[QUOTE=Hippy Hollow]
However, I have noticed Obama lifting lines from Malcolm X referring to White people’s efforts to pull a fast one on Black people. You remember the lines made famous by Denzel Washington in the movie… “bamboozle,” “hoodwink.” I don’t know if White people catch this but I certainly caught that… and I don’t recall him talking this way in White or mixed groups.
[/QUOTE]
You speak in the vernacular of your audience. Not much different than the phony accents Hillary comes up with depending on her location.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
You speak in the vernacular of your audience. Not much different than the phony accents Hillary comes up with depending on her location.
[/QUOTE]
And, frankly, I was not and still am not aware that “bamboozle” and “hoodwink” were “black” words. I’ve heard them in a race-neutral context my entire life. I’ve USED them in a race-neutral context (as a white person) my entire life. The idea that they are somehow uniquely connected to Malcolm X is one that I’ve never even heard before people started criticizing Obama for using them.
Anyway, I liked Olbermann’s rant. I thought he did a good job on focusing on the words of Ferraro, and the meanings behind them, while at the same time being as fair as he could, and not attacking Sen. Clinton personally,
[/QUOTE]
Yes, that struck me as well. Olbermann took her to the woodshed for the tactics but gave her a graceful out to walk away from them.
I rarely watch him, other than in clips like this, but it seemed to me he was distinctly more emotionally wrought up than he’s been when he’s taken Bush to task. Anyone else think so?
[QUOTE=Hippy Hollow]
I thought Obama had a pretty good response at his presser in response to Ferraro’s clumsily presented “commentary.” However, there is another point that for some reason isn’t addressed, and that’s the Obama campaign’s use of race as a wedge issue when it works to their advantage. Jesse Jackson, Jr. famously threatened Black superdelegates with promises of challenges to their presumably “safe” seats. There was the incident of the “race memo” that the Obama campaign assembled with the “fairy tale” comment from Bill Clinton taken out of context. It’s hard to imagine any other Black candidate having these issues come to the fore and not pay a significant political price.
[/quote]
Can you provide some citage for the Jackson incident, Hippy? I also wish you would elaborate on the sentence I put in bold, because to my eye it contradicts the idea that it’s Obama’s race that has helped him beat Hillary. If he’s able to get away with stuff other black candidates can not, that tells me that it’s not his race that’s giving him a leg up. It’s his squeaky clean image, his general likability, and his ability to advocate convincingly for mainstream interests without acting like he’d sell black folks down the river at a minute’s notice.
The problem with Hillary’s campaign is that she and others are simply making it way too easy for people to paint them as race exploiters. The Jesse Jackson comment by Bill, the Kenyan garb pic sent to Drudge, Ferraro’s crazy statements, the Latino leader who said Obama’s problem is that he is black, the general attitude that the only important states in the race are the ones that just so happen to have large populations of folks that aren’t too keen on black people, the little reminders here and there that some people won’t want to vote for Obama because he’s black…If Hillary and them wouldn’t provide all this ammo, no one would have anything to shoot at them.
And the thing is, Obama’s campaign could just as easily fall into the same trap gender-wise, but they really haven’t because they are more savvy, they know they don’t need to appeal to sexists to win, and/or the people aligned with Obama just aren’t all that gender-fixated to begin with . The worse thing his campaigners have done is called Hillary “a monster”, which is quite juvenile yes, but even in spite of that, it’s gender-neutrality keeps him immune from charges of sexist infilitration. Can Hillary say the same? No, because her people aren’t as smart and organized.
Are you bothered when Hillary does the same kind of thing? I remember when she was talking to some black audience and started comparing the government to a plantation. Let’s agree that both Clinton and Obama will say and do certain things to connect to their audiences. But I will say that I just don’t see what’s so wrong with using the same words that Malcolm X did to describe a certain problem. It’s no different than him using Kennedy-esque language (“Ask not…”) when speaking to crowds in Massachusets.
[QUOTE=jayjay]
The idea that they are somehow uniquely connected to Malcolm X is one that I’ve never even heard before people started criticizing Obama for using them.
[/QUOTE]
That goes for me too.
Doesn’t Hillary have a tendency to pick up a Southern accent when she’s talking to Southerners? This sounds like something politicians do, not Obama trying to have it both ways on race.
And now I think I’m onto something. Look at this picture of Obama and now look at this picture here. It’s obvious that Obama is actually a secret alien from beyond the moon! We’re through the looking glass here people!
Obama supporter checking in just to say that when I heard Barack use “bamboozled” I instantly thought of the Spike Lee movie of the same name. Not sure if that means it is racially charged or not, but it obviously can be.
First we have some NOW chippie telling me I’m obligated as a Feminist and a Woman to vote for Hillary because she has a twat. Sorry. I thought the whole idea of feminism was that it isn’t supposed to be relevant if she has a twat or not. Boys vs. Girls went out for mature people - much less people in positions of supposed power running NOW chapters - on the fourth grade playground. I’ll cast my vote for the best person without taking gender into account, because that’s what feminism is to me.
Then we have Ferraro saying that Obama is getting some sort of extra boost for being Black - like Hillary hasn’t had nearly every liberal women’s organization in the U.S. trying to get an extra boost for her due to her rack. She’d take that advantage if she were getting it. There are a lot more women out there then their are African Americans. But, for some reason, the ‘women need to vote for women’ message isn’t resonating - perhaps because the rest of us DID leave fourth grade behind us.
Either we, as individuals, judge individuals based on their merits - and not on their gender or race - or we are just as guilty of racism and sexism as those we criticize for being racist and sexist. The only way to become a society that respects individuals as individuals is to cut this rhetoric - one person at a time - by refusing to participate in it.
If you factor in Obama’s Illinois Legislative experience and legal background, you’ve got a similar level of gravitas.
[/QUOTE]
If by gravitas you mean “Seriousness in bearing or manner; dignity” . Or perhaps you mean “Importance, presence, influence” Nope. Not even close. Obama has substantially more gravitas.
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
And so Geraldine Ferraro departs, having slammed down both the race card and the victim card, hoping that her appeal to the part of Pennsylvania that rests below the Mason-Dixon line bears fruit, and anticipating the reward of a plum job in a future Clinton Administration.
[/QUOTE]
I have no dog in this fight. I haven’t voted for the presidential candidate of either major party since '80 and never will again. (Don’t ask unless you want to read a long rant.) So the Democratic contest is interesting to me only as a horse race, if you’ll forgive the mixed metaphor.
But I can’t help wondering, and a lot of other folks are wondering:
What happens if Obama gets the popular vote but Hilary snatches the nomination away from him with some kind of back room skuldiggery?
Will the convention be another melt down like Chicago in '68?
Will Obama, or perhaps Jackson, consider a third party run as a kind of protest?
Will disillusioned and cynical black voters just stay home on election day? Or will they figure they’d better vote for the Dems because there’s no where else to go?
Could there actually be widespread rioting? Yeah, I know that sounds racist, and it might even be racist, but I’m sure a lot of other white folks are thinking the same thing.
I can’t imagine it as being anything other than sheer disaster for the Dems, and the Pubs must be licking their chops at the prospect. But I can’t imagine it would be good for the country in any way.
[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
Could there actually be widespread rioting? Yeah, I know that sounds racist, and it might even be racist, but I’m sure a lot of other white folks are thinking the same thing.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think it is racist, since I don’t think it would be only or even mostly African-Americans rioting if that happens. There are a LOT of passionate WHITE Obama supporters who feel that Clinton is doing her level-best to steal a nomination that her campaign tactics so far prove she does not deserve.
[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
But I can’t help wondering, and a lot of other folks are wondering:
What happens if Obama gets the popular vote but Hilary snatches the nomination away from him with some kind of back room skuldiggery?
Will Obama, or perhaps Jackson, consider a third party run as a kind of protest?
[/QUOTE]
Given that Obama would be the probable Democratic front-runner for taking on McCain in 2012 (or a Republican to be determined in 2016), I doubt he’d throw that position away for a 3rd-party protest run.
[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
Could there actually be widespread rioting? Yeah, I know that sounds racist, and it might even be racist, but I’m sure a lot of other white folks are thinking the same thing.
[/QUOTE]
There should be rioting if the nomination is stolen. Having the party bosses overturn the popular vote and the pledged delegates isn’t something the people should stand for.
Yeah, there is no doubt in my mind that Geraldine was used as a dube by the clinton administration… they put her up to this. And being a strong hillary supporter, having nothing political to lose, she took the bullet. She raised the question of race again…
You’ll see this happen often during this election. Hillary is completely desperate and she’ll use anything she can including using the race card. She’s shitting her pants right now because of all the Spitzer news - there are so many reminders of her “standing by her man” as well as the rest of the Slick Willie scandal. Not to mention how Spitzer was a superdelagate for her and how she was actually considering Spitzer to run as her veep.
Hillary is desperate right now… this was a clear-cut clinton tactic.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
However, your charge that I pulled the 20% out of my ass is just not true. It was there right in front of you and everyone else understands where that number comes from.
I’ll try and make it a simple as I can just for you. I used the conservative figure of 70% for Obama’s black vote. (Its actually much higher). And I used the conservative figure of 50% for Obama’s non black vote.(Its actually a little lower)
What’s 70 minus 20?
Its 50.
You shouldn’t need a cite to figure that out.
So if 20% of the black vote for Obama went to Hillary, the blacks would be in line with the rest of the democratic vote.
[/QUOTE]
You’re right. It’s not the numbers that came out of your ass. And sincerely, thank you for explaining the math. It was simple.
Your full of shit and you shouldn’t be talking that way about an elder statesperson of your party. She deserves respect. Moreover, Ferarro is dead on.
That fact plain and simple as it is, is that without the black vote,** Hillary would be leading Obama in the popular vote by a margin greater than Obama now enjoys**. If I were black I’d vote for Obama as well, and 13% of the popular vote breaking at a minimum of 70% for Obama makes a huge difference in the outcome of the race. Yes he’s lucky to be a black man, because if he wasn’t, those black votes of his would have been hers.
[/QUOTE]
