His camp didn’t screech racism? What do you suppose his spiritual advisor at the time would say?
Of course Obama is going to say it’s not racism because that’s the play. He knows nobody wants to hear someone whining about race.
He then went on a show Sunday and said “…if you’re trying to make a fast track to the White House, I don’t think you’d choose to be an African-American named Barack Obama”…thereby stating that racism was a factor that makes it harder for him. Poor guy. With a delegate and popular vote lead. Life must be tough.
But of course he always tries to have it both ways. That’s fine. It’ll be seen through.
So while you’re accusing Obama of trying to have it both ways this guy is saying Ferraro is guilty of doing that. Funny huh?
IMO Ferraro’s comments were racist but I notice this writer says Obama’s camp didn’t say that. Can you correct him? It’s not important anyway. Racism exists within society and it doesn’t always need to be dipped in hate drenched speech. Obama got it right when he said her comments were patently absurd. Both candidates could be described as a novelty act if someone was stupid enough to go there. Evidently Ferraro was. If Hillary had been able to laugh off the Power comment as no big deal and a simple momentary human error in judgment then she could have done the same with Ferraro without looking like a hypocrite. As you said, you can’t have it both ways.
The worse part is that the press latches on to this unimportant crap and blows it out of proportion. These comments are not the serious issues that should be discussed.
9th Floor - are you an Obama supporter or a dissenter? This is America so like a superdelegate you can remain uncommitted, but in a debate forum, uncommitted doen’t help your arguments.
There isn’t one. It is race-baiting. Period. That’s what it is.
That’s reality, buddy. The fact, which has been clearly laid out at least once in this thread, is that the black vote overwhelmingly favored Ms. Clinton before she became the Shrieking Hill Beast. Has Mr. Obama gotten darker since then? I’m pretty sure he hasn’t. And anyway, if it were a valid point, then this would be a much more valid point, considering that Hillary seems not to have a shred of professionalism or intellectual honesty in her body: “Hillary’s presidential campaign is little more than a novelty act based on her gender.” Since at this point her platform seems mainly to be “Look how white I am! Look! I’m female! And I’m so WHITE!”, I don’t really see why anyone would vote for her other than because of her race or gender. It can’t be from her vision of America’s future, since AFAICT she doesn’t have one, or at least isn’t very enthusiastic about sharing it. In fact, with all the negative identity going on (“I’m not a novelty act! I’m not a racist! I’m not as bad as this guy!
I’m not as bad as that guy!”), I think at this point she might qualify for a role in the Canadian government.
Yes. Granted, I’m not a Democrat, so I haven’t been watching every debate or anything, but so far I’ve seen very few critiques of Obama that called his ability into question based on his race or were seriously taken as racist. This anti-white backlash theory is nothing more than a product of Ms. Ferraro’s deranged mind.
I see. Hillary is trying to get elected by being white (so you agree with Wright) and Ferraro who has fought for civil rights for 40 years is deranged.
You’ve said there is no way to state that he’s benefited from race as a novelty act without being rightfully accused of racism.
And that’s precisely the type of racist jujitsu that I find contemptible about the Obama campaign.
Conversely, Obama said on a Sunday show that its harder for him because he’s black. So that’s okay.
When things are set up to where a valid point cannot be made but the converse can be said by the other side on a racial premise, its real cute.
Not cute enough to last though. We already had 8 years of deflection and double standards.
The fact that you think Hillary is running on being white says more about your racial views than anything else; if you think there are no other reasons to vote for her I would direct you to her universal mandatory healthcare plan, foreign policy experience and personal acquaintance with world leaders, and her lifetime of experience fighting and surviving attacks as stupid as one that suggest shes running as a white racist. Oh, and having the most successful Democratic president in recent times who presided over the largest growth in the economy, balanced the budget, and ended with a surplus kinda helps too. Pretty sure that’s more helpful to the sitting prez than what Michelle can offer her spouse as sitting prez. (though I guess if he was prez. shed be proud of her country for the 2nd time in her adult life).
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!
Worse yet, the one who let the Lobbyists buy our government into repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, which was the catalyst to this entire financial industry nightmare we’re in right now.
Yeah, that’s who I want back in the White House, the one candidate who’s taken more Lobbyist money than any other competitor in this race.
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.
Sure, it’s my game to compare them and there’s no shame in my game on that: I stand by the assertion that Bill Clinton would be a more valuable adviser to a sitting President than Michelle Obama would! LOL
If that’s not obvious to any Democrat then the Kool Aid, er…I mean Haterade, must really be delicious.
This really struck me. Obama’s and Clinton’s voting records on free trade are, incidentally, identical.
Your empty hysteria is another man’s hope and sincerity. Your sobriety is another man’s fear-mongering. This commercial seems to have resonated with you because you already believe the message. Unsurprisingly, the inverse is also true for others. This criticism is as such completely unconvincing.
Context is everything. I am unconvinced that he is benefitted from race more than, say, he has benefitted from being intelligent. Likewise with Hillary: has she benefitted more from being female than intelligent? I don’t know, I don’t care, and I think both are complete non-starters.
This is insidious. What Ferraro pointed out was incredibly banal and obvious, so obvious that one has to wonder why she pointed it out at all. The statement itself is certainly not “racist”, but her naked appeal to the racism of her listeners, especially those who perceive themselves as the victims of affirmative action, is palpable. Her spirited defense of her remarks is as transparent as the remarks themselves.
Well, it’s clearly your view that her attempt to appeal to racism is obvious. She was speaking on something else and asked why she thinks Obama has gotten so popular after she’d finished speaking and she answered honestly and accurately (in my view, accurately). I don’t believe it was a naked appeal to racism of listeners and further I don’t think such racist listeners would need any nudging from Ferraro to be racist against Obama anyway. I don’t agree that it was race baiting, but that’s just one man’s view. What’s insidious, IMO, is to cry wolf on racism. It’s also dangerous and an attempt to induce racial hysteria.
Also, true enough on the 3am ad. Obama’s hope and sincerity speeches are empty hysteria to me, true enough. And there’s the divide of the electorate right there. The ad obviously worked. She won Ohio.
Even Bill Clinton’s actual role in the economy boom is debatable. Hillary’s even moreso. Here you’re either arguing that Hillary had a lot more to do with the success of the Clinton administration than anyone has admitted, or that electing Hillary is four more years of Bill which is a little demeaning to Hillary.
That’s funny. I was thinking the same thing about your argument. Obama voted to fund the troops that needed the funds. Hillary helped push through the very reason that they so desperately needed the funds.
Please. The ad was little more than fearmongering of the republican sort. Not to mention that Hillary’s own battle tested experience is exaggerated at best.
Ah yes. The Obama’s an empty suit attack resurfaces. It’s an easy one to make as it only is reliant on the opinions of the person stating it. I’d like to know what parts of Obama’s rallies you find to be “feel-good, empty hysteria.”
How does that work? Is the assumption of racism in another enough to make one a racist? This also needs further explanation. What makes one racist and the other not?
I understand. I am happy to agree to disagree, since this is not something that can be proven one way or another.
I do disagree though that voters do not need nudging to be racist. The norm against racism grows stronger and stronger, so encouraging people to act on these impulses is simply more difficult now than it was one decade ago, let along four or five.
I suspect you are being facetious here. But in case you aren’t, I would submit that HRC would have won Ohio by better margins if she had not run such a retarded ad.
“Please” is the extent of your response? Very well. I don’t believe it was inappropriate. And it worked. And whatever the level of her foreign policy experience, it’s GREATER than HIS. Which is, of course, the comparison.
Obama could have voted not to fund the war if he was so principled about it like others that were opposed to the war did. But he played the middle. Like everyone else. If HRC had been POTUS, we wouldn’t have gone to war. That ground’s been covered ad nauseum. Authorizations to use force are not a declaration of war.
(And, by the way, “fearmongering of the Republican sort” is what Obama’s camp tried to do to Hillary’s healthcare plan in their flyers; in fact, those attacks were verbatim from the infamous Republican attack ads of those years which all Democrats decried. Until Obama of course came along and decided to mimic them.)
What’s “feel-good, empty hysteria”? His whole shtick. Channeling MLK, benefiting from white liberal guilt and racial pride, and saying one thing on the trail and finding out his people are saying the opposite in interviews and to other countries elsewhere. Worse than empty, contradictory and actual lies.
Oh, Bill gets no credit for the economy? But he does get credit for the way it was left in 2000, as you’ve stated? And you imply OTHERS wanting it both ways? LOL That’s rich. Oh, and yes haters always call them “Billary” because it’s common knowledge they were practically co-presidents (to the chagrin of Gore). Is that something that needs “admitting” to you? You can find it demeaning to Hillary if you’d like, she’s been demeaned enough one more instance won’t hurt. I like that a former, successful POTUS will be there. Yes, I think that’s a good thing. I think that’s obvious. Apparently it isn’t to you. Oh well.
