I'll be honest.
As much as i'd like to think it really wasn't true,
I'm pretty sure that if Obama was white, he would just be viewed as another politician that made a lot more promises than he ever could or would keep. Beyond that, he would get a bunch of crap for being inexperienced. AND, there is no way in hell he would ever have come close to beating Clinton or Edwards.
Obviously we will never know, sense he is clearly not white,
but it's just something i find interesting to speculate on.
And don't misread this, i'm not saying people are only voting for him because he is black, or that they even know when they are voting that him being black is affecting their decision.
But this whole "change" thing, and his "not a washington insider" thing ... imho, it only goes over because of the guys skin color.
Are you serious? Are you listening to yourself?
He is only at where he is at because he is black......?
He is only beating Clinton because he is black.....?
I know you said that is not what you are saying but sorry that is what you just said...... and that last comment about the only reason people "buy" or believe his change message is because of his skin color... well honestly that comment just crosses the line.
These comments you are making speak more about you and your beliefs than they speak about society... sorry
He is only at where he is at because he is black......?
He is only beating Clinton because he is black.....?
I know you said that is not what you are saying but sorry that is what you just said...... and that last comment about the only reason people "buy" or believe his change message is because of his skin color... well honestly that comment just crosses the line.
These comments you are making speak more about you and your beliefs than they speak about society... sorry
BTW, you say that he is not getting votes because he is black, but then read this guys post, from like two above you:
looking at this from a native/white female pt of view, i voted for Obama because he seems to be about his buisness-changing politics in dc, understanding what it means to work to better yourself, understands adversity, seems honest and seems to have a more mature-controled persona + he says he will talk with contentious nations (how else are we going to get along?) bombs sure aren't helping.from a racial stand point all i can say is W>M>M> has ruled here for over 200 yrs and where are we? people of colors may have more compassion for poverty, suffering, injustice, a better hope for fairness? we have walked the walk.I wasn't crazy about hil from the start sensorship issues? then she started bitchin, crying(that's an embarressment to any woman trying to do a professional job + manipulative) then there was that crack about cleaning closets? who is she kidding? she's had house help almost forever.. a lawyer-governor's wife-first lady. lets not kid ourselves she isn't comon folk. then it got to be hil the menapausal maniac Who will answer the phone at 3 am? jeckle or hide? and don't say i'm sexist cause i'm a fem, she clearly needs a patch or something cause she isn't in control of her emotions or she is the most cuniving bitch i've ever seen. and poor ralph i just couldn't chance another 4 rep. years.
Does that not read as, "i'm voting for obama because he is BLACK", to you?
I don't know if you think you are quoting me or what, but i never said
"he is only at where he is at because he is black"
How people choose their vote for president in America is a highly complex EMOTIONAL issue that usualy has only a cursory relationship to policy and issues and is much more about how people "FEEL" about a candidate. Look at the post i quoted. Obama being black is certainly not the ONLY thing cited as a reason for liking the guy, but youd have to be an imbecile not to take away from that statement that at the end of the day Obama is getting brownie points for being black (was that a bad joke? brownies?) ...
[btw, the comments made are also latent racist remarks, because the expilcit presumption is that people of color are more compassionate because they have been exposed to more opression as a people. Are white people better at economics because they have been around money longer as a people? And to rage against tm, i am NOT bashing you. sorry to pull your post up for this example, but it makes a good one. i know you are not racist trash or anything. this is just latent cultural conditioning. we all have it in degrees.]
So does this kind of thought go on in the subconscious of some most or all Americans? Absolutely?
Did this poster intentionaly mean to say he was swayed towards obama because of his skin color? Hell no.
But is that the gut truth behind it?
Undeniably.
So what makes me such a bad person for pointing that out?
[oh. there is also latent SEXISM in that post. The guy unwittingly puts out the position that basicaly only Men should cry in politics, because when a woman does it, it is somehow an embarrasement to her sex, because (this is deduction) women are known to cry a lot, and for hillary to do that is just using her sex, and it is somehow taboo. Now if obama cried, would it be manipulative? or would he be a "compassionate" man? So i get railed for being a racist POS (not your words, but your implication), and then we have honest unwitting posters who are expressing culturaly engrained latent racism and sexism, and they get kudos for making good points? Wow. Yay me! I feel so thrilled to be in this discussion.]
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
It's not even a logical opinion. He's pulling people from all over the spectrum. I'm a 38 year old white guy. I voted for him cause he sounds like a leader, somebody we haven't had in a long time, not because he's black.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I disagree that Ferraro made a racist statement. Everything she said makes reasonable sense to me, from saying that she would not have been on the ticket as VP if it weren't for her gender to saying that were it not for his race things would be different. She was very right in saying that if he were a woman of any color, he wouldn't be where he is. If Obama were the same candidate, but the opposite gender, he'd be Shirley Chisholm--a fine candidate who went nowhere.
Give me a break. Obama, whether you support or don't support him. Is a black man running for President of the United States, all the what if he was a she and she was white, or he was a jewish, hispanic, asian, irish or white woman he wouldn't have a chance. It didn't make any sense when Ferraro said and it make less sense as it goes through repeats.
BOTTOMLINE, Hillary's strategy was to tap into people's pride. The people of Pennsylvania who were grateful just to be working. What better way to do this than to have Ferraro associate Obama with affirmative action. So the underlying message to the people of PA is - look - here is another affirmative action black person taking a white man's job. People whether they are racist or not can relate to that message.
The strategy will work because just like Ohio they have lost jobs and industry to NFATA. People forget NFATA is Clinton's doing, she's not going to bring quality jobs back to PA, OH or MI. Hell she to invested to even try. These people don't need another Walmart, Target, Home Depot or Lowe's because no one has the extra money to go shopping or build any damn thing. The only thing keeping OH afloat is the military base and its supporting function. MI had the Great Lakes and easy transport to/from with Canada. Once the Superhighway is completed, MI can be bypassed or become a truck stop because the bulk of the industry will be coming out of Mexico to Canada and through the Gulf to South America. PA your on your own, most of your resources have been tapped out, your waterways are of minimal importance to commerce and there's no military advantage. Politically, Hillary knew Pennsylvania would have been expendable had the race not been this close. She had nothing prepared for you, so she gives you the race card.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Out of this whole Ferraro ordeal, it's the Clinton campaign who is using the term "racist", not the Obama campaign. If Samantha Powers should be told by the Clinton campaign to resign because she called Hillary a "(political) monster", why shouldn't Geraldine step down from her role for a comment that was 10 times the comment that Ms. Powers made?
The Clinton campaign wants race to become an issue in PA. They are trying to turn Barack Obama from a candidate who happens to be black, to the black candidate. It's terrible. It's dirty. It has no place in a primary election (or a general election). It's Clinton politics at it's worst.
Did anyone see Obama on the Today show today? Matt Lauer brought up this issue and, of course, Obama diffused the situation as only he can. Very tactfully.
He said that this whole thing does not hurt his feelings because he realizes this is the nature of the campaign. He said that that type of thinking represents the policies of the past. Which I think is a brilliant strategic move on his part. Be it right or wrong, it is very smart to try and link it that way.
He also said that if there were a book that was called (something like) 'The Pathway to the Presidency', you would not see a successful candidate being black and named Barack Obama. Basically saying that he has gotten where he is today because of hard work and support from all people not just African Americans.
I would like to debunk many theories that his supporters are predominately black. In my state, we have a very small African American population, and he won here.
I think it is more accurate to say that a majority of the African American voters support him. Not that he is only successful simply because he has black supporters. If that makes any sense. He is not only getting the black vote.
Out of this whole Ferraro ordeal, it's the Clinton campaign who is using the term "racist", not the Obama campaign. If Samantha Powers should be told by the Clinton campaign to resign because she called Hillary a "(political) monster", why shouldn't Geraldine step down from her role for a comment that was 10 times the comment that Ms. Powers made?
The Clinton campaign wants race to become an issue in PA. They are trying to turn Barack Obama from a candidate who happens to be black, to the black candidate. It's terrible. It's dirty. It has no place in a primary election (or a general election). It's Clinton politics at it's worst.
Totally agree.
btw, I think that when Samantha Powers resigned, that just reinforced the fact that he easily and genuinely takes the "high road".
He conveyed the sentiment that that kind of thing is not tolerated and it pretty much ended the whole debate.
Give me a break. Obama, whether you support or don't support him. Is a black man running for President of the United States, all the what if he was a she and she was white, or he was a jewish, hispanic, asian, irish or white woman he wouldn't have a chance. It didn't make any sense when Ferraro said and it make less sense as it goes through repeats.
BOTTOMLINE, Hillary's strategy was to tap into people's pride. The people of Pennsylvania who were grateful just to be working. What better way to do this than to have Ferraro associate Obama with affirmative action. So the underlying message to the people of PA is - look - here is another affirmative action black person taking a white man's job. People whether they are racist or not can relate to that message.
The strategy will work because just like Ohio they have lost jobs and industry to NFATA. People forget NFATA is Clinton's doing, she's not going to bring quality jobs back to PA, OH or MI. Hell she to invested to even try. These people don't need another Walmart, Target, Home Depot or Lowe's because no one has the extra money to go shopping or build any damn thing. The only thing keeping OH afloat is the military base and its supporting function. MI had the Great Lakes and easy transport to/from with Canada. Once the Superhighway is completed, MI can be bypassed or become a truck stop because the bulk of the industry will be coming out of Mexico to Canada and through the Gulf to South America. PA your on your own, most of your resources have been tapped out, your waterways are of minimal importance to commerce and there's no military advantage. Politically, Hillary knew Pennsylvania would have been expendable had the race not been this close. She had nothing prepared for you, so she gives you the race card.
i agree with much of your assessment here, with a few minor exceptions. She is definitely, i think trying to associate Obama with affirmative action to woo voters. Where i disagree with your assessment, in regards to this, is on the issue of one's ability to relate to this tactic "whether they are racist or not". The fear of affirmative action, in and of itself, is perpetuated by an institutionally racist portrayal of affirmative action, therfore, IMO, anyone buying into clinton's ploy here is buying into it because of a subtle racism they may not even be aware of. Clinton's strategy here is to tap into that subtle racism and turn it into votes. Her strategy here is, itself, racist and dispicable. (BTW Obama's success has absolutely dick to do with affirmative action, the notion is laughably ridiculous).
The second exception i have, is based more on hope. i'm not sure the strategy will work. It very well may, which is sad, but at this point, i'm giving voters the benefit of the doubt that they will see right through this shit. This strategy may end up hurting her. Part of Obama's success is, in part, because of his ability to trancend race and this type of divisiveness. People, i think, especially young people, are tired of it. He has done it quite well.
The bottom line is, really, if Obama was a White fella, he would have had this nomination locked up along time ago! Because he is Black, and because this is still the United States, he has had to work even harder to get to where he is. The fact that he has done so well encourages me as to how far we've come as a nation in regards to issues of race. The fact that we still have someone like clinton and her surrogates using these types of tactics, to some degree of success, proves that we still have a ways to go.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
i agree with much of your assessment here, with a few minor exceptions. She is definitely, i think trying to associate Obama with affirmative action to woo voters. Where i disagree with your assessment, in regards to this, is on the issue of one's ability to relate to this tactic "whether they are racist or not". The fear of affirmative action, in and of itself, is perpetuated by an institutionally racist portrayal of affirmative action, therfore, IMO, anyone buying into clinton's ploy here is buying into it because of a subtle racism they may not even be aware of. Clinton's strategy here is to tap into that subtle racism and turn it into votes. Her strategy here is, itself, racist and dispicable. (BTW Obama's success has absolutely dick to do with affirmative action, the notion is laughably ridiculous).
The second exception i have, is based more on hope. i'm not sure the strategy will work. It very well may, which is sad, but at this point, i'm giving voters the benefit of the doubt that they will see right through this shit. This strategy may end up hurting her. Part of Obama's success is, in part, because of his ability to trancend race and this type of divisiveness. People, i think, especially young people, are tired of it. He has done it quite well.
The bottom line is, really, if Obama was a White fella, he would have had this nomination locked up along time ago! Because he is Black, and because this is still the United States, he has had to work even harder to get to where he is. The fact that he has done so well encourages me as to how far we've come as a nation in regards to issues of race. The fact that we still have someone like clinton and her surrogates using these types of tactics, to some degree of success, proves that we still have a ways to go.
The bottom line is, really, if Obama was a White fella, he would have had this nomination locked up along time ago!
I guess we'll never know. But I'm pretty certain that a mid-western junior senator short on specifics and experience but who talked a good game wouldn't have garnered nearly the interest, and certainly wouldn't have become an instant media darling.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Question: If the novelity of Obama's success so far is because he is black. Why wasn't Jackson more successful?
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
I guess we'll never know. But I'm pretty certain that a mid-western junior senator short on specifics and experience but who talked a good game wouldn't have garnered nearly the interest, and certainly wouldn't have become an instant media darling.
The problem with this is that he isn't short on ideas or experience. That's more false clinton propaganda.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
The problem with this is that he isn't short on ideas or experience. That's more false clinton propaganda.
I agree. The only people with the needed experience are Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush (well...not really, but you get it).
The problem with this is that he isn't short on ideas or experience. That's more false clinton propaganda.
He has fleshed out the message over time, but he certainly was short on specifics in the beginning. Nobody could tell me why they were voting for him early on except that he represented change. There is a great clip of a Chris Matthews show that highlights just how shallow the experience pool was when a senator who endorsed Obama and was campaigning for him was asked to list Obama's accomplishments in the senate. The guy said he couldn't do that, but wanted to talk about hope for the future.
It is Obama propaganda to call anything negative about Obama "Clinton propaganda".
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Question: If the novelity of Obama's success so far is because he is black. Why wasn't Jackson more successful?
Jackson was a known quantity. A very opinionated and quite disliked public figure nationally prior to his run.
Obama was someone who wasn't well known, had a low negative rating since he hadn't done anything, so he was a clean slate. He is good looking, and a captivating speaker.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
He has fleshed out the message over time, but he certainly was short on specifics in the beginning. Nobody could tell me why they were voting for him early on except that he represented change. There is a great clip of a Chris Matthews show that highlights just how shallow the experience pool was when a senator who endorsed Obama and was campaigning for him was asked to list Obama's accomplishments in the senate. The guy said he couldn't do that, but wanted to talk about hope for the future.
That was a TX state senator - not someone who works alongside Obama - and it was a cheap-shot question. To wit - Quick, as fast as you can type, name an accomplishment of Senator John McCain.
That was a TX state senator - not someone who works alongside Obama - and it was a cheap-shot question. To wit - Quick, as fast as you can type, name an accomplishment of Senator John McCain.
The infamous McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
But the point is this was somebody who did work with him in the Senate. Side by side? Who knows. It isn't a very big place, and there are only 100 of them afterall. If a senator from his own party doesn't have regular interaction with him, maybe Obama needs to get more involved. And if the senator from TX is campaigning on Obama's behalf, maybe he should know why.
EDIT: sorry, I saw that he was a state senator, so your point about not having worked with him is well made. I still believe that if the guy is getting on national TV campaining for someone he better know why.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
He has fleshed out the message over time, but he certainly was short on specifics in the beginning. Nobody could tell me why they were voting for him early on except that he represented change. There is a great clip of a Chris Matthews show that highlights just how shallow the experience pool was when a senator who endorsed Obama and was campaigning for him was asked to list Obama's accomplishments in the senate. The guy said he couldn't do that, but wanted to talk about hope for the future.
It is Obama propaganda to call anything negative about Obama "Clinton propaganda".
Representing change, and being a Black "media darling" are not the same thing. That's point number one. Point number two goes something like this: Pick a U.S senator. Any one you want. Now, ask someone to spout off a bunch of that senator's "accomplishments" without the benefit of google, yahoo, or jeeves. Thats a challenge. Unless you can do that, The Chris Matthews thing means dick to anyone but you and Sean Hannity. To anyone else that wants to dig (wont take much digging), they'll find that Obama has sponsored over 800 bills include some of the toughest ethics reform congress has ever seen.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
The infamous McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
But the point is this was somebody who did work with him in the Senate. Side by side? Who knows. It isn't a very big place, and there are only 100 of them afterall. If a senator from his own party doesn't have regular interaction with him, maybe Obama needs to get more involved. And if the senator from TX is campaigning on Obama's behalf, maybe he should know why.
Yeah, Republicans love that McCain-Feingold law. You went with the easy one, and I've no problem with that. But you get my drift. And no, that guy never worked with Obama. He is a state senator in Texas - not a Texas Senator in Washington.
Representing change, and being a Black "media darling" are not the same thing. That's point number one. Point number two goes something like this: Pick a U.S senator. Any one you want. Now, ask someone to spout off a bunch of that senator's "accomplishments" without the benefit of google, yahoo, or jeeves. Thats a challenge. Unless you can do that, The Chris Matthews thing means dick to anyone but you and Sean Hannity. To anyone else that wants to dig (wont take much digging), they'll find that Obama has sponsored over 800 bills include some of the toughest ethics reform congress has ever seen.
He even admits in a self-deprecating way that he hasn't done much in the Senate, and was embarrassed by his stardom that preceded him. He tried to keep a low profile. He isn't someone like you want us to believe, that rode into the Senate and started kicking ass.
And again, anyone campaigning for someone and getting on national TV to do so better know why.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
EDIT: sorry, I saw that he was a state senator, so your point about not having worked with him is well made. I still believe that if the guy is getting on national TV campaining for someone he better know why.
You'll get no argument from me there. I saw that interview and it kind of pissed me off. I could have answered that question - and I'm not even working on any campaign. Cheap question or not, people should be ready for that stuff if they're going to appear on television.
You'll get no argument from me there. I saw that interview and it kind of pissed me off. I could have answered that question - and I'm not even working on any campaign. Cheap question or not, people should be ready for that stuff if they're going to appear on television.
I think that guy was just a moron. MSNBC picked him up because he was a elected official supporting Barack Obama in Texas to go head to head with Stephanie Tubbs Jones. He was not an Obama surrogate or a member of the campaign...he was just a moron who wanted to raise his name credibility in the state---and failed terribly
Comments
Do people really need to be told this? Are we in 3rd grade people..... get it together
i dont know, nothing else seems to backfire for her. she keeps hanging around...
Are you serious? Are you listening to yourself?
He is only at where he is at because he is black......?
He is only beating Clinton because he is black.....?
I know you said that is not what you are saying but sorry that is what you just said...... and that last comment about the only reason people "buy" or believe his change message is because of his skin color... well honestly that comment just crosses the line.
These comments you are making speak more about you and your beliefs than they speak about society... sorry
And that is your opinion.
Isn't America great?
How do you know any better than me what goes on in the subconscious of some most or all Americans?
No one does.
Thats the point.
I am allowed to theorize.
Sorry if it doesn't conform to your PC norm.
I'm not some fucking racist hick.
I'm just saying what i think is potentialy going on here.
Sorry if it PC-whacks you out.
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
BTW, you say that he is not getting votes because he is black, but then read this guys post, from like two above you:
Does that not read as, "i'm voting for obama because he is BLACK", to you?
I don't know if you think you are quoting me or what, but i never said
"he is only at where he is at because he is black"
How people choose their vote for president in America is a highly complex EMOTIONAL issue that usualy has only a cursory relationship to policy and issues and is much more about how people "FEEL" about a candidate. Look at the post i quoted. Obama being black is certainly not the ONLY thing cited as a reason for liking the guy, but youd have to be an imbecile not to take away from that statement that at the end of the day Obama is getting brownie points for being black (was that a bad joke? brownies?) ...
[btw, the comments made are also latent racist remarks, because the expilcit presumption is that people of color are more compassionate because they have been exposed to more opression as a people. Are white people better at economics because they have been around money longer as a people? And to rage against tm, i am NOT bashing you. sorry to pull your post up for this example, but it makes a good one. i know you are not racist trash or anything. this is just latent cultural conditioning. we all have it in degrees.]
So does this kind of thought go on in the subconscious of some most or all Americans? Absolutely?
Did this poster intentionaly mean to say he was swayed towards obama because of his skin color? Hell no.
But is that the gut truth behind it?
Undeniably.
So what makes me such a bad person for pointing that out?
[oh. there is also latent SEXISM in that post. The guy unwittingly puts out the position that basicaly only Men should cry in politics, because when a woman does it, it is somehow an embarrasement to her sex, because (this is deduction) women are known to cry a lot, and for hillary to do that is just using her sex, and it is somehow taboo. Now if obama cried, would it be manipulative? or would he be a "compassionate" man? So i get railed for being a racist POS (not your words, but your implication), and then we have honest unwitting posters who are expressing culturaly engrained latent racism and sexism, and they get kudos for making good points? Wow. Yay me! I feel so thrilled to be in this discussion.]
If I opened it now would you not understand?
When? and to whom?
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Give me a break. Obama, whether you support or don't support him. Is a black man running for President of the United States, all the what if he was a she and she was white, or he was a jewish, hispanic, asian, irish or white woman he wouldn't have a chance. It didn't make any sense when Ferraro said and it make less sense as it goes through repeats.
BOTTOMLINE, Hillary's strategy was to tap into people's pride. The people of Pennsylvania who were grateful just to be working. What better way to do this than to have Ferraro associate Obama with affirmative action. So the underlying message to the people of PA is - look - here is another affirmative action black person taking a white man's job. People whether they are racist or not can relate to that message.
The strategy will work because just like Ohio they have lost jobs and industry to NFATA. People forget NFATA is Clinton's doing, she's not going to bring quality jobs back to PA, OH or MI. Hell she to invested to even try. These people don't need another Walmart, Target, Home Depot or Lowe's because no one has the extra money to go shopping or build any damn thing. The only thing keeping OH afloat is the military base and its supporting function. MI had the Great Lakes and easy transport to/from with Canada. Once the Superhighway is completed, MI can be bypassed or become a truck stop because the bulk of the industry will be coming out of Mexico to Canada and through the Gulf to South America. PA your on your own, most of your resources have been tapped out, your waterways are of minimal importance to commerce and there's no military advantage. Politically, Hillary knew Pennsylvania would have been expendable had the race not been this close. She had nothing prepared for you, so she gives you the race card.
The Clinton campaign wants race to become an issue in PA. They are trying to turn Barack Obama from a candidate who happens to be black, to the black candidate. It's terrible. It's dirty. It has no place in a primary election (or a general election). It's Clinton politics at it's worst.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
He said that this whole thing does not hurt his feelings because he realizes this is the nature of the campaign. He said that that type of thinking represents the policies of the past. Which I think is a brilliant strategic move on his part. Be it right or wrong, it is very smart to try and link it that way.
He also said that if there were a book that was called (something like) 'The Pathway to the Presidency', you would not see a successful candidate being black and named Barack Obama. Basically saying that he has gotten where he is today because of hard work and support from all people not just African Americans.
I would like to debunk many theories that his supporters are predominately black. In my state, we have a very small African American population, and he won here.
I think it is more accurate to say that a majority of the African American voters support him. Not that he is only successful simply because he has black supporters. If that makes any sense.
Totally agree.
btw, I think that when Samantha Powers resigned, that just reinforced the fact that he easily and genuinely takes the "high road".
He conveyed the sentiment that that kind of thing is not tolerated and it pretty much ended the whole debate.
Let's not forget about the guy that brought up the Clinton sex scandal from the 90's. He got the axe within hours of that story hitting the wire.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
i agree with much of your assessment here, with a few minor exceptions. She is definitely, i think trying to associate Obama with affirmative action to woo voters. Where i disagree with your assessment, in regards to this, is on the issue of one's ability to relate to this tactic "whether they are racist or not". The fear of affirmative action, in and of itself, is perpetuated by an institutionally racist portrayal of affirmative action, therfore, IMO, anyone buying into clinton's ploy here is buying into it because of a subtle racism they may not even be aware of. Clinton's strategy here is to tap into that subtle racism and turn it into votes. Her strategy here is, itself, racist and dispicable. (BTW Obama's success has absolutely dick to do with affirmative action, the notion is laughably ridiculous).
The second exception i have, is based more on hope. i'm not sure the strategy will work. It very well may, which is sad, but at this point, i'm giving voters the benefit of the doubt that they will see right through this shit. This strategy may end up hurting her. Part of Obama's success is, in part, because of his ability to trancend race and this type of divisiveness. People, i think, especially young people, are tired of it. He has done it quite well.
The bottom line is, really, if Obama was a White fella, he would have had this nomination locked up along time ago! Because he is Black, and because this is still the United States, he has had to work even harder to get to where he is. The fact that he has done so well encourages me as to how far we've come as a nation in regards to issues of race. The fact that we still have someone like clinton and her surrogates using these types of tactics, to some degree of success, proves that we still have a ways to go.
I give your post a standing ovation...
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Thank you.
no doubt.
I guess we'll never know. But I'm pretty certain that a mid-western junior senator short on specifics and experience but who talked a good game wouldn't have garnered nearly the interest, and certainly wouldn't have become an instant media darling.
...or Alan Keyes on the Republican side of the coin.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
I agree. The only people with the needed experience are Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush (well...not really, but you get it).
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
He has fleshed out the message over time, but he certainly was short on specifics in the beginning. Nobody could tell me why they were voting for him early on except that he represented change. There is a great clip of a Chris Matthews show that highlights just how shallow the experience pool was when a senator who endorsed Obama and was campaigning for him was asked to list Obama's accomplishments in the senate. The guy said he couldn't do that, but wanted to talk about hope for the future.
It is Obama propaganda to call anything negative about Obama "Clinton propaganda".
Jackson was a known quantity. A very opinionated and quite disliked public figure nationally prior to his run.
Obama was someone who wasn't well known, had a low negative rating since he hadn't done anything, so he was a clean slate. He is good looking, and a captivating speaker.
The infamous McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
But the point is this was somebody who did work with him in the Senate. Side by side? Who knows. It isn't a very big place, and there are only 100 of them afterall. If a senator from his own party doesn't have regular interaction with him, maybe Obama needs to get more involved. And if the senator from TX is campaigning on Obama's behalf, maybe he should know why.
EDIT: sorry, I saw that he was a state senator, so your point about not having worked with him is well made. I still believe that if the guy is getting on national TV campaining for someone he better know why.
Representing change, and being a Black "media darling" are not the same thing. That's point number one. Point number two goes something like this: Pick a U.S senator. Any one you want. Now, ask someone to spout off a bunch of that senator's "accomplishments" without the benefit of google, yahoo, or jeeves. Thats a challenge. Unless you can do that, The Chris Matthews thing means dick to anyone but you and Sean Hannity. To anyone else that wants to dig (wont take much digging), they'll find that Obama has sponsored over 800 bills include some of the toughest ethics reform congress has ever seen.
He even admits in a self-deprecating way that he hasn't done much in the Senate, and was embarrassed by his stardom that preceded him. He tried to keep a low profile. He isn't someone like you want us to believe, that rode into the Senate and started kicking ass.
And again, anyone campaigning for someone and getting on national TV to do so better know why.
I think that guy was just a moron. MSNBC picked him up because he was a elected official supporting Barack Obama in Texas to go head to head with Stephanie Tubbs Jones. He was not an Obama surrogate or a member of the campaign...he was just a moron who wanted to raise his name credibility in the state---and failed terribly
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm