Barack Obama is Not White
by matt at 6:00 am on March 12th, 2008 in 2008 Presidential, Hillary, Obama Uber Alles, i can has nukular futbol
Since John Edwards and Chris Dodd dropped out of the race for the Democratic nomination for President, I’ve been a nominal supporter of Hillary Clinton, due to my extreme distaste for Barack Obama. This goes back a long way, as documented in post after unanswered post, and is the sole reason I checked the box for Clinton in the California primary just over a month ago. But since primary day, I’ve become increasingly disillusioned, with my support of Clinton currently testing the limits of the definition of ‘nominal.’
Why? Where Obama’s surrogates like Megan Beyer, Kirk Watson, and Jesse Jackson Jr. are simply morons, (except Samantha Power who really crossed the line) Clinton’s seem to be truly evil, working from the same racist playbook. First it was Billy Shaheen wondering aloud if Obama had ever sold drugs. Then it was Bill Clinton’s turn in South Carolina, when he tried to minimize Obama’s campaign by comparing it to Jesse Jackson’s failed bids in 1984 and 1988. And now we have the icing, as former VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro said “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.”
Look, politics is an ugly, dirty business. But for the life of me I can’t figure out why Clinton still thinks this is in her interest after it has continually backfired on her. I get that she’s behind in the delegate chase and that experts have calculated that it will be very difficult for her to catch Obama in pledged delegates. But not only is this strategy not winning her any votes, it’s weakening what would be her best course of action given the numerical reality. If Clinton performs to the polls in Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico, and has her Florida and Michigan wins legitimized by new primaries there, Obama’s delegate lead would be fairly small given the total number of delegates, and she might even be ahead in the popular vote. With super-delegates in flux, she could certainly make a case that she came on strong at the end, and deserves the nomination over the less experienced Obama. With the ill will generated by her surrogates, and the alienation of black voters, her only path to victory has become much less viable.
I guess I’ll never understand why people are allowed to run campaigns and, let’s be fair, run for office, when they can’t understand simple political calculations.
Failing a nomination of my dream ticket of Jed Bartlet and the ghost of Leo McGarry, it seems clear that I’m going to have to sit this one out.
tom wrote:
in defense of what Geraldine Ferraro said, i feel like what she is saying is that this election has been portrayed by the media as the time when either a black man or a woman was going to be elected. despite anything edwards or others could have done or said, it was not ever going to be done any other way. elections are now about cult of personality, and if obama was a white guy he would be standard issue and would have just been disregarded from the outset.
i guess is it something that a woman and a black man are suddenly able to be the highest profile candidates, but i am not sure that they are in their positions because they are the best people the democratic party has to offer. it feels manufactured, and i believe that obama’s lack of true experience lends itself to that being the case. i dont think it is racist for ferraro to point out that the media has basically propped up this guy because he is black. i think the only surprise here is that he has done so much better than they might have assumed he would!
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 9:03 am ¶
matt wrote:
saying that they’ve propped him up is an understatement. after the fawning press they gave him in late 2006-early 2007, i’d argue that they just about invented him as a viable candidate.
i don’t think it has much to do with his color, but with his relative youth, his quasi-outsider status, and his oh-so-brave anti-war stance when he wasn’t faced with he responsibility to vote on it.
“He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.”
do you think that any black person can be considered to be “lucky to be black?”
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 9:24 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Please forgive me for thinking the media “has basically propped up this guy” because he has more charisma, and generates more enthusiasm among voters, than any four other politicians put together.
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 9:26 am ¶
tom wrote:
charisma and enthusiasm are worthless with no substance. but come on, you know this has been coming since the media wouldnt shut up about how great his speech was at the last democratic convention. speeches are meaningless, ideas are what is important. neither he nor hillary has shit on edwards or others in that area.
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 9:31 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
My point is only that there are perfectly good reasons for the media to puff him up other than his being black.
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 9:36 am ¶
tom wrote:
but you have to be cynical enough to know that they bank on the novelty of this race. it is what dictated the discussion for a good long while, especially at the beginning and even now when the analysis is being done on black vs white voters for clinton or obama in various states. it is all about feeding people a story line that wouldnt be possible with a white guy in the mix. not that i feel like we need yet another rich white guy running the country…..
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 9:44 am ¶
tom wrote:
“do you think that any black person can be considered to be “lucky to be black?””
in this case, it has helped obama out greatly. he is the most prominent token black character in any sitcom thus far.
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 9:45 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I can’t tell what you’re saying. You think that, when it comes to reasons why the media propped him up, being black trumps charisma and enthusiasm?
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 9:48 am ¶
tom wrote:
no, it means that he could have had all the charisma and enthusiasm he wanted and been white and it wouldnt have mattered at all. his novelty factor is why the media latched onto him. sure, once they did that the other parts helped him be successful, but it was the novelty that got the whole ball rolling.
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 9:54 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
That “no” sounds very much like a yes to me.
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 10:10 am ¶
matt wrote:
heh. welcome to tom’s world.
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 10:14 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
What do you know, the lady has a history!
Anyone care to defend Geraldine Ferraro with respect to this 1988 statement that Ben Smith of Politico dug up:
Kind of puts the Obama outburst in a different perspective too, doesn’t it?
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 10:57 am ¶
Dave K wrote:
Tom- You’re right on the money. Additionally, it has become the “in thing” to vote for Obama. It spread like support for any other new “in thing” does. The scary part of that is the notion of so many people voting for the next President in the same way that most high school elections are won…
As far as reasons the media has propped him up: being black is part of what is “causing” the enthusiasm for him. His “change, hope and unity” speeches wouldn’t be nearly as powerful if he wasn’t black. This is one of the situations where I hope the superdelegates do their job and vote for the best candidate (regardless of who their supporters support). Similar to a judge who overrules a jury decision, a superdelegate is in a position where he/she is expected to have the fortitude to make “the right” decision irrespective of what “a few”, “many”, or even “most” of their constituents want. Many of the toughest decisions in life involve going against “popular” beliefs.
Regarding: {{any black person can be considered to be “lucky to be black?”}}
At times “No” and at times “YES” (obviously, I know). Mandated preferential treatment to colleges and many businesses as part of affirmative action has certainly provided many beneficial opportunities. How long are people “owed” something for past injustices? Many of the people benefiting from these policies weren’t even alive when these injustices were committed. Where’s the affirmative action for the Irish Americans and Japanese Americans? I especially dislike people who use racial separation issues in an “ambulance chaser” way such as Al Sharpton who is most certainly a demagogue. Instead of the NAACP how about making it the NAA of “all people” and having ads for “a mind is a terrible thing to waste” that refer to “all people” not just “colored people”…?
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 11:22 am ¶
matt wrote:
man. racism lives.
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 11:42 am ¶
Dave K wrote:
P.S. Anyone who thinks 13 is anywhere close to racism is blind, ignorant or both… Wanting equality for “all” is about as far from racism as you can get…
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 11:48 am ¶
matt wrote:
13. “As far as reasons the media has propped him up: being black is part of what is “causing” the enthusiasm for him.”
yeah, i don’t know how anyone could have mistaken your comment for racist.
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 11:53 am ¶
Dave K wrote:
If you don’t think it’s “part” of what caused enthusiasm you’re mistaken as I indicated in 15.(and incorrectly judgmental). Note the sentence said “part”. It’s a fact not a racial statement.
One more thing (s a reminder of something I stated a few days ago): “I started out as an Obama supporter” in this campaign (amazing for such a “racist”). I switched to Clinton after looking past the rhetoric…
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 12:03 pm ¶
matt wrote:
so it’s not racism, you just don’t know what words mean. fair enough, lots of that going on these days.
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 12:06 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
LOL. Someday you’ll discover the meaning or the words (”part” for example) as well as learn how to just admit being wrong…
There’s a difference between being right in a little world someone creates for themselves and being right in “reality”. Unfortunately, for you, you’re the former category in this case.
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 12:23 pm ¶
matt wrote:
“How long are people “owed” something for past injustices? Many of the people benefiting from these policies weren’t even alive when these injustices were committed.”
these are standard white supremacist talking points, nothing more.
and if you had been here for more than a minute, you’d know that i admit my mistakes and miscalculations when appropriate on the front page, along with changing my mind when evidence warrants.
so until you know a bit more about what goes on around here, or really a lot more about anything related to politics, please shut the fuck up. you’ve been talking out of your ass and embarrassing yourself since you stumbled in here.
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 12:33 pm ¶
jamie beth wrote:
“Many of the people benefiting from these policies weren’t even alive when these injustices were committed.”
Aside from being racist talking points, this comment is inaccurate. Just because you weren’t alive doesn’t mean you weren’t impacted by something.
Imagine if your granparents weren’t allowed to learn to read and write. Do you think you would be where you are today?
I hope that helps clarify why the comment above is complete and utter BS whether it was intended to be or not.
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 1:27 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
LOL. So you “do” agree then that Irish and Japanese Americans should have more affirmative action policies for them?…
How about actually “answering” the question you just posted:
“How long are people “owed” something for past injustices?”
What’s the answer? 50yrs? 100yrs? 200yrs? 500yrs?…
jamie beth- This was originally a comment for matt but feel free to chime in with answers to those questions as well. I’m actually a little curious as to if the answer to the time question will be more or less than 200yrs… The Japanese and Irish Americans would like to know as well.
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 2:06 pm ¶
matt wrote:
start one more comment with “LOL”, and you’re gone. end of story.
“So you “do” agree then that Irish and Japanese Americans should have more affirmative action policies for them?”
get better at reading comprehension. very quickly. i don’t take to morons twisting my words all that well.
“How about actually “answering” the question you just posted”
the question was yours, asshat. apparently your racist ass can answer it. the ice is thin and my patience with you is waning.
you are espousing racist ideas, hence you’re a racist.
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 2:16 pm ¶
Sarah wrote:
To respond to #13. For your information affirmative action was over ruled–it no longer exist. Affirmative Action did not only apply to African Americans, it applied to woman (white) and all people of color and it was signed into law because people like you was running this country.
Though woman & people of color has made advancements, none have parity with white men. Example, every president has been a white man. Now that you have a woman (minority) and African American man running for the highest office in the world–the rules of engagement has changed. Obama is required to pass the Commander in Chief threshold? Come on, give me a break.
It is sad to live in the “free world” yet are still limited to what can be accomplish. One thing Obama’s candidacy has done is exposed the racist mentality that still exist in this country.
Geraldine’s actions is repulsive–but many of you are definding her because you agree with it–but remember she said the same thing about Jesse Jackson in 1988. At least African Americans know that they are still separate and unequal. African Americans are voting from 80-90 % for Obama because Bill and Hillary Clinton insulted their once loyal supporters and if you understand the culture–an injury to one is an injury to all.
Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 12:48 am ¶
Nigel wrote:
I am appalled, stupefied even, to read the vacous hate conveyed by the words of Dave K and Tom above. #13 is beleaguered with views consistent with a summary of any manifesto that is overtly endorsed by a subversive supremacist agenda. America has slowly transformed some of the blind hatred that fuels racism into questions…questions that get rural white communities in Wyoming, North Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, name it…to show up in great numbers for Obama…not for a black man…but for a candidate…Obama!! These are the kind of beautiful white folk that give this country a chance to heal from the racial divide you work so conceitedly to maintain. Unfortunately, all the fence mending that the humble average white well-meaning person has sought out to do from his/her good heart is upstaged by the empty, issue-lacking, subjective, and irresponsible remarks made by the likes of Geraldine, Tom, Dave K, and probably other unconscionable Republicans and Democrats.
Anyone with a heart, some self-questioning, and an appreciation for common good would not indulge in the wanton, civic participation-defeating recklessness propagated by the callous references to the nature of black and white people or their motivations for participating in our old but obviously fragile democracy. I am ashamed to be associated with a country that can have people who water down Obama’s inteligence, Charisma, and substance as simply and instance of ‘meaningless speech’ - shame on you Tom, or having a ‘high school election’ tone - Dave K, dispeakable!
I am at least glad that Matt, Sarah, and Sarabeth, Jamie Beth have all tried in vain to right your sinking ships. Just because you can string some words together does not give you the right to beam your masked xenophobia on others in the guise of participatory exchange.
Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 5:04 pm ¶
matt wrote:
you should be more careful with your praise.
while i don’t question obama’s intelligence, i couldn’t care less about his “charisma,” and i have written at length here about his substance deficit.
just because obama can string words together doesn’t mean they are the right words, and it certainly doesn’t mean he should be the democratic nominee, or president.
calling out racist speech doesn’t mean anything but what it is.
Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 6:18 pm ¶
Nigel wrote:
Matt, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. Thankfully, you can only vote once, and the winds of change have swept across the nation with the kind of determination that defeats people like you.
There’s an African saying that asserts: vacuity is the message of a seedless mind, and a pervasive aversion to sober thought its lone cultivator.
I adore Hillary Clinton, and love Barrack Obama. They are not above the hate or issue-deflecting that you and your kind peddle - but one thing I know they are, is great Americans. Greater that you’ll ever be even if they fail in their bids for the presidency.
So I will close comment on this by telling you that he who condems loudest, lacks deepest. So whereas I don’t expect it from you, veneration is what drives both Hillary and Obama - not the fact that one is a woman, and the other black. I respect that you have an opinion, but I am disappointed that your factual meristem has entered into diapause obstructing any useful discourse you wish to partake in. You sound like an intelligent guy, so I’m hopeful you will join us all in ‘perfecting the union’ because it is exactly the kind of divisive talk and thinking you barter that ‘We the people’ are joining Obama (or Hillary) to defeat. I love all white, black, asian, hispanic people…whether or not there’s people in their midst that don’t feel the same way about me. But I know that is where we have to start when mending the racial divide in this country…and I’m glad to tell you that my love for fellow Americans irrespective of their race has been reciprocated so much so that when I encounter bigotry, I can clearly see it as the anomaly it is - you are intelligent enough to eventually come around to it - fortunately for us, you have no choice coz the people that are not white in America will always be in America - whether or not you continue to will them away with hate and indifference.
Posted 19 Mar 2008 at 1:38 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>I respect that you have an opinion, but I am disappointed that your factual meristem has entered into diapause obstructing any useful discourse you wish to partake in.
just go ahead and make up as many words as you want. it won’t make your gibberish any more coherent.
Posted 19 Mar 2008 at 1:51 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
that was a pretty loud condemnation you put together right there, wasn’t it, Nigel old buddy?
too bad you lack so deeply.
Posted 19 Mar 2008 at 2:30 pm ¶
Nigel wrote:
that was a pretty loud condemnation you put together right there, wasn’t it, Nigel old buddy?
too bad you lack so deeply.
***********
Condemnation??? Sarabeth, your wisdom is profoundly humbling.
Posted 19 Mar 2008 at 4:55 pm ¶
Nigel wrote:
I respect that you have an opinion, but I am disappointed that your factual meristem has entered into diapause obstructing any useful discourse you wish to partake in.
just go ahead and make up as many words as you want. it won’t make your gibberish any more coherent.
************************
Matt, I apologize for the gibberish…truly, I do…forget I said anything…
Posted 19 Mar 2008 at 5:02 pm ¶
watson wrote:
how much is owed to the native americans who suffered from our abuse we where already here. yes barack is racist i believe an if not for the coloreds sticking togather ,which the whites don’t,he wouldn’t have the votes that he has.i will not vote for barack an will cross over.with his back ground i don’t understand why with our country in turmoil would anyone vote for less experience an no history of dealings with all that is facing this country’
Posted 30 Mar 2008 at 9:26 pm ¶
watson wrote:
how much is owed to the native americans who suffered from our abuse we where already here. i believe an if not for the coloreds sticking togather ,which the whites don’t,he would.i will not vote for barack an will cross over.with his back ground i don’t understand why with our country in turmoil would anyone vote for less experience an no history of dealings with all that is facing this country’
Posted 30 Mar 2008 at 9:29 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
Good grief “Nigel” and “Sara” if you think #13 was racist you’re off your rockers. How about reading (for comprehension) #17 again where I remind people that I have previously stated (in past posts) that I started out as an “Obama” supporter. Yep, I must be a racist all right… Try reading #15 again as well. Notice I emphasized the point that I’d like to see a NAAAP (advancement of “ALL” people). It’s certainly “much more racist” to have an association that specifically states it is interested in the “advancement of “colored” people is it not?
Yes Sara, it’s like a High school popularity/charisma contest and “it has” become the “in thing” among young voters to support the “charismatic Obama” (who younger people feel they relate to better). I witnessed a gathering of HS seniors the other day talking about how Obama stands for “change” and that he’s going to “make taxes fairer”. Unfortunately, they couldn’t mention one “specific” idea they liked about him. I’d prefer to see people voting for a candidate because they believe in his/her solutions. Realistically, that’s difficult to do because his main platform is “hope” as opposed to “actual answers” as to what he would “specifically” do…
BTW, anyone who thought that the following comment was anything but a factual statement needs to look up the meaning of the word demagogue: “I especially dislike people who use racial separation issues in an “ambulance chaser” way such as Al Sharpton who is most certainly a demagogue.”
For “watson”: I don’t even fully understand what you’re trying to say because you’re writing incoherently. However, from what I can make out it does have a racist tone to it (intended or not).
Posted 31 Mar 2008 at 1:09 am ¶