Andrew Sullivan swiftly dismissed Geraldine Ferraro's assessment of Obama's popularity as "fanning racial resentment and fear". But this Thursday Sullivan approvingly quoted an overseas columnist who "[sees] the enormous potential that Obama has to transform global politics". The quoted column is here:
Put yourself in the shoes of a youngster in Africa, Iraq or Indonesia: can you imagine what effect it would have to see the non-white face of Obama -of Barack Hussein Obama - as the figurehead of the United States? Do you know how vital it would be for the psychology of youngsters in the developing world to be infected by the relentless positivity that Obama exudes? Do you think Hillary Clinton's image and message would have the same effect? Or McCain's?I think it's fair to say that if Obama was a white man, Andrew Sullivan would not be promoting this argument in his favor. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 23, 2008 12:02 PM | Email ThisNot by a long shot. Only Obama can re-inspire the lost confidence in America.
If Clinton was not the wife of Clinton - would she be where she is today ?
Of course not, but - it does not matter at all.
Here is a suggestion:
Why don't you stop using the terms black and white when you talk about people ?
This, for reasons I cannot understand, seems to be foreign thouhgt to the American mind.
Posted by: eddie23 on March 23, 2008 12:22 PMOn the other hand, what does McCain bring to the table? Unless he had a REALLY interesting VP, he is lining up to be an uninspiring candidate, and an excruciatingly mediocre potential president.
Posted by: bma on March 23, 2008 12:27 PMWhy NOT bring up race and other differences? Being "colorblind" is, at best, naive.
Posted by: bma on March 23, 2008 12:31 PMIt's quite another thing to say it would be great to have a role model who is green/brown/jewish/irish that inspires people around the world. O'bama does represent the things he stands for in a very positive manner. He inspires people of all races and truly brings them together. That is not racist. His presidency would offer an opportunity to improve the image of the US in many people's eyes.
Posted by: TM on March 23, 2008 01:21 PMThe only thing these pretzels that liberals twist themselves into need is some mustard.
Give me a break.
Posted by: Ragnar on March 23, 2008 01:21 PMSullivan's right. Obama, being without the experience or gravitas of a responsible leader, enjoys a fine ability with rhetoric, in which he can nearly convince anyone of anything. An excellent figurehead, if his rhetoric is consonant with the greater public opinion in the US.
But without some serious responsible leadership under his belt, he needs some time at the bow taking cold salt-water baths before attempting to move to the stern. And we all need to see just what decisions he might make, and exactly what his so-far undisclosed principles for governing would be, before taking such a risk as to elect him President.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on March 23, 2008 01:21 PMAnd it just happens to be the truth.
Posted by: Independent Voter on March 23, 2008 01:28 PMMaybe VP? If she wants to keep her job, everyone in the GOP better grab both oars.
Futhermore with all that "lost confidence in America" why do you stay? I'll tell you why. Because the countries that you seem to think are so much better than this will jail you or cut off your head for saying the same things there.
I am sick to death of you citizens of patriotic expediency. You like your freedom of speech but only to express your hatred of the country that gives it to you.
Posted by: Ragnar on March 23, 2008 02:27 PMWhether or not he would have secured enough primary votes to be the front runner for the democratic nomination is an entirely different matter.
Posted by: Noble on March 23, 2008 03:16 PMIn that regard, I could dramatically care less what other people or countries think or believe and their perspective has no weight in my decision.
I want my president to be president of THIS country. Not a white president or a black president or a woman president. But a plain ol', run of the mill president.
In short, the "distant people" have no impact, involvement, part or concern in choosing our leader.
Posted by: hinton on March 23, 2008 03:21 PMThe democratic party has spent those years patronizing some and demonizing others based on the color their skin.
Which path leads to racial harmony?
The democrats might, if they lose this year's presidential contest, begin to think this question over very carefully.
If they win, they will not question their tactics of racial identity politics and will not have learned a thing.
Posted by: deadwood on March 23, 2008 04:04 PM"He is lining up to be an uninspiring candidate, and an excruciatingly mediocre potential president."
Uninspiring? He is a Graduate of one of the toughest schools in the nation to get into and through, Annapolis.
Uninspiring
He was a Naval jet fighter pilot. A misfiring of a missile from a nearby jet on the carrier Forrester hit McCain's plane at the fuel tanks. McCain crawled out of his jet and jumping into the fire on the deck. Then rolled through the fireball. He then tried to save his fellow pilot but was blown back 10 feet by additional detonations.
Uninspiring?
He was on his 23rd bombing sorte 3 months after the Forrester incident when a Soviet SAM struck his plane taking off the right wing. He ejected but the force of the ejection broke both his arms and his kneecap. He was unconscious but came to as he plunged into a lake near his target. A mob gathered. The dragged him out of the lake; broke his shoulder with a rifle butt and repeatedly bayonetted him. He was put in a truck and thrown into the Hanoi Hilton to die. His condition deteriorated and he would've died except for the ministery of his fellow POWs. A few months after his capture his father, Adm Jack McCain, was named commander of the Pacific. Now the N Vietnamese realized they had a propaganda tool in their possession. He was tortured; finally broke and gave a "confession". The North Vietnamese offered him early release. He refuse citing a code of conduct that said POWs should be released in the order they were captured. He was again beaten for this defiance. In all he spent 51/2 years in the Hanoi Hilton. He rehabbed and again regained flight status.
Uninspiring
Stood tall and called for the escalation of troops that today has brought much success in Iraq.
Uninspiring?
Is a United States Senator who quickly sped to become his party's top Presidential Nominee.
Uninspiring?
I could hardly look at any of McCains adult life as being uninspiring. That's one trait he does and will never have have to defend.
Posted by: GS on March 23, 2008 05:40 PMObama will b trounced in the general, but that is a better route for the Democrats ie. write off the Presidency in 2008 and stick by Obama in order not to lose blacks. In doing so they WILL lose blue collar union, but this will be less of a blow than losing blacks who vote 85 - 90% Democrat. Blue collar union members are solid Democrat voters but not overwhelming Democrat voters that blacks are. Where it is going to really hurt them will be that blue collar union leadership which is overwhelmingly Democrat cannot be so unabashed in it's Democrat stance and financing in the future.
Sullivan is a smart man in this calculation, he is a four flusher in how he is selling it though.
Posted by: JDH on March 23, 2008 05:52 PM
That's according to a new poll by InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion.
First, we screened poll respondents to find those who were aware that Obama's pastor was in the news. A startling 82% knew about Obama's speech, and about the controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Of those who knew about the controversy and the speech, we asked, "Taking all this into account, are you more or less likely to support Obama for president?"
Less likely (52%)
More likely (19%)
About the same (27%)
No opinion (2%)
Read more here:
http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_320_294.aspx
We already know of his vows to immediately end global warming, the war in Iraq and to create one american people.
But did you know that he plans to end WALMART?
Yes, it's true. He said so in an a television interview a few days ago.
When asked how he would go about eliminating america's leading discount store and maintaining buying power among the commoners, he responded that under his economic plan americans would soon be earning enough extra income to support local business. Huh?
Does that sound like the plan of a full grown adult? Let alone the next president?
Posted by: Bart Cannon on March 24, 2008 12:46 AMHere is an earlier entry by Sullivan where he basically counters the argument that Shark is promoting here.
Posted by: tc on March 24, 2008 09:03 AMHere is an earlier entry by Sullivan where he basically counters the argument that Shark is promoting here.
Posted by: tc on March 24, 2008 09:04 AMPlease visit this site if you have any doubt that the hate that infects Wright's church is not indicative of the level of discourse that flows from the "progressive" wing of the Democrat Party on a daily basis. It is a site called Huffingtonpost and the case the author is attempting to advance is that the current Pope is the equivilent to Wright and the author uses teh Pope's cumpulsory membership in the Hitler Youth as a basis for his claim. This is a childish case to try to make, at best.
Posted by: JDH on March 24, 2008 09:59 AMYes we do... We need to start asking -
" Who is telling our children that skin color matters in America? "
" Who is telling our children that if they aren't white, they can't succeed in America and if they are white, they owe their earnings to a greater common good? "
" Who is telling our children that America is the evil empire of the world? "
" Who is telling our children that they need socialized government solutions to personal problems, in the freest most prosperous nation on earth? "
" Who is telling our children that a mother's right to kill supersedes a child's right to life? "
" Who is telling our children that it takes a commune (a government) instead of two strong parents to raise a child? "
" Who is telling our children that morality is a thing of the past and that an immoral secular socialist abyss is the progressive future of our nation? "
" We really do need to do some serious soul-searching about who is feeding our children such toxic information and why, - and we had better start with Barack Obama, his spiritual leader, and those in charge of today's Democrat Party who seem to have cornered the market on toxic information. "
Posted by: Ragnar on March 24, 2008 10:50 AMOnly to see the GOP candidate flip-flop every chance he gets.
"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right." - John McCain, 2000
"I am very proud of Rev. Hagee's endorsement" - John McCain, 2008
I'm still at a loss for John McCain to explain as to why he as a victim of torture himself (McCain himself was forced into giving a taped confession claiming that he was a war-criminal) would flip-flop on the torture of others. Seems like last year he was against it, now that he has the GOP nomination he's for it.
Not the GOP, otherwise they would not put known racist's in positions of power.
"Who is telling our children that if they aren't white, they can't succeed in America and if they are white, they owe their earnings to a greater common good?"
I thought Jesus preached that we should help all mankind.
Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Who is telling our children that America is the evil empire of the world?
Dunno, you tell me. Iran seems to be, but they've been doing that since the '80s
Who is telling our children that they need socialized government solutions to personal problems, in the freest most prosperous nation on earth?
We may be the freest but we certainly could do with some more regulation. Sometimes you can't trust the free market to make sound business decisions. Seems like once or twice a decade the US Taxpayers are forced to bail out the one industry or another for there decision to put making huge amounts of money over sound business decisions.
" Who is telling our children that a mother's right to kill supersedes a child's right to life? "
You saying we can feed all these children? They're already having food riots in third-world countries. It's just a matter of time till we have the same. Over-population happens.
"Who is telling our children that it takes a commune (a government) instead of two strong parents to raise a child? "
No one. Why can't you have two strong gay parents like Dan Savage? Seems like every week we get a new story of "strong parents" beating and killing their children.
"Who is telling our children that morality is a thing of the past and that an immoral secular socialist abyss is the progressive future of our nation?"
No one is arguing against morality. Seems like in a free country it's possible to have different takes on morality.
"immoral secular socialist abyss"
You against the 1st Amendment? Freedom of Religion means they can believe in any religion or no religion if they so choose. To take that right away violates the very principles that our founding fathers stood for. If you want to live in The Republic of Gilead that's your choice. I choose to live in America where I can be Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, or Agnostic with no repercussions.
we had better start with Barack Obama, his spiritual leader, and those in charge of today's Democrat Party who seem to have cornered the market on toxic information
Have they now? Ragnar, it seems you're the one spreading toxic information to strike fear into voters hearts through lies and misinformation.
Now, which conservative pastor blamed 9/11 on America much the same way Rev. Wright did? Could it be Jerry Fawell? I don't see any outrage on your part for his remarks. The hypocrisy in condemnation of Rev. Wright while embracing Rev. Falwell speaks volumes.
The article and the post are about Barry (just call me BAAAAAHrack, middle name fear bomb CENSORED) OBAAAAAHmaand his race based candidacy. He's a better pony than you but just as much of a side show.
Posted by: Ragnar on March 24, 2008 11:44 AMSlouching Toward Denver: The Democratic death march
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=44aed783-8357-4491-8589-ee15290e6e96
Posted by: JDH on March 24, 2008 12:00 PMTrue, but the views you took from the article are ones you personally agree with, correct?
Seems like you are dodging the questions posed to you (as usual). It's one thing to post an article, it's quite another to defend it's content. Since you clearly can't do the later I fail to see why you even bother posting them.
From your article JDH:
Since Super Tuesday, three-quarters of Republicans have routinely proclaimed themselves satisfied with McCain as their nominee.
Sounds like they had to settle for McCain, it seems that Huckabee was still able to win states long after McCain had clearly sowed up the nomination. To me this would imply that the religious wing of the party is not as happy with the GOP's choice of a candidate as they would like.
Those same aspects seem to apply across the board where one Democrat candidate campaigns on despite mountains of evidence showing they cannot win. That candidate squeaks out a win or two and moves on to the next big state (while ignoring the small ones which will be important come Nov.).
The problem comes in November when McCain takes public financing (aka taxpayer money) and realizes that a law with is name on it (McCain-Feingold) has monetarily hindered him while limiting what others (ie GOP/NRCC & 527's) may do to help his campaign for the Presidency.
It would seem hypocritical to have those groups break the very laws he created on his behalf. McCain a believer in honesty, integrity, and fairness may be the one who has to personally reign in the very people who want to help him.
My answer is that if history is anything to go by associating with bigots and race baiters does not preclude a rise to leadership position within the Democrat Party.
Posted by: JDH on March 24, 2008 03:01 PM*The Closet Racist
Posted by: Ragnar on March 24, 2008 03:56 PMNor the Republican party for that matter. The Speaker of the House (technically two heartbeats away from POTUS) was an avid segregationist back in the day. Was once considered a prime candidate for this election. Then the truth came out.
cato, tcr* learned his lessons well
Nice cartoon, you going to respond to #35, or you going to do the very thing you accuse me of. I'm guessing the later.
~~
" Barack Obama's speech last week, hastily prepared to extinguish the firestorm over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, won critical praise for style and substance but failed politically. By elevating the question of race in America, the front-running Democratic presidential candidate has deepened the dilemma created by his campaign's success against the party establishment's anointed choice, Hillary Clinton. In rejecting the racist views of his longtime spiritual mentor but not disowning him, Obama has unwittingly enhanced his image as the African-American candidate--not just a remarkable candidate who happens to be black. That poses a racial dilemma for unelected super-delegates, who as professional politicians will pick the winner since neither Obama nor Clinton can win enough elected delegates to be nominated. Super-delegates, though they were inclined to Clinton no longer than three months ago, now flinch at rejecting Obama. They fear antagonizing African-Americans, who have become the hard-core Democratic base. But what if national polls continue their post-Wright trend and show Obama trailing both Clinton and Republican John McCain in popular support? " --Robert Novak
~~
" [Barack Obama's] whiny wife, Michelle, says that her husband's election as president would be the first reason to have 'pride' in America, and complains that this country is 'downright mean' and that she's having difficulty finding money for their daughters' piano lessons and summer camp. Between them, Mr. and Mrs. Obama earn $480,000 a year (not including book royalties from 'The Audacity Of Hype,' but they're whining about how tough they have it to couples who earn 48 grand--or less. Yes, we can. But not on a lousy half-million bucks a year. God has blessed America, and blessed the Obamas in America, and even blessed the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose bashing of his own country would be far less lucrative anywhere else on the planet. The 'racist' here is not Geraldine Ferraro but the Rev. Wright, whose appeals to racial bitterness are supposed to be everything President Obama will transcend. Right now, it sounds more like the same-old same-old. 'God Bless America Land that I love.' Take it away, Michelle." ---Mark Steyn
cato, tcr, Trent Lott RESIGNED his position; when you equate his words to those of the vile, hateful, wrong Rev Wright you are proving your existance as one of the useful idiots defined for you by Thomas Sowell... but oh, then again, according to you, he's just another token black to be dismissed, isn't he?
Posted by: Ragnar on March 24, 2008 04:27 PMHaha, only to have him come as Speaker of the House back after they found out Tom Daschle's lobbyist wife was securing contracts for her clients via his position. Talk about breach of ethics.
Oh yeah, Trent Lott resigned from the House at the end of last year so he could become a full time lobbyist and not have to wait two years (which he would have had he resigned today) thanks to new ethics laws came about because of people named Daschle, Cunningham, and Abramoff.
hen you equate his words to those of the vile, hateful, wrong Rev Wright
I dunno, which is worse being a pastor preaching racism in a church in Chicago, or being a racist and actually fighting for and getting segregation of your Fraternity then later becoming the person two heartbeats from becoming POTUS (only to step down because of a glowing endorsement of Strom Thurmond's [a fellow racist] failed PUSA campaign). Hmmm, who has the real power here, some whacked out preacher in Chicago or Speaker of the House. I'm going to go with the latter.
It's one thing to talk racism, it's quite another to act upon it as Mr. Lott did.
It's a pitiful attempt at moral equivalence, but when one lives by the standard of not imposing morals it's expected.
And, I guess YOU would be the local SP expert at talking racism:
See post #146
February 26, 2008
What WAS Ken Hutcherson trying to say?
"Maybe because it's a site of made up personalties like Juanita Gonzales (token hispanic woman?), Jamal McCoy (token black guy?), Gregory Chang (token asian guy?), & Jeffrey Goldberg (token jewish guy?)". Posted by: Cato on February 29, 2008 01:42 PM
