Back in December, John Kerry -- you might remember him, he ran for President once -- endorsed Barack Obama for President, in large part because Obama is black. In his own words, on This Week:
Who better than Barack Obama to talk about -- and just by his person signify to the world the difference that it means to get an open door to a good school? Who better than Barack Obama to talk to young blacks in America or disaffected young people or -- anybody, and sort of say, you see what happens if you have a dream and you pursue it and you work at it?
I was just in South Africa. And I picked up the newspaper one day and there was a big headline on the second page, "Obama Says" the following. They have a huge issue there of credibility of their leadership and the issue of AIDS. I personally believe, having been 20 years, 24 years on the Foreign Relations Committee, that if Barack Obama can say things to African-American leaders that a white president just can't say and I think there's a power in that.
Please do not tell me that Geraldine Ferraro was wrong when she said that Obama wouldn't be where he is if he was white. Obama's own supporters -- including, here, the last Democratic nominee for President -- are giving his color as a major reason for their support. So I can't see how it can be wrong to say that his color is a major reason why he is getting their support.
(Side note: listening to that interview at the time, I wanted George Stephanopolous to ask Kerry if he would have voted for Obama over himself had Obama run in 2004. Not that I think Kerry would have said anything interesting in response, of course, but it would've been fun -- like old times -- watching him try to wriggle out of it.)
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at March 15, 2008 10:49 PM | Email This1. I am not supporting any candidate.
2. I suppose beauty or meaning is in the eye of the beholder. In my opinion, Kerry's comments are a quantum leap different from Ferraro, whom I thought was racist. The difference is this, ethnic groups have certain chracteristics which may help them to understand certain situations. For example, an Armenian who might have listened to family stories about genocide brings to the table an understanding of what happened in Cambodia, Rwanda, or Sudan, that others might not have. That is what I read as the tone of Kerry's comments.
3. There is a reason why pubbies are way behind in urban areas and urban counties, your leadership seems to be based in rural areas that are homogeneous and you are tone deaf on the issue of diverse populations. The message you are selling is selling well in cow country and no where else. Before you accuse me of being bigoted against rural areas. I am a proud grad of WAZZU, took some ag classes and love Cougar Gold.
Your party has to decide as Rocky would say whether you want to be a contender or not. You will not get there without urban areas.
Posted by: WVH on March 15, 2008 11:04 PMQ.E.D.
Posted by: pudge on March 15, 2008 11:09 PMAnd I will delete any more posts you make to my articles, whatever those comments say. You are permanently banned.
Posted by: pudge on March 16, 2008 12:16 AMThere is hope for the mentally ill, however; feel free to post at Daily Kos or HA, where you will be welcomed with open arms.
Well, as open armed as a straight jacket will allow.......
Being a liberal, er, mentally ill and incapable with dealing with reality, certainly must be liberating...get up every morning and it is a new day....
Posted by: Hank on March 16, 2008 06:10 AMPosted by: Saltherring on March 16, 2008 07:11 AM
It's not just this one time. She's been doing it for awhile, and not just to me, but to many others. I have never said a single thing that would make any rational person think I am in the least bit racist, but that fact is not relevant to her.
I couldn't care less what anyone's viewpoints about the issues are. I welcome disagreement. I do not welcome libel. Wilda has decided to make this personal -- not just with me, but with many others -- and to call everyone she disagrees with a racist. I have given her a lot of rope, but I finally just got tired of her lies about me and others.
It's not even so much that I care about what she says. No one listens to her anyway. But she ends up hijacking the discussions, so that the whole discussion turns into a shouting match between her and everyone else who challenges her on her vicious lies.
She is free to post in the "Public Blog" and to the articles of other posters, but no longer to my articles, because she has proven herself incapable of not lying about other people.
Posted by: pudge on March 16, 2008 08:43 AMAnd this is Ferraro's accurate and true point: Obama would not be where he is if not for some "hook" to convince people to look past his inadequacies. That "hook" is his image. As John Kerry said, many people want Obama to be President because of what he would symbolically represent, rather than because he is the best person for the job. It's not possible to read what Kerry said and conclude that Ferraro was way off-base, because what she said is simply that people are supporting Obama for the reasons John Kerry gave.
One down, one to go........the "empty pantsuit" is next.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 16, 2008 10:24 AMI know it is politically incorrect for me to say so, but as the word is commonly used, no, I have absolutely no racism in me. I do have various cultural biases, but no "racism" whatsoever.
Sorry to destroy your prejudices!
Posted by: pudge on March 16, 2008 10:27 AMAin't politics fun?
Posted by: hinton on March 16, 2008 10:31 AMWhere would Hillary be if she hadn't married Bill Clinton? I would guess she might, at best, be a senior partner in a law firm, but no where near national level politics except as a local fundraiser in Chicago.
In fact, who would Geraldine Ferraro be if she hadn't married a rich real estate developer (that knife could cut both ways since the scandals surrounding her husband helped sink Mondale)?
As far as Barrack and race -- well, let me use Bill Clinton's argument of Jesse Jackson. Obviously, being black alone can't win you the nomination. And, obviously, Wyoming is not a center of black culture, therefore Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Ferraro and Mr. Clinton are wrong.
Posted by: John Bailo on March 16, 2008 12:00 PMBut nice try John Bailo.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 16, 2008 12:15 PMShe is also not saying being black alone got him where he is, obviously. She is saying that being a black man is, for him, a necessary, but not sufficient, factor, for winning the nomination, given his lack of qualification.
Further, your comment about Wyoming makes no sense, as her argument has nothing whatsoever to do with black culture ... it has more to do with "white guilt" and -- as demonstrated in the words of John Kerry -- the desire among many liberal whites to elect a SYMBOL to the Presidency, rather than a President.
And yes, Rick D., "Republicans for Obama" is a myth. The web site says "While there will always be important issues on which thoughtful Americans will disagree, there are others that cannot be up for debate— our economic prosperity and our standing in the world." Right, so how could a Republican support Obama, who wants to drastically increase taxes, spending, and government control over all aspects of American life?
What did Hillary do after the 1993 WTC bombing? Did she form a committee to investigate terrorism? Did she champion an arms build up?
Obama and Hillary are running different campaigns. I don't believe Obama is citing "experience". He is citing his perception of the current situation and "potential".
Hillary is claiming vast experience which she does not have! She sat in the White House for 8 years and did not address any of the problems that have plagued us for the last 8. She was given one task: health care. She failed and ran and hid. Is that Presidential?
Barack + GOP = �Obamacans�
http://www.newsweek.com/id/107476
"Susan Eisenhower is more than just another disappointed Republican. She is also Ike's granddaughter and a dedicated member of the party who has urged her fellow Republicans in the past to stick with the GOP. But now Eisenhower, who runs an international consulting firm, is endorsing Barack Obama. She has no plans to officially leave the Republican Party. But in Eisenhower's view, Obama is the only candidate who can build a national consensus on the issues most important to her�energy, global warming, an aging population and America's standing in the world."
Posted by: John Bailo on March 16, 2008 12:46 PMYou appear to be under the misapprehension that I think Hillary has exceptional qualifications.
I don't believe Obama is citing "experience".
Or qualifications. Because he has neither. He is unqualified to be President and if he were not black, or had some other "hook," he would not be the frontrunner for the nomination.
Susan Eisenhower is more than just another disappointed Republican. She is also Ike's granddaughter and a dedicated member of the party who has urged her fellow Republicans in the past to stick with the GOP. But now Eisenhower, who runs an international consulting firm, is endorsing Barack Obama.
She either does not know what Obama stands for, or she is not a real Republican. His views on federal control and the econonmy are, quite simply, anathema to Republicanism. She is, almost surely, simply a "Republican by birth."
She has no plans to officially leave the Republican Party. But in Eisenhower's view, Obama is the only candidate who can build a national consensus on the issues most important to her: energy, global warming, an aging population and America's standing in the world.
Exactly. Not a real Republican. A Republican is far more concerned with the economy, with liberty, with national security, with property rights, and so on.
I generally hate the term "Republican in name only" and similar attempts to exclude lifelong Republicans: people like Chuck Hagel and John McCain who, ideologically, come from a long Republican tradition. But Susan Eisenhower, like Lincoln Chaffee, really is just a Republican because their dads were Republicans, and share no ideological heritage with the Republican Party, only a genetic heritage.
I could not care less about trying to win "Republican" voters who literally disavow the most important tenets of the Republican Party.
Posted by: pudge on March 16, 2008 01:02 PMLet's look at a proper analysis, starting with Kerry's statement:
1. Kerry starts out by stating who is better to talk about overcoming the built in societal discrimination and the power of education than someone who overcame it. Kerry's point is Barack has a talking point that all can make it in spite of the built-in societal system. One can't blaim the system.
2. Kerry follows the first thought with Barack being bettter able to speak to the black youth. This is a major duh! Black youth do have a hard time listening to whites.
3. Finally, Kerry states that Barack can speak to other world leaders, especially in Africa because of his race.
So, the bottom line. Kerry is highlighting some of the key aspects of Barack the candidate that he believes differentiates Obama from the others. It isn't the only reason Kerry supported Obama, nor does it state in anyway whether Barack's candidacy would have any success. At this point of time, Obama could have been just another Jesse Jackson.
Now, let us contrast with Ferroro's statement, which was that Barack would not be even in contention against Hillary today if he wasn't black.
Do you see the point, Pudge?
Ferroro's statement states that the only reason he is where he is at is because he is black. It disregards all of his other traits. It would be like stating Dino Rossi only came as close as he did in the Governor's race due to the fact that he ran against a mediocre Demoratic opponent. It give no credence to Barack's knowledge (education and experience in community organizing, state legislature, or U.S. Senate). It gives no credence to the fact that he put together an excellent campaign team that has far outshone Hillary's management abilities. It gives no credence to the fact that he has worked hard day-in and day-out campaigning, and meeting with voters. It is to say that all he did was put his name on the ballot and because he was black, all these people voted for him.
Give me a break Pudge. You could have came up with a better example than Kerry's statement. While I don't necessarily believe Ferroro is really racist, she did show extreme stupidity in her statement and continuance to defend it.
Posted by: tc on March 16, 2008 03:12 PMFalse.
You read the statement with your Ultra-conservative, filtering glasses on and read into it the conclusion you wanted.
False.
Kerry is highlighting some of the key aspects of Barack the candidate that he believes differentiates Obama from the others.
Yes. In particular, that Obama is black.
Thanks for admitting you are wrong, and that I am right!
Now, let us contrast with Ferroro's statement, which was that Barack would not be even in contention against Hillary today if he wasn't black.
Right. Because reasons like Kerry expressed for supporting Obama would not exist if he were not black. Exactly.
Ferroro's statement states that the only reason he is where he is at is because he is black. It disregards all of his other traits.
False. You are making the same error John Bailo made: she was saying that his race is a necessary trait for him to be winning the nomination, not a sufficient one. It does not disregard his other traits.
It give no credence to Barack's knowledge (education and experience in community organizing, state legislature, or U.S. Senate).
No, it says that his other traits alone are not enough for him to win. As an Obama supporter the other day said, without being black, he is John Edwards. He said this thinking he was being smart, because, after all, John Edwards was very successful, and he is white. The problem is Edwards never won, and never could have won, the nomination. So yes, Obama is like a black John Edwards: he would not have a chance to win the nomination if he were white.
Barack is intelligent, he has had a great campaign team, he works hard. And he is completely unqualified to be President, as John Edwards was. He would not be winning the nomination if he were white.
Feel free to disagree: I am, of course, talking in unprovable speculation, as is anyone who disagrees with me. So, big shrug. My real point is not whether Ferraro is right or wrong, it is just that Ferraro said nothing more than what Kerry and many other Obama supporters have said: they support Obama in large part because he is black.
Pudge,
In your follow-on post, you do state your premise clearer than your original post. If I understand what you were stating in your follow-on post to mine, you were basically stating that take away Obama's race, but keep all his other characteristics, he wouldn't be where he is at today. I would agree with that statement to the point that his race and up-bringing very much influenced his drive to overcome the sterotypical black youth response that they will never break through. I would agree that is his race and upbringing very much influenced why he felt he needed to skip a high paying corporate law career and instead help his community.
I would disagree however that this is what Geraldine Ferraro was stating. This is where I disagree with you. Ferroro's comments were plain stupid. They inferred that the only reason people are voting for him because he is black. It is like saying the only reason to vote for Hillary is because she is a woman. Ferroro may think of herself as a tolken, but that doesn't mean everyone else is also. Look, Obama faced extreme odds at winning his U.S. Senate seat. It was in no means handed to him. It is the same for the first time he was elected to the State Senate. He started the current race way behind Hillary and the HRC machine, who thought this to be a cornation instead of an actual contest.
Posted by: tc on March 16, 2008 04:20 PMThat he would not be leading the nomination fight, yes. Which is what Ferraro has been saying.
And I am not saying this in reference to his upbringing, because if that were the case, we would not be keeping all of his other characteristics. I am saying if Obama were exactly like he is today, but white, he would be just another also-ran, like John Edwards.
Ferroro's comments were plain stupid. They inferred that the only reason people are voting for him because he is black.
You mean "implied." And no, she said that if he were white, he would not be in the lead for the nomination. That does not imply his race is the only reason people are voting for him, at all. That is what YOU are inferring, it is NOT what she is implying.
Look, Obama faced extreme odds at winning his U.S. Senate seat. It was in no means handed to him.
Actually, it kinda was. He had two main challengers for the Democratic nomination, and the strongest of the two who was dodging spousal abuse allegations, just a month before the election. The other was pretty much a dud as a Senate candidate, being very young and without even as little experience as Obama had.
And in the general election, he faced Maryland native Alan Keyes.
So it kinda was handed to him. Without those domestic abuse allegations, he probably comes in second for the nomination, and you and I have never heard of him. And the general election ... he might as well not have had any opposition at all. I respect Keyes and all, but he is not a good candidate, if your goal is to win a general election.
Obama has done very little in politics; he has unrealistic, naive, and liberty-destroying policies; he has never faced a large, tough race; if not for his black skin, he would just be one of many also-rans ... just like John Edwards.
I think he is likely to get killed by McCain if he wins the nomination, because of all those things. But I do not undestimate the ability of the media to not only ignore Obama's many shortcomings, but to try to make people think they are actually good things.
Posted by: pudge on March 16, 2008 04:34 PMBlair Hull was, according to most polls, leading Obama in February 2004 by as many as 10 points. Then stories about Hull and spousal abuse came out, and in one month, Hull was gone, garnering only 10 percent of the vote in the March 2004 primary, to Obama's 52 percent. That's an approximately 50-point swing in just one month, because of the spousal abuse scandal, and how Hull mishandled it.
So pardon me if I don't give Obama much credit for beating Hull ... :-)
Posted by: pudge on March 16, 2008 05:07 PMDude, your having way to much fun on this one.
Loving it. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 16, 2008 05:31 PMIt's like if you're trying to win a record in baseball, say, the most sacks in a season, and so the quarterback just lets you sack him so you can get the record. That, to me, takes almost of all the meaning away from the accomplishment.
I would never vote for anyone based on the color of their skin or their gender. Call me old-fashioned.
Posted by: pudge on March 17, 2008 08:10 AM