Huh? I am pointing out that looking for such behaviors as demonstrated by Obama (the hand not on his heart during the anthem) does not equate to lack of character or good political judgement on his part. I am also making the point that those who look for this stuff need to get a life, even though you didn’t ask that.
What I don’t get (but it’s late and I’m tired) is just what I’m supposed to be “disputing”. I think that if someone deliberately ignores protocol to “make a point” or a statement, that does say something about them (good or bad, depending on the statement and the protocol)–I don’t see that applying to Obama. IOW, he wasn’t making a statement with his lack of HOH as some seem to think. So, I think we agree(?)
Completely irrelevant aside:
It makes me angry that a woman will not get into the White House in my lifetime–Hillary was our best shot (unless there’s a female Obama out there), but the trend is for Obama, and I do like his positions as well.
The lady in the coffee shop didn’t seem to grasp that smear tactics, generally speaking, are lies. Just listening to her explanation caused my brain to smooth out a little bit.
If the racism is so wide and so deep, how is Obama winning the primary race?
I mean, let’s accept that America is too racist to elect a black man. Doesn’t it say a lot about Hillary’s electability that she has lost to a black man? If Hill can’t win against someone who is handicapped by the prejudices you claim are so significant, then she is not the person the Dems should be looking to nominate. She had every advantage going into this race and she blew it.
It says more to me about the great divide in the Democratic electorate between Urban and Rural areas. It doesn’t really indicate to me that he could win the popular election.
Not a lot because she’s losing among non-representative portion of the electorate.
She’s doing worse than he is among people who are willing to call themselves Democrats (which leaves out 2/3rds of the country) and who are bothering with the primary/caucus system.
So, the losing doesn’t really tell us which of the two would do better with registered independents or registered Republicans in closed primary states - which is hugely important. It doesn’t tell us about the people who might choose to stay home rather than vote or who will actively vote against a candidate (I’m willing to bet there are people who won’t just not vote for a woman or an African American, but will do whatever to keep one, the other, or both groups out of office). It doesn’t tell about the people in the early primaries who didn’t vote or caucus (and are now kicking themselves, but who will vote during the national election). And it doesn’t tell me about who can keep enthusiasm up for the next 5 months (In my area, the Obama-philes have already stopped showing up. The initial spark has faded.)
The only thing it tells me is who democrats want as their candidate, and as we’ve seen for the past two election cycles, who democrats want as a candidate and who the country wants as a president are two entirely different things.
There’s a small, but non-zero probability that I might be appearing on television this summer actually singing the national anthem, WITHOUT MY HAND OVER MY HEART!!!
Am I going to have to go to Guantanamo? Please say I won’t have to go to Guantanamo.
It was without instrumental accompaniment, so I might be able to get off on a technicality, but I could really use some reassurance.
Good Lord. Stop making shit up. She said not one word about judging for herself. She said not one word about her husband winning. She said not one word about her pride being real. She said not one word about childish judgment. I find it increasingly hard to believe that you are arguing in good faith. If you are going to claim that someone said a particular thing, why not quote it, rather than inventing your own interpretation, ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to your theory, and trying to pass it off as fact?
[hijack]Would that also apply to foreigners?
and,
What’s the penalty for not doing it? An obligation with no more penalty than having Miss Manners look you down isn’t something I worry about much.
In Spain we don’t put our hand over our hearts for the Hymn, Pledge to the Flag or anything similar, so I’ve never done it for the American equivalents (plus, the PoA doesn’t apply to me, therefore in that case I consider it would be inappropiate to take it or to look as if I am taking it).[/hijack]
devilsknew, I can match your anecdote by pointing out that I know Democrats, Republicans and independents who’ve told me they would vote for Obama, but not for Clinton. I think you’re underestimating how much dislike–much of it utterly irrational–that there has been out there for Clinton since the 1990s.
As others have said, if the Democratic party pulls this, they can expect to lose and lose big. Do you think the college students who came out in record numbers would bother to vote after that? Do you think African Americans would continue to support a party that, in effect, spat in their faces? Do you think the independents and Republicans who support Obama would switch over to Clinton with nary a pause?
OK. So you’ve devolved into total non sequiters. Or non senses perhaps. At any rate, you’ve worn me down. It’s like talking to a random paragraph generator. Adios.
There’s no penalty for non-compliance; in this country, the First Amendment would make an attempt to create such a penalty impossible.
I offer the law citation only to show that there is an official standard. It’s one I learned as a Cub Scout, was reinforced as a Boy Scout, and which I use today as a K of C Fourth Degree parade participant.
Do you think it is plausible that Obama did not know of this standard? I certainly had never heard of it until this came up (or forgot it - I was a Boy Scout, so I probably learned it there). I seem to recall Obama first attempting to downplay this picture by claiming his grandfather taught him that the only requirement was to stand and remove your hat - that the hand-over-the-heart was for the Pledge only.
Based on your earlier post it would seem you would agree that if Obama didn’t know of this codification then his actions cannot be evaluated as a “statement” and thus have no bearing on his “American-ness” or patriotism. Is this correct?
Or is your only point that claiming that Obama is not “American enough” is not necessarily a racist sentiment and that the anthem picture is enough cover to make the claim without it being coded racism? Surely you would agree that at least some of the statements made in the OP’s video are clearly racist in nature.
Not even a picture where you’re standing next to two other people, and they placed their hands over their hearts a few seconds before the anthem began, and you did so a few seconds later, but a picture was taken in that interim? Or a picture where you had just finished sneezing and thus your hand was no longer over your heart for a second? Or some such?
Although you seem to agree that it’s not a big deal unless it was something that Obama was consciously and repeatedly doing, so it’s basically a nonissue.
I’m not seeing that from Contrapuntal’s arguments. You, on the other hand, appear to be uninterested in the fact that any meaning that words have is subject to influence from context.
True, but this is the inherent limitation of a primary system that based on the current setup. I don’t think there’s any reliable way the Dem primaries can inform us on the popularity of a candidate among Republicans; you have to use polls to get at that information.
One strategy the Dems could use is frontloading the primaries with swing states. The downside to that is that you end up alienating your base.
I am pointing out that looking for such behaviors as demonstrated by Obama (the hand not on his heart during the anthem) does not equate to lack of character or good political judgement on his part. I am also making the point that those who look for this stuff need to get a life, even though you didn’t ask that.