posted
I think that the supporters of Ron Paul are going to have a heck of a time against the never let go supporters of Hillary Clinton in the imaginary elections of 08. I just don't think they have enough support among unicorns, leprechauns, or vampires.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's my point. To win, you'd need strong support from one of the fairy contigent, the wee folk, or the undead (can't win Chicago without them). Ron Paul doesn't poll strong in any of these.
There was some talk about him courting the hispanic vote by making the chupacabra his running mate, but while it eats goats, it is still having problems swallowing his position on immigration. Plus, after Dick Cheney, many experts doubt that the American people are ready to have another monster as VP.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to this article in my local paper, Obama is considering Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as a VP
Posts: 4569 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Derrell: According to this article in my local paper, Obama is considering Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as a VP
I keep hearing that from Arizonans, but I haven't heard much of that rom a more national perspective. I think the Arizonans are deluding themselves again. (I'm from Arizona, so I feel free to mock).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would be a big gamble in trying to turn McCain's home district. Strategically, Sebellius makes more sense.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Don't forget that Cheney secured the pivotal Sith vote for Bush.
Napolitano is on the short list probably. The two big push/pull factors are going to be executive experience versus military experience. He needs someone to shore up both of those perceived inadequacies. Any governor who has been around for awhile will fill in the executive gap.
The thing about the military is, I don't necessarily think that prior military service is the be all end all of military experience. Nothing can prepare you for being Commander in Chief, unless maybe you ran NATO or were a CentCom general or some such. McCain flew planes 40 years ago. So? None of the technology or hardward he used back then is in service today. It's not like you really have to be familiar with every piece of machinery or what not. You have experts and Generals around you to present options. Foriegn policy experience and general knowledge about the world in that sense is even more important that prior military experience.
In that sense, the best choice for Obama would probably be Bill Richardson. He was a governor of a Western state, has massive foreign policy credentials, executive experience, even a lot of experience as SecEnergy, which is a huge plank of Obama's platform. If Richardson was white, I think he'd easily be the frontrunner, but I think a minority ticket makes a lot of people nervous.
Don't discount dark horse candidates like former general Wesley Clark.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If Richardson was white, I think he'd easily be the frontrunner, but I think a minority ticket makes a lot of people nervous.
Really? It seems to me that if you were make a Venn diagram where one set represented people who would balk at voting for candidate because he's black and the other set represented people who would balk at voting for a candidate who is black because his choice for VP is Latino, the two sets would overlap almost completely. There's be a tiny sliver of non-overlap there, but not enough be worth factoring into Obama's decision about who to select as his running mate.
On the contrary, I think that Richardson would help enormously with bringing in the Latino vote, which could very well be crucial in Obama's winning the election.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:In that sense, the best choice for Obama would probably be Bill Richardson. He was a governor of a Western state, has massive foreign policy credentials, executive experience, even a lot of experience as SecEnergy, which is a huge plank of Obama's platform.
Bill Richardson is my preferred VP candidate for Obama, for all the reasons listed here. He's really the perfect choice.
quote:If Richardson was white, I think he'd easily be the frontrunner, but I think a minority ticket makes a lot of people nervous.
I actually think his race is more of a asset then a handicap, since Obama could use a boost with Hispanic voters, and anyone who wouldn't vote for a ticket because there's a Hispanic on it isn't going to vote for a black man anyway.
Richardson and Obama, being 1/4 white and 1/2 white respectively, would almost equal having one white guy .
Edit: Ninja'd by Noemon!
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't decide whether I'd prefer to see Richardson or Sebelius as Obama's VP, personally. I think that both of them would help him in appealing to key demographics, while also being good people to have in the wings ready to take office and continue with the same general vision if he's assassinated.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: In that sense, the best choice for Obama would probably be Bill Richardson. He was a governor of a Western state, has massive foreign policy credentials, executive experience, even a lot of experience as SecEnergy, which is a huge plank of Obama's platform. If Richardson was white, I think he'd easily be the frontrunner, but I think a minority ticket makes a lot of people nervous.
Right now, I think what might make people *more* nervous about Richardson is the grudge Hillary and her supporters hold against him. Of all the friends and allies that went to Obama, Richardson is the only one that got called "Judas" by James Carville. And the Clinton campaign didn't object to the characterization at all.
If it weren't for that one teensy-weensy stumbling block, he might be ideal - but having people show up at rallies with "Judas" signs might not make for great campaign coverage. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't decide whether I'd prefer to see Richardson or Sebelius as Obama's VP, personally. I think that both of them would help him in appealing to key demographics, while also being good people to have in the wings ready to take office and continue with the same general vision if he's assassinated.
I do like what I've read of Sebelius, and think she'd probably be a great choice.
I also wonder if picking Sebelius would help ease the sting of not picking Clinton. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama picks a male running mate, and consequently gets accused then of not picking Clinton as a running mate because of her sex.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
The main reason why I said the whole "if he were white thing" is, I wonder if there are a group of people out there who are nervous about voting for a black guy, but WOULD vote for him if there was a white person on the bottom of the ticket. In other words, does Sebelius or someone similar bring in more white votes that Obama lost just by being black? I have zero polling data on that, it's just a wondering. I think Richardson would bring in a lot of the latino vote, but I wonder how that offsets the white vote, especially electorally, where pockets of latinos are only in large numbers in so many places.
Still, you're probably right, and it makes more sense to go with a probable thing, like the latino vote, rather than the maybe thing, like recapturing white votes.
In other news...
Obama, taking on the mantle as leader of his party, has proclaimed that the Democratic party itself will no longer take PAC or Lobbyist donations. He's hitching the Democratic party to his new movement in politics, and more specifically, his new way of fundraising. This comes on the heels of McCain announcing a record fundraising month in May of $21.5 million. What do you think of that?
Honestly? To me is smacks more of ideology than politics. There's no way that he personally would have been tagged by other Democrats taking those funds, though it is actually a rather small piece of the total pie. I think he's making the change because it's his party now, and he wants it run and operated in a way that fits his own personal ideology. He's the head of a movement as much as he is the head of the party now.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, I didn't realize that Obama was such a big fan of mass public transit. Could it be that we'll finally have a government that's serious about bike lanes, high speed rail, subways, buses and other forms of high speed rail?
Awesome link Noemon, thanks.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We may, God willing, elect a black man to be president of the United States this year.
And now to leap entirely off course, it mildly bugs me when people call Obama "a black man." He's a man of mixed race, one of which happens to be black. Everyone would think it absurd if I called him a white man. I suspect the whole convention has roots in old racist mongrelization fears, though I realize no one these days intends that connotation. Sterling (whom I quoted from the primary thread) certainly did not.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm listening to McCain's speech from Tuesday and wow, it's riddled with holes. He's being dishonest about Obama's proposed tax hikes at the very least.
Most telling? McCain's claim that Obama is beholden to special interests while McCain is known for standing up to them. That's pretty hard to swallow considering the sheer onslaught of staff on McCain's campaign that had to be fired because of lobbyist connections, and there are still more on his staff that are former lobbyists. And Obama just today announced that neither his campaign nor the Democratic party will accept ANY lobbyist or PAC donations.
There's plenty of things to hit Obama with that are legitimate points of contention without trying to misrepresent the facts. Besides, he's going to get hammered on it later on, which makes it all the more stupid. And I'll add, from our friends at Factcheck:
quote:We may, God willing, elect a black man to be president of the United States this year.
And now to leap entirely off course, it mildly bugs me when people call Obama "a black man." He's a man of mixed race, one of which happens to be black. Everyone would think it absurd if I called him a white man. I suspect the whole convention has roots in old racist mongrelization fears, though I realize no one these days intends that connotation. Sterling (whom I quoted from the primary thread) certainly did not.
Race in that aspect is tricky I think, and depends entirely on who you are talking to. I think a lot of people, probably Irami at the top of that list, would say Obama is more white than black because he's more culturally white. Debra Dickerson is the one who I think I first saw on TV say that he's not really black because he's not descended from East African slaves, he's WEST African, which I guess cuts down on the genetic afro cred.
I think that for most people, looking black makes you black, regardless of what your other roots are, in the same way that even if a 1,000 people before you aren't, you're considered Jewish if your mother was (I got that right didn't I rivka?). Plessy v. Ferguson near the turn of the 19th century established legally that a man who was 1/8th black was legally ALL black. Maybe in some ways we still haven't quite escaped the definitions of the 19th century south. But in reality, I think anyone who would never vote for a black man doesn't much care that he's half white. They see a black man, regardless of his heritage and mixed race roots and label him black. He's not viable becuase he's half white, he doesn't get points for that. Overcoming that hurdle of pigment is what's significant, and in that sense, I think it'll perfectly fair to call him the first black president, should he be elected.
On a purely physical level, he IS a black man. You're talking about roots and heritage and genetics, but none of that changes what he looks like for those it matters to. None of those people are going to say, upon learning of his mother: "oh, he's half white, well that's a horse of a different color." For people that don't care about race, it's just a word that they use to physically describe someone, and has no racial overtones at all. For people that do care about race, him being half white is a non-factor.
Sorry that was a bit of a meandering post, it's late.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But in reality, I think anyone who would never vote for a black man doesn't much care that he's half white. They see a black man, regardless of his heritage and mixed race roots and label him black.
This is a good point, in that it accurately describes what's been happening in this race. It begs the question, though, of why we're letting these people dictate the tone like that. I understand it in a "beat them on their own terms" kind of way, but it still doesn't sit well with me.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most telling? McCain's claim that Obama is beholden to special interests while McCain is known for standing up to them. That's pretty hard to swallow considering the sheer onslaught of staff on McCain's campaign that had to be fired because of lobbyist connections, and there are still more on his staff that are former lobbyists. And Obama just today announced that neither his campaign nor the Democratic party will accept ANY lobbyist or PAC donations.
To be more honest, he has found a nifty way around accepting PAC and lobbyist money. Fact Check
quote: Obama: Well, the fact is I don't take PAC money and I don't take lobbyists' money. And the bundlers – the reason you know who is raising money for me, Mike, is because I have pushed through a law this past session to disclose that. Gravel and Obama weren't actually contradicting each other. However, as we reported previously, Obama's policy is an ethical tightrope.
The senator’s official policy “specifically states that the Obama campaign does not accept donations or fundraising help from federal lobbyists or PACs,” according to a campaign spokesperson. Obama, however, is sticking to a strict interpretation of his ban on lobbyist contributions. His campaign does take money from spouses of lobbyists, partners in lobbying firms who do not themselves lobby, ex-lobbyists and state lobbyists, according to numerous news reports.
Robert Wolf, COO of the Switzerland-based UBS Investment Bank and chairman of its Americas division, has raised money for Obama and encouraged his employees to make contributions, which they did, to the tune of $194,930 as of July 15. Those contributions don't violate the letter of Obama's pledge, even though UBS, like most large corporations, has lobbyists in Washington. Obama voluntarily listed Wolf, along with 254 other “bundlers” (influential types who agree to encourage and collect individual contributions) on his Web site. (Gravel is correct in that the list previously had totaled 134 people.)
While Obama did sponsor an amendment to the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 (S.1) that would require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, PACs or parties for whom they collected money, action on the measure stalled after it passed the Senate in January. Furthermore, since Obama isn't accepting money from federal lobbyists, the amendment wouldn't even apply to his bundlers.
quote: During his presidential run, Obama has raised $115,163 from "lobbyists," as of March 20, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The Obama campaign states that this is all from former lobbyists, not those currently active. That distinction is important for Obama. As we've written before, Obama is doing a bit of a tightrope act here. He does not accept funds from registered federal lobbyists, but he does accept money from spouses of lobbyists, non-lobbying partners who work for lobbying firms or for law firms that do lobbying, ex-lobbyists, and state lobbyists.
If McCain had said he accepted no money from lobbyists or PACs then was caught pulling these stunts I am quite sure the press would hammer him into the ground.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dark Knight: I don't think he would. It's hardly reasonable for us to punish ex lobbyists and state they can never raise or donate money towards any political candidacy in their lives ever again.
$115,163 is pocket change especially if you divide it amongst all the ex lobbyists.
I'm sorry I can't give your post more response time, I just realized I am going to be late for work.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think a lot of people, probably Irami at the top of that list, would say Obama is more white than black because he's more culturally white.
He is black. He is just the kind of black who is more scared of ticking off whites than he is for standing up for the black masses.
In a powerful way, I agree with this some aspects of this article. Are we going to get the conversation about education, criminal justice, and the influx of Supermax prisons in the Obama campaign? I don't think so. Instead, Obama is going to spend the next eight months making white people feel like he shares their values. Now, I think he is going to lose anyway, and what's even worse is that I think he is going to lose while sucking up to "middle America." And if he wins, I'm just not convinced he isn't going take the same attitude to the white house, the attitude that threw his priest and Sam Power under a bus. I still think he is a better bet than McCain, with respect to issues like Iraq and the environment and whatever else it is that white liberals like and Obama will champion.
posted
The attitude of the office was one of, "The Senator agrees, he just can't say." It's been a year, but I can't imagine much has changed.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because appearing to have such an attitude isn't obviously necessary whether he actually has it or not.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Dark Knight: I don't think he would. It's hardly reasonable for us to punish ex lobbyists and state they can never raise or donate money towards any political candidacy in their lives ever again.
$115,163 is pocket change especially if you divide it amongst all the ex lobbyists.
I think they are saying he got $155,163 from former lobbyists but they did not say how much he got from "spouses of lobbyists, non-lobbying partners who work for lobbying firms or for law firms that do lobbying, ex-lobbyists, and state lobbyists."
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: $115,163 is pocket change especially if you divide it amongst all the ex lobbyists.
More importantly, it's also pocket change compared to the millions of dollars Obama has raised in his campaign so far from small donors.
quote: but they did not say how much he got from "spouses of lobbyists, non-lobbying partners who work for lobbying firms or for law firms that do lobbying, ex-lobbyists, and state lobbyists."
Of that list, the only one that bothers me for him to get money from is state lobbyists. Because the others are not lobbyists. If he's not supposed to take money from spouses or coworkers of lobbyists, what of friends of lobbyists? Parents? Cousins? Should I not donate to Obama's campaign if I sat next to a lobbyist on a bus once?
But yeah, to say he's not taking money from federal lobbyists but is okay with taking it from state lobbyists does seem like splitting hairs.
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: But yeah, to say he's not taking money from federal lobbyists but is okay with taking it from state lobbyists does seem like splitting hairs.
I don't think so. Someone who lobbies a state legislature on issues that are the the realm of state decision makers isn't nearly the conflict of interest for a presidential candidate that someone who is advocating for a change in federal laws is.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Of that list, the only one that bothers me for him to get money from is state lobbyists. Because the others are not lobbyists. If he's not supposed to take money from spouses or coworkers of lobbyists, what of friends of lobbyists? Parents? Cousins?
So if McCain did the same thing, I am sure you would extend him the same 'pass' that Obama gets? I rather doubt it. Obama taking money from spouses of lobbyists, non-lobbying partners who work for lobbying firms or for law firms that do lobbying, ex-lobbyists, and state lobbyists is a way for him and the DNC to get around his promises while the press can print glowing reports about how Obama and the DNC is 'lobbyist influence free'.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My sister used to be a lobbyist. She is not currently one. She is a huge fan of Obama (who from what I remember of her lobbying work, probably would not have been who her firm would have raised money for). Her husband also LOVES Obama. It seems unfair to me that those two should not be able to donate to him just because of what job my sister used to have. And if my sister did still work as a lobbyist, her husband should be allowed to donate as he pleases. There is a difference between personal and professional contributions and I think Obama's rules designate that. I think that Obama does not see any of his money as from oil or whatever cause, but instead from individuals who support him.
As far as race, my brother in law is half black and he says in white America, there is no such thing as half. You are black and people make sure you know that. Of course, marrying a white woman, he is not really accepted in the black community either, including his own family.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: My family's real gun-ho for Jim Webb for Obama's VP. What do people think of that choice?
I don't know enough about him, really. He has some obvious positives, but this post in The Atlantic lists some of the "baggage" that will have to be assessed by Obama's VP selection committee.
Some key points:
*He's a Dem senator in a red state - no guarantee that another Dem will be elected in his place.
*Even supporters admit he's a poor campaigner
*Referred to affirmative action as "state-sponsored racism" in the same year he endorsed George Allen's Senate run (2000)
*Authored an "infamous" 1979 article titled "Why Women Can't Fight" which was widely disseminated and used against women in the military
*Was accused of showing more sympathy for the accused than the alleged victims in the Tailhook scandal
That's a partial list -- and I can't honestly evaluate the accuracy of these claims without doing further digging. I'll leave that to others - even if "others" means Obama's VP selection team. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: My family's real gun-ho for Jim Webb for Obama's VP. What do people think of that choice?
I think there's some attractive pros and a couple of cons to him. The pros being that Jim Webb would represent military experience that Obama lacks. Even though I tend to agree with Obama's foreign policy ideas, he still doesn't have military experience to boot. Considering that Obama is against McCain, I think he'll need to get a way to appeal to veterans, and Jim Webb could do that. Further, Webb is a southerner, and I think that quite a few southern states could be put in play with a strong southern appeal. Virginia is already a clear battle ground this year, perhaps there could be more. Webb also could appeal to the nostalgia of Reagan because of his being in the Joint-Chiefs then. This might help Obama pull more right leaning independents and perhaps more Republicans.
A couple of cons on Webb are that he has less legislative experience than Obama. Obama has been constantly hammered for being 'inexperienced' and the polls in South Dakota and Montana show that Obama lost on experience roughly 94-6. Obama needs a face that has more experience to try to grab some of those voters, and according to CNN's exit polls, roughly 1/5 of voters wanted the candidate of experience. (From Montana and South Dakota.) Another con on Webb is that he really hasn't come out of his shell yet on what kind of politician he is. We know he's a great public servant in regards to the military, but when it comes to politics, there is a lingering question of whether or not he'd be able to stick to Obama's message appropriately. Edit to Add: And if what sndrake said is true on what Webb's said before, it adds to my point that Webb might have trouble sticking to Obama's change encompassing message.
All of that said, my preference for VP choices are... Sebelius Richardson And then a toss up between Clark and Webb.
(My ideal cabinet, for any who care... Secretary of Health and Human Services = Clinton (Some arguments could be made to this, I understand, but I think that with her commitment to health care for everyone, having her work through Obama's plan could represent a stronger push for the plan to encompass more people.), AG or Secretary of Labor = Edwards, Secretary of State = Richardson, Secretary of Defense = Clark, VP = Sebelius.
Edit to add: I'm not so sure if those exit polls were CNN now, I took a look again and couldn't find them, while I'm sure I saw those numbers somewhere (The experience numbers and how big of a block experience made) I can't remember where.
posted
On CNN, there is a video of the press complaining that Obama did not bring the press to his meetings with people yesterday. I don't know if I feel comfortable with that level of entitlement from the press core.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Of that list, the only one that bothers me for him to get money from is state lobbyists. Because the others are not lobbyists. If he's not supposed to take money from spouses or coworkers of lobbyists, what of friends of lobbyists? Parents? Cousins?
So if McCain did the same thing, I am sure you would extend him the same 'pass' that Obama gets? I rather doubt it.
And that's where you're wrong. I'm not going to argue that point for anyone other than myself, of course. If McCain (or any other politician) said he didn't take money from federal lobbyists I would not expect that to be extended to anyone other than federal lobbyists. Part of that is probably just my cynicism about politicians in general - I don't expect many of them to stand by anything but the most narrow definition of their promises. If that.
Honestly, your habit of insisting there must be a double standard is something that makes it really hard to take your posts seriously. It seems like every time you post about something political you throw in "But if this were a republican everyone would be mad!" or "But if this were a democrat they'd get a free pass!" No, actually most (not all, certainly) people have reasons to their opinions beyond blind partisanship.
The fact that VA is a red state is irrelevent. There's a Democratic governor that would appoint a Democrat in Webb's place if he were to be appointed VP, so, Democrats wouldn't lose the seat. Besides, there's a titanic battle shaping up this year between two former governors for the open Senate seat being vacated by John Warner. Mark Warner, Democrat, and a Republican whose name I can't remember are both running, and they are both very popular former governors. Warner has been considered for a VP spot too, but he more or less recused himself from consideration. I think Warner has a great chance of winning. The glow of his years as governor is a little brighter than the other guy's.
Webb is more of a Blue Dog Dem. He's so close to the center he probably teeters over to the right a fair bit. I think he'll get a fair bit of consideration for the VP spot, but the biggest reason why is his military credentials. That's why Wesley Clark is going to get a good look. He's got the cred, and at the same time he also is more in line mainstream Democratic views. But really, when you ask yourself "who would I want to actually take over the Oval if something happened to Obama?" I think Sebelius and Richardson are the only two I'd feel comfortable with.
So often we think of Veeps as the guy that balances the electoral math on a ticket. But an honest candidate should really think about who would best fill his shoes should the time come, and I wouldn't likely vote for Webb or Clark for president, not over Sebelius or Richardson. Richardson I think is the most well rounded candidate.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would still really like to see John Edwards as VP but I haven't heard anyone mention his name recently.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The evening began in routine fashion, with Mr. Obama holding a large rally in northern Virginia. Then, he was scheduled to travel by motorcade to Dulles International Airport and fly to Chicago. The motorcade arrived, but Mr. Obama did not, stirring alarm among reporters who had been aboard the campaign plane for 45 minutes as it sat on the tarmac.
Shortly before takeoff, one part of the secret was divulged. Robert Gibbs, the campaign’s communications director, said Mr. Obama would not be flying to Chicago as previously scheduled. He gave no reason for this mysterious pronouncement and there was little time for questions, considering that the engines had started to whir.
Sunlen Miller, who covers the Obama campaign for ABC News, filed an urgent dispatch via Blackberry to report that the senator had abruptly changed plans and had given the slip to those who were traveling with him all day. “I sent it as the wheels were going up,” Ms. Miller said of her message, recounting the agitation and confusion among her fellow travelers as the 757 lifted off.
It wasn’t until after the plane landed in Chicago — sans the presidential candidate — that Mr. Gibbs confirmed a meeting had taken place between the rivals. Details? None given.
Translation: The press assigned to follow Obama around find themselves locked in on an airplane and flown to Chicago - while the candidate stays back to meet with Clinton.
From what I've seen of the coverage, journalists *not* on the plane found this pretty amusing when they reported it. As for journalists *on* the plane - not so much.
quote:Richardson I think is the most well rounded candidate.
I'm not convinced on that. The anger toward Richardson by the Clinton team and others will be a factor that could weigh against him.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:He is black. He is just the kind of black who is more scared of ticking off whites than he is for standing up for the black masses.
On last night's Daily Show, they did a segment on the sexism that Hillary Clinton faced in the campaign by showing commentators blatantly showing their sexism on cable news. I especially enjoyed Glenn Beck's mocking of Hillary Clinton's cleavage and voice, more than anything because it reminded me of just what a tool that guy is and how incredibly sexist and prejudice he can be when he opens his mouth. I've said it before that Hillary faced a sexism in this election that almost seemed to be embraced by those who wanted to see her defeated, and the sad thing is that I see the same kind of attitude towards African Americans in this election.
When Barack Obama spoke about race he claimed that while White America was angry, so too was Black America, and I think part of that anger is encapsulated by what Irami said above. Barack Obama walks a tight-rope that is incredibly thin, he has to appease Hillary Clinton's supporters and white women throughout the country, he has to appease blue-collar white voters throughout the country, and he has to address African American issues without making his white supporters afraid. Of course, there is a belief in this country that the successful black man or woman is one two people: the first is the African American who is not mad about the racial situation in America and who placates white America, assuring them that he is not out to take their jobs or money or success, and the second is the angry black person who is angry about the racial situation and seeks to take the success of white America through programs like Affirmative Action and who embodies that angry black man who wants to take all that white America maintains. It's exactly like what happens when we view Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr., and it is that division that is most insidious about the racism that we face.
See, in his statement above, Irami equates appeasing white America with failing black America, as if those were mutually exclusive events. And it might be. It may in fact be the case that appeasing white America inherently implies failing black America, but there is a greater question to be asked here. Why does a black man have to appease white America to be elected? And why does that ridiculous division concerning African Americans in America exist in the first place?
Those are interesting questions about race in America I believe, but it is more interesting to me that suddenly we are faced with issues that are suddenly exclusive to certain races and genders. If Obama is the President of the United States, he will not be the President of white America or of black America, he will be the President of the United States of America, and thus, his problems should be ours and not theirs. And of course, that division is a racial and sexist one that we should face.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why does a black man have to appease white America to be elected?
Perhaps I'm missing the real crux of your question but to me the answer to that question seems obvious. The majority of Americans are white and in a democracy you can't be elected unless you satisfy the majority. That doesn't mean a black candidate has to satisfy all the white people or even a majority of the white people, but no one black or white can win an election in this country without the votes of a whole lot of white people. Its mathematically impossible.
The converse isn't true. Its mathematically possible to win a Presidential election in the US without getting a single black vote.
quote: And why does that ridiculous division concerning African Americans in America exist in the first place?
The answer to that one again seems obvious -- Slavery and Jim-crow. Even before this countries inception, we had laws which allowed the systematic dehumanization of people of African decent. If you want to ask why race continues to divide us nearly a century and a half after emancipation and 40 years after the civil rights movement then there is something to debate. But you asked why the division exists in the first place -- that's a no brainer.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The majority of Americans are white and in a democracy you can't be elected unless you satisfy the majority. That doesn't mean a black candidate has to satisfy all the white people or even a majority of the white people, but no one black or white can win an election in this country without the votes of a whole lot of white people. Its mathematically impossible.
To some extent, every candidate must placate the people who will vote for her, but I guess what I am really getting at is whether or not an African American must be forced to do so in a different way when it comes to white America. While John McCain simply has to show up as a white guy for some people to vote for him, it would seem that for some people, Barack Obama's color forces him to prove something beyond what John McCain would ever be forced to prove. In other words, for some people, clearly not all and maybe not even the majority, Obama must prove to those blue-collared white voters that he is not the angry black man who has come to take their children's spots in colleges and whatnot. The same goes for the African American community as well because Barack Obama is faced with the kind of conundrum that Irami seemed to reveal in his earlier post. For some African Americans, becoming that "kind" of black man who tries to fit in with white America makes them insensitive to black issues.
My question really then is why that seems to be the prevailing attitude amongst some African Americans and white Americans, and I believe it's an important question because it speaks to our racial attitudes and biases in this country. Thus, the division I speak of is not merely amongst black and white, but also between what "kind" of black person we see and what "kind" of black person we would elect. And thats a question that I believe defines the racial divides within America.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The answer to that one again seems obvious -- Slavery and Jim-crow. Even before this countries inception, we had laws which allowed the systematic dehumanization of people of African decent. If you want to ask why race continues to divide us nearly a century and a half after emancipation and 40 years after the civil rights movement then there is something to debate.
Slavery is looming, but there was a war to wash away quite a few of the sins. I actually think it was Jim Crow and urban white flight that sealed the deal, and a civil rights movement that was started with a court decision and articulated with an Executive Order. The Supreme Court and the Executive branch aren't the most democratic of institutions, and with Nixon's very effective "Southern Strategy," Bush's timely rumor of McCain's black step child, and the neglect with which criminal justice is administered, American whites have proven time and time again that anytime they feel uncomfortable, they don't have a problem digging their heel into black necks, and this American government is organized to enable them to do so. I still think that American whites have Manifest Destiny sensibilities and had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, towards the appearance of decency. If they want to ease racial tension, whites should move back into the cities and send their kids to public schools, as a first step. Voting for Barack Obama is a cheap alternative.
posted
Okay, I live in the city and don't have kids. Do I get a pass, or do I still have to feel guilty? Does it help that there were two shootings within a mile of my house within the last week?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(I'm from Arizona, so I feel free to mock).
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
