So, race would be the key factor.
Oh, hang on, no it wouldn’t. The person’s politics would be the key factor.
Which is it?
As someone said, upthread, that’s an intelligent staking out of a position as opposed to just throwing around loaded terms and hoping everyone will figure out what you meant. One has to wonder if you took a White version of Obama, would he be a political celebrity? Someone who espoused the same views and was equally “articulate”. But then, much the same can be said about Bush (except the “articulate” part 
)-- he was pretty much a nobody w/o his Daddy’s name. Still, I have no doubt that Obama would make a better president that Bush has. That’s life, though. It ain’t fair, and neither is politics. You can’t blame Obama for grabbing at the brass ring when it gets handed to him on a silver platter, so to speak.
And why shouldn’t he go for the gold? 
Oh, I would say that in casting about to see which leftie they (the airhead contingent I spoke of before) were going to support, race would be the key factor.
Which hair would you like to split next?
Which is why so many white airheads voted for Al Sharpton, right?
But the question of qualifications is, in my mind at least, a separate issue from whether he is a “Halfrican Hamerican.”
Personally, i happen to find all the adulation being heaped on Obama by the media and his supporters to be premature and rather unbecoming. He certainly has a bunch of political positions that i agree with, and i respect his intelligence and his apparent commitment to certain ideals and positions, but i certainly wouldn’t vote for him just because he was black, or even primarily because he was black. And i’d want to hear a lot more specific proposals before deciding whether to vote for him for President.
The problem is that i’m also not convinced that pointing out his lack of previous governing experience constitutes a compelling argument against him as a presidential candidate. As others have pointed out, George Bush had plenty of experience as Governor of Texas, and he still managed to fuck the country up, but good.
In historical terms, Obama’s political history, or lack of it, seems to weigh against him. In the post-war period, especially since the 1970s, the road to president seems to have been a lot easier to take for state Governors than for US Senators. Whether this is an aberration/coincidence, or whether the American people actually feel that Governors make better Presidents, i’m not sure.
The issue, as i’ve been trying to explain, and as you’re either too stupid or too obtuse to acknowledge, is that the reasonableness of such comments rests, to a considerable extent, on whether they are made as part of a rational and logical and good-faith argument, or whether they are just tossed out there as epithets.
Also, Dickerson never says that Obama is “not black enough.” That’s a disingenuous reading of her argument. What she says, in fact, is that he is not “black” at all, because she reserves the term “black” for Americans descended from African slaves. She said, for example, in her interview on The Colbert Report:
She goes on to say, in that same interview:
Again, do you really think this is the same thing as what Rush was saying? Do you really think the level of thought and analysis, the level of genuine concern for the nuances of the issue, animate Dickerson and Limbaugh?
Personally, while i agree with Dickerson that there are probably some important historical and cultural differences—or at least differences of perspective—between someone like Obama and some who is descended from slaves brought to America, i’m not sure that restricting the use of the term “black” is the way to make the point. I don’t concede to Dickerson, and more than i concede to Limbaugh, sole authority in determining who is and is not black.
Well, i’m not really interested in the whole question of Kerry’s qualifications, because i never liked him much, and had about five candidates whom i would have preferred.
One illuminating thing, however, is that some people seem to see Kerry’s alleged lack of qualifications are more troublesome than Bush’s abject failure. Personally, i’d go with the untried-but-promising candidate over the tried-and-failed President, any day.
No, it’s not. Just because you don’t consider his intellectual and career attainments relevant doesn’t mean that they aren’t.
First, i can’t believe you continue to use H-H unironically.
Second, you are failing to distinguish between Obama, on the one hand, and the media hubbub on the other. Just because the media is making such a case of the issue of Obama’s skin color doesn’t mean that he himself thinks that this is his main attribute. As far as i can tell, he’s hoping that his policies and his work in the Senate and his intelligence and his political acumen will get people to vote for him. I don’t doubt that he knows that his race is significant to some people, nor do i doubt that we will try to get some political mileage out of it, but to assert that this is all he’s got going for him strikes me as profoundly ignorant on your part.
You packed that man with enough straw yet?
Who here has said that his race is irrelevant? The very fact that we’re spending so much time debating it, and that you are happy to use race-baiting terms to describe him, make clear that his race is, and will continue to be, relevant to his political career.
Again, just because you refuse to consider his pre-Senate career doesn’t mean he has nothing to recommend him.
See, there’s a kernel of an important debate here. Exactly what do we, as a nation, expect from someone who wants to be President? What sort of job experience really qualifies someone to be “Leader of the Free World”? Is a Governor a better candidate than a Senator? Is a lawyer a better candidate than a business executive? Is lots of previous government experience good, or is it better is the candidate brings as little such baggage as possible to the White House?
Had you actually made a genuine effort to address these issues in a substantial way, rather than popping off with racial slurs, you might have some credibility.
We’ve got many months until the election. But if Obama is the Democratic nominee, I’ll vote for him because he’s not a Republican.
SA, I’m not accusing you of listening to Rush at all- my phrasing left something to be desired.
I believe that your view of the “Halfrican-American” meme is as you described it. I don’t give Rush or his audience that much credit.
Wow. You’re actually *proud *of that position?
Why, how elitist and Bush-like of you.
Shodan, the apparent racist who called Sen. Obama “Halfrican-Hamerican,” has often had some intelligent things to say, and from an underrepresented perspective. But until Shodan, the apparent racist who called Sen. Obama “Halfrican-Hamerican,” either clarifies why he indulged in that usage or publicly apologizes for it, I believe it is only fair to add the informative clause in opposition whenever I refer to Shodan, the apparent racist who called Sen. Obama “Halfrican-Hamerican.”
I won’t stalk Shodan, the apparent racist who called Sen. Obama “Halfrican-Hamerican,” but if I need to quote him in a thread in which we are both involved, I believe it’s only appropriate to refer to him as Shodan, the apparent racist who called Sen. Obama “Halfrican-Hamerican.”
Perhaps if Shodan, the apparent racist who called Sen. Obama “Halfrican-Hamerican,” hears that epithet enough times, he may realize why it might be offensive to Sen. Obama or to people who support him to hear him referred to in that way by Shodan, the apparent racist who called Sen. Obama “Halfrican-Hamerican.”
Well, for the third time, if anyone would care to actually read the posts made by Shodan the apparent racist instead of ignoring everything in them except the Halfrican-Hamerican part, they might see why I used the term.
This is ridiculous.
Regards,
Shodan
I read all your posts, and responded to, i think, pretty much all the issues. You might not agree with my arguments, but don’t pretend that i’m focusing on that one comment to the exclusion of everything else.
Could someone explain why “Halfrican-Hamerican” is intrinsically racist? Is it because it’s supposed to be humorous but you don’t find it funny? Is it because we are forbidden to alter “African-American” (which used to be “Afro-American”) in any way? Is it because it was used by someone with whom you disagree, or someone you don’t respect? I ask in the possibly naive hope of getting a sincere answer to a sincere question.
Honest question: have you ever voted for a Democratic presidential candidate?
Everyone likes to think they give both candidates a fair uncritical evaluation, but the reality is that we tend to find excuses to go with the party that aligns more closely with our natural ideology, regardless of how good or bad the candidate is objectively. You strike me as fairly conservative, so I’d be pretty surprised if you’d ever gone with a Democrat over a Republican based on the strength of their ideas and record.
This is an inaccurate characterization of my post, even the first one in the thread. I expect better from you, and usually find it.
Look - I realize the Usual Suspects are going to ignore everything I post in favor of the pretence that the point of the post was to call Obama an Halfrican-Hamerican. It’s one way for them to change the subject away from his lack of qualifications. Of course they are going to react to any criticism of him by screaming racism - a genuine discussion of what kind of national experience qualifies someone for President is the last thing they want in Obama’s case.
But there’s too damn many knee-jerk, yellow dog Democrats on this board, and they scream too loud. Don’t join them, OK?
Actually, you pretty much are. Unsurprisingly.
Come on - you post shit like this -
and thus pretend that I didn’t talk about anything else - like I didn’t mention Hilary, or Obama’s lack of qualifications in my first post to the thread, and repeated it several times, and explained it so that someone who had some actual desire to understand would at least acknowledge its presence. But that does not seem to be what you are seeking.
You and the rest see a chance to go off on a rant about racism, because someone fails to genuflect in the presence of the latest Democratic savior and nuckle his forelock to one of the older liberal sacred cows. Boo hoo.
Like I said, Obama has nothing else to bank on.
Regards,
Shodan
Fair enough. I’m not looking to pillory you, so much as I’m seeking an explantion as to why you, of all people, would think the epithet justified. Not to be a smart-ass, but if there’s one post (or perhaps two or three) that you think best make your case for using it, I’d be grateful for a link. Thanks.
I can’t read your post in any other way except that you haven’t read anything I posted in this thread except the Halfrican Hamerican phrase.
No offense back, Poly, but I really don’t think it is fair to ask me to link to things you didn’t read the first time.
Regards,
Shodan
Perhaps you could remind us all what the qualifications are to be PotUS?
CMC fnord!
(Just a little help, there ALL here)
Frankly, I find Shodan’s assertion that Obama’s only qualification is that he is black to be far more staggeringly offensive than any mere stupid epithet could possibly be. As ywtf points out, it’s the assumption behind that retarded appelation that is the problem. Yeah, sure; his only qualification is that he’s black. That explains why all those other black folk have positively rocketed towards primary contention for the highest office in the nation. After all, all they’ve got to have is sufficient melanin, and all those liberal and black idiots will vote for them, right? I mean, it’s always worked that way. Look at all those black Presidents we’ve had.
What?