[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
Not that it’s the type of argument I would make for supporting a presidential candidate, but insofar as it lays out the obvious and blatant superiority of Obama’s character, I agree with it 100%. Ms. Clinton has lived a life of prosperity (not the word I’m looking for, but I’m blanking out, sorry) and has done little with it except to alienate people on all points of the political spectrum. Mr. Obama didn’t exactly grow up in the slums either, but he’s handled his new role on the world stage with professionalism and a level head so far (quite the opposite of Hillary’s campaign tactics, at least recently), he’s charming (also quite the opposite of Mrs. Clinton, before and throughout this campaign), and he isn’t a shrill, shrieking bitch, which is always good for a few points in my book.
Did you read my post? I said that there is no way to state that he’s benefited from race as a novelty act without being rightfully accused of racism because he, himself, is not a novelty act. Not because the accusation is racist on its face–it isn’t. If you were to argue that a black man caught breaks in, say, basketball, music, dance, or admission to a historically black university, then you might have a point, on a case-by-case basis. And the accusation would not, in and of itself, be racist. But it’s simply absurd to believe, much less argue, that Mr. Obama actually has a leg up on the presidential campaign because he’s black. How many even vaguely successful black presidential candidates have we had? How many successful black politicians, in general? Oh, sure, you could name a few fistfuls of current senators, and a lot of mayors of predominantly black cities and towns, but very few elections (and mostly local elections, at that) have ever favored black candidates, or will for a long time. Not to mention that–and this is the third time this has been mentioned in this thread, at least–black voters overwhelmingly supported Ms. Clinton before she showed her true colors as a shrill, shrieking beast. I ask you again: has Mr. Obama gotten darker since that time, or has something else changed that would win him the black vote?
“But Hostile,” you might be asking at this point, “isn’t it fair to say that the stereotypical latte-sipping, big-city-on-the-ocean, middle-class white men might be voting for Mr. Obama out of some sense of racial justice?” I guess it’s fair, but consider that the alternative is voting for the first female president in history, which should be equally appealing to suave any hypothetical case of White Man’s Guilt among the yuppie crowd.
It is. Of course, “harder for him because he’s black” is a pretty vague paraphrase job. Harder than running for the presidency as a black man in the 1980s? No. Harder than doing it in the 1950s? Certainly not. Harder than running as a white man today? Absolutely. Harder than running as a white woman today? Debatable. It depends on how many bigots there are who despise women vs. how many who despise black people, and I’m not tuned in enough to the bigot culture to tell you. But it’s a hard enough question to get a good grasp on that it’s not a racist thing to say. In order to be racist, IMO, it would have to be demonstrably false on its face.
Also, consider that we, the public, have seen Barack Obama rise as an amiable and charismatic Senator and a professional and charming Presidential candidate. What we haven’t seen is his path to get there. Sure, it’s probably been easier for him than it would be for just about any other black man in America, because of the unique set of circumstances (not the least of which is timing, I’ll grant), but it’s still not at all an easy path from being born black to being considered a serious candidate for the Presidency. Which we know because nobody has ever done it before and few people have even considered it. If it were so easy to win a Democratic nomination as a black novelty act, wouldn’t there be 15 black candidates in every Democratic race trying to capitalize on that?
“Cute” isn’t the word I’d use. Who “set up” anything? If by “set up”, you’re referring to Mr. Obama’s conscious effort to maintain a high level of professionalism and put forth an appealing vision of America’s future, in contrast to Mrs. Clinton’s shrieking-hill-beast act and her apparently reactionary platform (he’s got a UHC plan? OK, I’ve got a UHC plan too, but mine has the added bonus of being unaffordable!), then yes, that situation has most certainly been “set up”. Otherwise, I would ask exactly which devious syndicate has “set up” these “things”.
If you’re seriously comparing Barack Obama to George W. Bush, I would ask which Democratic candidate is a warmonger who seems to scream hypocritical statements daily and runs on a national security platform. And by the way, if you didn’t see the racial allusion in Mrs. Clinton’s “who do you feel safe with at 3 AM?” ad, you may well be blind.
Ah, yes. We have a nation of people who can’t afford healthcare, so let’s…force them to buy healthcare, on penalty of law? In what universe does that make sense? Maybe in a universe where everyone can afford healthcare, but most people elect not to spend their money on it because they prefer being sick. As long as we’re making comparisons to GWB (remember, you opened up this door, not me), which candidate wants to invade Americans’ privacy to tell them where to spend their money? Maybe a lot of Americans are uninsured because after rent and the fuel they need to get to work, they just don’t have the money for it, and neither of their two or three part-time jobs offers health benefits. I suppose you’re right, though: those families would be better off living on the street.
Warmongery, you mean. Since we’re comparing Presidential candidates to GWB, which one voted to send us to Iraq?
All of whom are no doubt embarrassed by same acquaintance, as they watch her turn more GWB-like every day.
I will grant you that Mrs. Clinton has undergone a legendary litany of fallacious attacks for the duration of her political career. Lifetime? Doubtful. The evidence that her platform is racist is mounting, though. That’s been covered plenty in this thread, so I won’t go over it again here.
Oh, sure, the economy looked just dandy in 2000. But we all know how that worked out, don’t we? For those of us who skipped the 1930s in their American History class and have been living under a rock for the entirety of this decade, I remind you that “laissez-faire” might as well be French for “economic depression”. Are you seriously suggesting that we need to put the man responsible for NAFTA back in the White House?
As long as we’re comparing candidate’s spouses–and, remember, this is your game, not mine–which candidate’s spouse is particularly fond of covert war operations, the Patriot Act, destructive free trade policy, legendary hypocrisy and blatant lying? Talk about another 8 years of Bush!
[/QUOTE]
Clinton years = longest period of sustained economic growth. “It’s the economy, stupid” will come into play again. Universal healthcare reduces cost because the burden is shared. Obama’s plan also would make everyone pay but he’d have to make sick folks at the emergency room pay “back premiums” which is absurd. Either way you end up with everyone having to pay but HRC’s plan makes more sense to avoid others from gaming the system like you can with Obama’s. Foreign leaders with whom HRC has been acquainted all these years like her less everyday? Cite? The vote was to authorize use of war, that’s already been covered so I won’t repeat it here. Obama’s vote on authorizing funds for the war has been identical to HRC’s. In fact, his voting record on Iraq is the same as hers and to suggest otherwise is a fairytale. NAFTA was good. It had problems which will now be renegotiated. That’s what one is supposed to do is tweak things to make them better not rush to the opposite extreme like Obama’s lefty, protectionist approach.
I did see the 3am ad and I think it’s appropriate to remind folks of how serious the choice is for president. Fear is not bad. It is useful and appropriate. Hysteria is what’s dangerous whether it’s hysterical fear or hysterical excitement. I would suggest her ad was sober. His rallies are full of feel-good, empty hysteria. A little known politician rising to power on a wave of hysteria might sound like a good thing to you but I’d suggest it doesn’t have a good track record in history.
I’m glad you’ve switched gears and decided it’s not racist to state that he’s benefited from his race as a novelty act.
You don’t agree that that is the case, which is fine, but it’s not racist to assert it.
And to suggest that it is racist to assert it, as has been done, is itself racist. Which was Ferraro’s subsequent point. Slandering her for pointing that out is racist.
