Attn: you cant say Obama is popular because he is black

135678

Comments

  • anotherclone
    anotherclone Posts: 1,688
    ledvedderman wrote:
    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.
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    anotherclone wrote:
    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.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    puremagic wrote:
    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."
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    cornnifer wrote:
    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...
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    ledvedderman wrote:
    I give your post a standing ovation...

    Thank you.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • anotherclone
    anotherclone Posts: 1,688
    ledvedderman wrote:
    I give your post a standing ovation...

    no doubt.
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    cornnifer wrote:
    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
  • puremagic
    puremagic Posts: 1,907
    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.
  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    jeffbr wrote:
    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."
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    puremagic wrote:
    Question: If the novelity of Obama's success so far is because he is black. Why wasn't Jackson more successful?

    ...or Alan Keyes on the Republican side of the coin.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    cornnifer wrote:
    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).
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    cornnifer wrote:
    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
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    puremagic wrote:
    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
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    jeffbr wrote:
    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.
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    RainDog wrote:
    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
  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    jeffbr wrote:
    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."
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    jeffbr wrote:
    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.
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    cornnifer wrote:
    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
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    jeffbr wrote:
    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.
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    RainDog wrote:
    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
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm

Categories