aren't in their narrow self interest.
The world isn't the Fountainhead.
"Could it be that other countries are resentful of the American lifestyle? Signs point to yes"
This really cracks me up. We are supposed to be concerned about what peopel in other countries think of our lifestyle. Are you sure it's resent and not jelaousy? Is such hostility directed towards real Americans or perhaps towards a lifestyle portrayed in hollywood movies?
"that there may be consequences for all based on your actions."
Ah, now liberals are concerend about the consequences of peoples actions? I thought liberalism was all about having no consequences for your actions? Get pregnant, no worry, get an abortion. Commit a crime, no worry, we'll let you out of prison. Can't pay your bills, no worry, here is a check from uncle gumbmit. You know the drill, sing it...
Really? I hadn't heard that. I was under the impression that under the Obama plan you would be able to pick a low cost high deductible plan?
"I didn't know that a lot of "extreme-leftist" legislation made it to the floor of the (until recently) Republican controlled Senate. To what specific votes are you refering?"
I assumed he meant Obama's notorious bill to collectivize farmland and abolish private property...
But seriously, I am constantly amused by what some people think (or claim to think) constitutes "extreme-leftist". It takes a special type of parochialism to think Obama's positions "extreme-leftist".
This is not to be confused with the notion that Obama is the most liberal Senator. If Clinton were nominated, the same people would be telling us she is the most liberal Senator. If Genghis Khan were nominated, they would be telling us he is the most liberal Mongol warlord. This is a semantic null.
Agreed. The world is not the Fountainhead. Americans are not aggressively selfish. However, I do think that the majority of Americans tend to conduct themselves by viewing the world in a series of expanding circles.
The first one involves taking care of yourself and your family, paying your mortgage, buying a car, buying food, etc.
The second involves taking care of your extended family and your immediate community - helping out your cousins who are in need, donating time or money to your local church or school.
Finally, if there is time or money left over, you look out of these familiar circles and maybe try to help national or international causes you think are important.
Not everyone views things this way, and clearly everyone's circles are different sizes, but, in my experience, people's actions (not necessarily their words) conform to this set-up.
Much of Obama's rhetoric speaks to turning this on its head - expending more energy on the outer circles of community and nation (by higher taxes if necessary), and less energy on the inner circles of self and family. Maybe this would make for a better America, but I still contend that the notion that one should sacrifice some of their own hard earned comfort for somebody they have trouble identifying with is off putting to many.
Richard
Would you agree that Obama is a typical liberal democrat (as defined by US politcal deifinitions)? Do any of his positions differ from the typical left wing special interst group positions we have been listening to for the past 30 years? I think that's the jib with Obama, it's all hype being spewed to cover up the fact that he is just another nanny state liberal.
JBJB - well put. Obama is a snake oil salesman. He has packaged himself as an agent of "change" (a word with an almost magical power to excite the young and naive), but in reality his preferred policy agenda is not materially different from McGovern's. If Obama represents "change" it is change in a leftward direction from DLC/Clintonian centrism. My worry is that his eloquence will obscure this fact from most voters until it's too late.
Obama associates with racist demogogues, anti-American terrorists, crooks, etc... he seems puzzled why anyone would wear a flag pin... he keeps flip flopping on his positions, making statements that flatly contradict things he said only a few months ago (or that contradict reality).
His latest speech had a bunch of baloney about how he will bring jobs to the poor, health care to the sick, etc... like he's some kind of savior.
I'm not defending a thesis... this stuff is all out there on the Internet for you to find. I haven't even been looking for it and I keep stumbling across it.
RHM: Did you oppose the war in Iraq for the same reasons you oppose Obama's speech?
RMH put it really well.
What jmo and rickm really mean is that people should do what jmo or rickm want us to do. Or, more disturbingly, what certain political leaders want us to do. In any case, they're pretending that "we" can behave in a way that's unselfish, i.e., that satisfies no one's interests and values, to disguise the fact that it's just a question of who's interests or values are to be served. As if Hillary or Obama (or, to be fair, McCain) aren't in it for selfish reasons.
His latest speech had a bunch of baloney about how he will bring jobs to the poor, health care to the sick, etc... like he's some kind of savior.
He didn't say that he would do those things.
Obama has had a very good marketing strategy. He is for 'change!' Well, one's first thought on seeing him is, 'This is a change!' So, if you are for inclusion, you are for (this) change (and for him); the rest is details. The U.S is internally stronger if we, in our various group identities, have a chance at self expression and governance. So Run Rabbit Run
Hanging out with the unrepentant terrorist bomber Ayers by itself qualifies for me. Strike one.
Anyone sitting through even one of Wright's anti-American rants also qualifies as someone having questionable patriotism. Strike two.
His wife asserts that for the first time in her adult life she feels real pride in America because hubby might become President. (The implication being, presumably, that she'll reconsider her pride if he loses.) Strike three.
OK, before anyone brings this up, none of these are direct Obama quotes. But can we agree that 1) the patriotism of those near Obama is questionable, and 2) it's unlikely that he would associate with these people if he were violently opposed to their views?
(And before anyone argues that he barely knew Ayers and Wright (maybe Obama chose his pastor and the site of his campaign announcement at random from the phone book?), but let's at least agree that he probably knows his wife.
Got anything on the other side that's comparably patriotic? Anything at all?
You may defend Obama's patriotism, but it's certainly not above question. He's no flag-waver, that's for sure. At least, not our flag. Maybe the UN flag.
Forgot strike four: Obama has said he wants to be President to "make America great."
So what are we now, chopped liver?
szr: no, my opinions about the Iraq war have little to do with collectivist demagoguery. I'm not sure what the point of your question is.
Clearly, Megan, you have misjudged your audience. Face it—despite your cute little musings about how you listen to The Last Poets, and isn't that hilariously ironic, you've got a Little Green Footballs crowd...and you've EARNED it.
I think you should be happy that the country has, with really very little fuss, nominated a black man with a very good shot at the presidency.
You're kidding about "really very little fuss," right?
You must be kidding. Or brain-damaged.
Attaboy, Glenn. In place of a substantive point, tell our gracious hostess that the cool kids won't sign her yearbook.
Hopefully, America will soon learn that there are more than two races in America, and that economic success varies by race, NOT because of race, but because of culture.
Even in 2008, blacks earn just 70% of whites. I think we all agree that this is not going to change in the next 20-30 years.
Does that mean America is racist? NO.
Indians and Chinese earn MORE than whites - about 40-50% more, to be exact. In just one generation, they have reached to top of every single field in the private sector, and have reaching high positions in government too (Bobby Jindal, Elaine Chao, etc.).
If whites can be blamed for why blacks still earn less, it is only fair that whites are applauded for creating a system that incubates self-driven groups, resulting in Indians and Chinese outperforming whites themselves.
If whites are the reason blacks are poor, they are also the reason Asians are rich. If not, then not.
I would be more impressed if he were actually from a black American family, not half-African/half-white.
"but let's at least agree that he probably knows his wife."
Indeed. He has two kids, unlike the Clintons, who had one. Thus, Barack has had sex with his wife at least twice, while the Clintons have possibly done it only once.
There's no question that Obama's race gave him his entree into the presidential race with almost no experience and no accomplishments.
Yes, I'm glad that America could nominate a black presidential candidate so easily--I for one didn't doubt that it could.
I am worried that in its rush to prove that it could, America has given a shot to the least prepared, most radical and most bizarre candidate in its history. That's a very high price to pay for America to clap itself on the back for progress.
I saw the speech in Iowa and thought, maybe...
then:
Rezko.
Wright.
Ayers.
Doerhn.
Pfleger.
Obama isn't a marxist, he's not a closet muslim, and he isn't the anti-christ. He's just a liberal who has never been responsible for any executive decision, aside from what to order from a menu. When he wins in Nov, he'll rely on his advisers and friends. See above list. should I find hope in the fact that he is using Carter's foreign policy adviser? (if he learned from his mistakes, he must be real genius)
"I think you should be happy that the country has, with really very little fuss, nominated a black man with a very good shot at the presidency."
I'm happy that it happen, but I am saddened that it is by someone so unqualified*.
*no executive experience, poor choices in the people who have served as his advisers. Given his lack of experience, he will need to lean on his advisers. god help us.
If he were experienced and proven, I would join you in celebrating his selection. But as one nominated for his pandering, rhetoric and charisma -- each of which is extremely hollow in my view -- rather than for his substance and record, I think it is a sad day for America, and a setback for genuine black American progress.
I don't give a good goddamn about the "cool kids," Occam's Beard. Just observing, albeit perhaps too obliquely for you, on how her sniffy, self-serving sanctimony is pretty much wasted on what turns out to be her core demographic.
I don't know. How much of a sign of improvement if they nominate a grossly unqualified man because he is handsome, well spoken and black?
Racist love can turn to racist hate, pretty quickly. What we have to do is stop caring about race.
Even if you don't like Barack Obama, I think you should be happy that the country has, with really very little fuss, nominated a black man with a very good shot at the presidency.
<curmudgeon>
Um, no, sorry. To preen about this would be to implicitly embrace the idiotic lefty narrative that the country somehow hasn't been "ready" to elect a black man before now.
The reality is that the black candidates who've sought the presidency over the last thirty years have been a motley collection of mediocrities and race hustlers who've been turned away on the merits, not because of racism. This door's been open for an Obama-type figure for decades; the fact that somebody's finally walked through it isn't so much a positive statement about America as it is a sad one about the blacks who have heretofore aspired to the presidency.
</curmudgeon>
He can't wait to surrender in Iraq.
He's more willing to sit down with the Iranian head of state than he is to sit down with General Petraeus.
He's friendly with that scumbag oxygen thief unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers, and is not above going to his lair to beg for an endorsement, but he won't deign to get an onsite briefing from the military he wishes to command.
"I won't wear that [flag] pin on my chest." I had friends who bled and died with that flag on their shoulder, Senator. Who do you think you are?
He advocated striking Pakistan, an ally. A nuclear-equipped ally.
He's so ill-informed, he thinks they speak Arabic in Afghanistan. I guess all those towel-heads look alike to him?
Why all the socialist realism in the artwork? Who the hell is he surrounding himself with?
He sat through his preacher's sermons for 20 years. If he's saying his preacher's anti-americanism is news now, he's a lying dirtbag.
As mentioned above, he's using Zbigniew Brzinski as a foreign policy advisor. I'd be hard-pressed to imagine anyone more disastrous.
He's willing to squander the prestige of the American presidency and allowing our enemies to hold the Presidential schedule hostage by expressing willingness to meet in person with any of our enemies. Sorry - a decent executive does not waste time meeting where it will do no good.
Speaking of executive, the man has zero executive experience. Indeed, he has never had any real responsibility whatsoever outside of his own family and managing his staff.
Hamas loves him. 'Nuff said.
This is the worst candidate for the Presidency in my memory. At least Dukakis was specific about policy and had some experience as a chief executive. Take Obama off his hope and change game, and he's hopeless.
I'm not happy.
Obama has been nominated only because he's black; he's also being given a total pass on his shady dealings, connections to terrorists sympathizers, idiotic statements, hideous wife, and relationships with virulent racists.
He's being wildly overpraised for his alleged skills--again, simply because he's black. Remember his speech on religion? We were told it was as important as the Gettysburg Address.
We're doing blacks no favors by refusing to hold them to the same standards to which we hold white people.
Obama is being patted on the head and told he's wonderful, in the same way some people tell inner-city kids that they don't have to spell or speak correctly.
Lots of people support Obama because it makes them feel good about themselves.
They're being kind to the black man.
This reverse racism is as bad as the Klan kind.
He can't wait to surrender in Iraq.
He's more willing to sit down with the Iranian head of state than he is to sit down with General Petraeus.
He's friendly with that scumbag oxygen thief unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers, and is not above going to his lair to beg for an endorsement, but he won't deign to get an onsite briefing from the military he wishes to command.
"I won't wear that [flag] pin on my chest." I had friends who bled and died with that flag on their shoulder, Senator. Who do you think you are?
He advocated striking Pakistan, an ally. A nuclear-equipped ally.
He's so ill-informed, he thinks they speak Arabic in Afghanistan. I guess all those towel-heads look alike to him?
Why all the socialist realism in the artwork? Who the hell is he surrounding himself with?
He sat through his preacher's sermons for 20 years. If he's saying his preacher's anti-americanism is news now, he's a lying dirtbag.
As mentioned above, he's using Zbigniew Brzinski as a foreign policy advisor. I'd be hard-pressed to imagine anyone more disastrous.
He's willing to squander the prestige of the American presidency and allowing our enemies to hold the Presidential schedule hostage by expressing willingness to meet in person with any of our enemies. Sorry - a decent executive does not waste time meeting where it will do no good.
Speaking of executive, the man has zero executive experience. Indeed, he has never had any real responsibility whatsoever outside of his own family and managing his staff.
Hamas loves him. 'Nuff said.
This is the worst candidate for the Presidency in my memory. At least Dukakis was specific about policy and had some experience as a chief executive. Take Obama off his hope and change game, and he's hopeless.
Wait, I thought we were supposed to be ignoring race? Which is it now? Alas, I can never keep track of the daily PC directives.
I care a helluva lot less about his race than about the fact that he's a socialist scumbag. As the saying goes, I'd loathe him just as much if he was white, black, yellow, red, green, or purple.
Wait, I thought we were supposed to be ignoring race? Which is it now? Alas, I can never keep track of the daily PC directives.
I care a helluva lot less about his race than about the fact that he's a socialist scumbag. As the saying goes, I'd loathe him just as much if he was white, black, yellow, red, green, or purple.
Occam's Beard, right now, I'd say we are torturers, invaders, broke, badly governed, and way too many of us are self-satisfied, and content to live in the past and eat our seed corn.
I'm sure we have many good qualities. Too bad they don't show up at the national level.
I'd be happier if he were a Black candidate that didn't suck eggs. He's never met a labor or civil-service union he didn't pander to, a tax he didn't want to raise, or a white-hating preacher he didn't want to hang out with until it was politically inconvenient.
I've always said that I don't know the last name of the first Black President, but his first name will be "General" - in other words, it'll be someone far more like McCain than a Man of the Left like Obama.
It took him 20 years to figure out that his Reverend might be a teenie bit delusionally racist.
I wonder if Obama will grace us with 'first impressions' of Ahmadinejad after his first sit down. Hopefully it won't take him 20 years to accept reality in regard to his intentions.
If I had relatives in Hong Kong, I'd tell them to make contingency plans for escaping the island, should BO win-and he will win.
I disagree with the conclusion of your take. It might be nice to see minimal racial discrimination, but there is a reason why. Liberals agree with the individual that would be the subject of bigotry. I.e., run an African American conservative and we'll quickly discover that racism is alive and well (on the left).
This is truly a great day for the Kenyan-European-American community! FINALLY, an Ivy-League educated heterosexual man is nominated for the presidency! We can all be proud.
The ultimate FU to islamofascists is to elect a African American Muslim apostate with ties to black liberation theology. Not exactly the standard chickenhawk quen es mas macho posturing.
We have heard enough of the petty Clinton-Bush yentas. This is the first election in my life where the two major candidates both appear to be relatively decent fellows. Too bad Chimpy McHitlerburton bitched slapped McCain in South Carolina. The only negatives I see are too young versus too old.
Keep up the superficial high school clique bullcrap if it make you feel good.
For the record, McCain's has his priest problem to with Hagee and Preasly. They're comments are far more reprehensible in my mind than anything I've heard from Rev. Wright. Also, McCain has a close relationship with Gordon Liddy a convicted felon who served four and a half years in prison for his role in the Watergate burglary. Liddy has also made plenty of controversial statements such as aiming for the head of ATF agents. So, let's cut all the hypocrisy regarding Obama.
Try not to use the word "shot" too much.
Why should I be happy?? Why should it even be considered special. Why should race even be talked about?? Honestly Megan - get over the shock that black people can achieve high office. Do you look at the country? At companies today?? What is important is a person's abilities, not his/her skin color.
As for Obama being a black man, I find it interesting that since he had a white mother and a black father he is considered black. Isn't he white?? I think so, he is definitely white. Unless you are judging him entirely on his physical appearence.
As for his pending nomination, I am not distressed by his perceived ethnic group but by the fact that the Democrat party has slid so far left that Karl Marx is now their standard bearer. Nothing good will come for our country from an Obama Presidency.
This reverse racism is as bad as the Klan kind.
Funny, I haven't seen any strange [white] fruit hanging from trees lately.
Next you can explain to us how the Soup Nazi is as bad as actual Nazis.
I agree with your premise Megan. However it's a cryin' shame that this first Black candidate is so deeply deeply flawed. Either of the previous two SecState's mentioned is better prepared, as is GoPac head Mike Steele. Neither Colin Powell or Condi Rice are interested, which is another indicator that they're both better qualified than Obama. Steel might yet, if he can get elected as a conservative black governor first. Maryland needs to get a clue. They don't deserve him.
I hope he does get some preparatory time in a governor slot. I'd be happy to vote for him for POTUS.
However, the Democrats seem to be walking their talk, and are practicing affirmative action over merit in their nomination process. That would, by the way, have also been the case had Hillery been nominated. The Dem who have clues were all bypassed.
November will tell if affirmative action can be sold to the center, the moderates and independents. The posters here seem to have their minds made up one way or the other, as do I.
It's not the color, children. It's the content.
---
There are a couple of problems with this, the most obvious being that Obama hasn't yet been nominated. The most revealing detail of the last few days is that the MSM has reported that Clinton conceded and has withdrawn, when she clearly has not. I expect the next couple of months to be at least educational.
The other problem -- the elephant in the room, if you will -- is that Obama doesn't stand a chance of getting elected. Perhaps this is unfair and all that, perhaps even "racist", but the fact remains that, largely because the campaign has debased epithets like "racist" and "misogynist", there is nothing stopping people from voting exactly as they please. If they vote against Obama, they will surely have a lot of company, and if they are all "racist", then the epithet has no force any more. I'd like to hear at least once an acknowledgement that we aren't the most racist society in human history, and that we have in fact made substantial progress over the years. Obama is this year's Al Smith (if he in fact prevails), and 30 odd years from now, we will in fact elect a black President without any of the old blood libels being a factor.
"I think you should be happy that the country has, with really very little fuss, nominated a black man with a very good shot at the presidency."
The day a conservative black man has a very good shot at the presidency, would be a better day. Unfortunately, conservatives like Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell get branded as "Uncle Tom" or "oreo", by some on the left because they dare to think for themselves.
Very little fuss. That's a good one.
"Could it be that other countries are resentful of the American lifestyle? Signs point to yes."
Dumbest thing I have read all day. What signs? You mean like surging car sales in every developing country? Or the installation of air conditioning in most new homes in the rich areas of China? Or rising food prices because Chinese and Indians are consuming more meat as they get richer.
Seems to me Obama is flat out WRONG that the rest of the world is resenting American lifestyles. Unless you think emulating = resenting.
Seriously, I thought Democrats had all the passports, but maybe they only fly out to Europe and hang out with green party members.
1. Well said, Conservatives.
2. I don't understand your crazy logic, Libs.
3. "RUN CLARENCE" Thomas, that is. . .
We'll discover that racism is ripe, and watch the name-calling and race-baiting begin. We conservatives have seen it before. The mass media missed it, though.
. . .And don't roll your eyes. Well educated, well traveled, well read, alpha male here.
I don't see the color, I just judge him by the content of his character.
Buckeye Tom is right: until a conservative black man or woman is nominated for the presidency, there is nothing to be proud of here. This guy is a far lefty underqualified nominee with zero accomplishments. I hate to agree with Geraldine Ferraro on anything, but she was 100% right.
you should be happy that the country has, with really very little fuss, nominated a black man
All well and good but I'll not be happy until the day I hear a predominate percentage of black folk saying this. And I don't.
Obama is a great indictment of black America.
In fact, it is white America that has nominated a black man with very little fuss. Black America? Not so much.
I think this "underqualified" line of argument is not a winner for the GOP. If I were on the Obama team, I'd point to another famous Illinois state legislator as an example: Abraham Lincoln. Go after policy and character, voting record, etc.
I too think this is a significant moment. All it took for me was to see an elderly black lady being interviewed, saying, "I'm so happy, I'm shocked, I can't believe it. I just went out and bought five papers!" waving the papers in her hands and with tears coming out of her eyes.
This lady sensed an immovable barrier in front of her had just been shattered, and she was completely overwhelmed. Now, I know it doesn't mean that the barrier EXISTS. But in terms of how we all view our own country, this is obviously going to be extraordinarily significant.
In the meantime, each one of us who comments here is politically astute, and we ALL have specific views on the qualities of an Obama, a Clinton, a McCain. And each of you has expressed powerful beliefs above. What always bothers me is that you simply assume (many of you) that the vast majority of Americans AGREE with you! Are you sure? Are you sure you're not just stuck in an echo chamber of like-minded individuals? I've found, the more I've gotten out of my own echo chamber, that there aren't as many who agree with me as I thought. This is why it's so difficult for a national politician to assemble a national coalition. There are NOT as many people who agree with you as you might think!
So, yes, continue to express your total hatred for Obama or your total adoration of him. Continue to express your belief that his election is assured or that it is doomed. Be aware that McCain and Obama each have a much, much more difficult row to hoe, with so many difficult arguments to make to a wide variety of people. Especially because from June to August, almost everyone who DOES NOT BLOG or comment here, almost everyone else is not even listening. You'll have to reach all those people in September and October. Not before then!
No, we should not be happy about it under these circumstances. Specifically, but for his race, Obama would not have had any chance of being the party's nominee. We will have reached the promised land when candidates are judged strictly according to the content of their character, as well as their experience and philosophy of government. Unfortunately, we have a ways to go.
"For the record, McCain's has his priest problem to with Hagee and Preasly."
Hagee is a preacher in texas. mccain didn't credit hagee with being his spirtual adviser, nor did he attend his church regularly, if at all.
If their endorsement is troubling for you, how should I take the Hamas endorsement of Obama?
"Even if you don't like Barack Obama ..."
That's not quite right. Better: "Even if you think Obama is a clueless twit ..."
Of course you do. Liberalism is based on popularity and being “cool.” It’s why Hollywood airheads affect liberal poses, and why liberals worry about how the Europeans (who are arbiters of cool, as liberals see it) view us. Look at your original post, in which you cite Megan’s taste in music (I never heard of the The Last Poets, btw) as her effort to be cool, when the cool kids know she really isn’t, even though she listens to the cool bands. Ah, high school...
But I get it. Megan’s “core demographic,” isn’t cool, and so neither is she. Let’s not eat lunch with her, much less invite her to our party or sign her yearbook.
And let’s most certainly not provide substantive responses to posts. But you’re in no danger on that score.
You left out that many of us have halitosis, and we still haven't corrected the injustice of the designated hitter rule.
I recommend anti-depressants.
We’re not torturers, not invaders (in the sense in which you mean it), not broke, and not badly governed.
Too many of us are self-satisfied? I’m not sure what this means, but I’m certain that in the alternative you’d be squawking that people were dissatisfied, so there’s probably no point in responding to this at length.
He is not black. His father is from Kenya and his mother is white. He could have embraced his “whiteness” if he wanted to, but did not because he is a product of the Chicago political machine. He no trace to the slavery. He is a half generation immigrant. Merit, qualification and experience not emotional aspiration is a sound basis for the White House; not hope.
White Americans, particularly white leftists, are too white-centric.
In Africa, Obama is considered to be white. Yes, it is true.
And why not? If a 50% black man can be considered black by whites, similarly a 50% white man can be considered white by African blacks.
In Africa, Obama is considered to be white.
John McCain spent much of 2007 trying to force a badly written immigration bill down the throat of the Senate (so badly written that he himself didn't know some of its provisions). His McCain-Feingold travesty has the potential of severely restricting free speech in political campaigns; his McCain-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill has the potential of severely restricting the American economy (a bill favored by big businesses and environmentalists: now there's a marriage made in hell!). He hasn't a clue what to do about health care (personal disclosure: I'm not covered by any plan, so I have to buy insurance as an individual, and it's costing me a bundle) or foreign trade policy. Obama may be a blank slate, but do you really like what McCain's resume has written on it?
Nope. But McCain's not a surrender monkey on Iraq and Obama is. Case closed.
Mike Devx: Well put, but don't take us cretins in the comments section too seriously. With precious few exceptions, we're having fun with hyperbolic prose. We proudly carry the blowtorch of the great blog flamewar.
Uh...Now I need to make a remarkably provocative and easily disprovable assertion about McCain...
Did you hear that McCain has a black love child? Karl Rove told me so.
Mikedevx -- Are you sure you aren't stuck in an echo chamber of your own?
I'd be happy to celebrate a black presidential nominee, but surely there must be some limits before we all burst out into song over it. Would the selection of O. J. Simpson be such an occasion? After all, he is black...
Whatever one's political persuasion, it's simply a fact that Obama is one of the least experienced, least prepared, and least accomplished major presidential candidates. I have to go back to Alton Parker and William Jennings Bryan to find candidates as poorly qualified as Obama.
Then there's his racist church and all his evasiveness before he finally cut that loose.
Obama is a terrible candidate. I understand the appeal but not the decision that intelligent, responsible folks like McArdle make in supporting Obama.
I find it hilarious that most of these commenters feel that Obama is a terrible candidate for his personal associations.
If you are in politics, anywhere, chances are likely that you may be associated in one way or another to unsavory characters. Serving on a board with Professor Ayers, a University of Chicago professor is a "good example" of one of Obama's "evil associations?" That is ludicrous.
Ayers is now a professor so that makes him infallible and virtuous? I should have stayed in academia. He's a terrorist dirtbag, who should have been hanged.
Obama doesn't just have a tenuous association with Ayers, as though they just bumped into each other on the street.
Ayers hired Obama, and Obama announced his campaign for state senate in Ayers' home. Sounds pretty cozy to me.
cjb1350 wrote:
Disingenuous. Ayers hosted at his home the launch of Obama's political campaign.
The retention of Ayers as a professor of education (developing curricula for grades K-8 by the way) does nothing to absolve him of being an unabashedly unrepentant bomber. It does however illustrate something important about the University of Chicago in particular, and the educational establishment in general.
Ibid.
It is true that there was, for example, an association between George Washington and Benedict Arnold prior to the latter's committing treason. The importance of the time dimension when speaking of the qualities of a personal association cannot safely be discounted.
The reason that Obama looks so good to so many is because of the idiot that we have in the White House now. Had we had a stronger leader the last eight years, Obama might not look so good.