MY OTHER BLOGS

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2005

« TRIO | Main | HEADS OR TAILS? »

Thursday, 13 March 2008

Comments

Marco

I love your site and agree with you on almost everything, but your continued support of Hillary Clinton and this post in particular baffles (and angers) me. First, you claim that Obama has a "non-existent" record. Clearly, you haven't done your homework. From the Texas Observer:
Barack has held elected office for twelve years. During the first eight years, sponsored over 820 bills, including 233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, fifteen gun control bills, six bills regarding veterans’ affairs, and many others.
In his first year in the U.S. Senate, Barack authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These bills
included:
1. The Government Transparency Act (became law)
2. The Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act (became law)
3. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (passed the Senate)
4. The Government Ethics Bill (became law)
5. The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill (now in committee), and many more.

You also claim that if he wasn't black he never would have been given the chance to give the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. The convention has always given the keynote spot to an up-and-coming Democrat. In 1996, the keynote speaker was the 41-year-old, 1st term governor of Indiana, Evan Bayh. So yes, unknown white men have been given the opportunity to speak before the Democratic Convention. Also, you say: "And as a junior senator from Illinois who has been in national politics for about ten minutes, he would never, as a white man, been a consideration for the presidential race." Then how do you explain John Edwards, who has far less experience than Obama? Like Edwards, Obama is doing well because he is smart, connects with people, and offers something other than Washington-as-usual. Ferraro's comments were racist and your post is misguided at best. Having read your blog for years now, and appreciating your wit, intelligence and insight, I expected better from you.

Marco

One more thing: You say, "Are we really supposed to believe that he's running off with 85 to 90 percent of the black vote because they know who he is...?" That statement is demeaning; you're implying that black voters are only voting for Obama because he's black and they're not smart enough or informed enough to know anything about him. Blacks don't vote en masse for black candidates. They certainly didn't support Al Sharpton when he ran. Maybe they're voting for Obama because, like a lot of us, they agree with him on the issues and see a chance for real change in Washington? Or maybe they just didn't vote for Hillary because they're fed up with her surrogates' racially tinged attacks (e.g., Bill after the South Carolina primary and Ferraro's recent tirade). And while Obama did get close to 90% of the black vote in Mississippi, that was an anomaly; he hasn't been pulling that much of the black vote in other places. Mississippi is a deeply racially polarized state.

Jim Kelly

Geraldine Ferraro's comments are offensive. I'm glad she is gone fron the CLinton campaign. Even Hillary herself has put a lot of distance between herself and Ferraro. Obama is where he is not because of his race, but becuase of his accomplishments and his talent, as others have pointed out. Richard, you're way off base on this.

mike/

when political correctness impacts political correctness.

it's time to stop hiding what's under the surface and confront it and open up a true dialogue. people cover up the truth by using false epithet, whether it be race, gender, age, LGBTQ, etc.

i agree with you Richard. i think that Geraldine Ferraro did nothing more than to say out loud what many people are thinking but do not believe they have the right to say it for fear of being branded as something that is not considered politically correct.

Alan down in Florida

1) You and Geraldine Ferraro are absolutely correct. This primary season has turned into affirmative action for politicians. Marco please note that sponsoring bills is not doing anything. Introducing bills is the key part - every Tom Dick & Jane jumps on the bandwagon of a bill that is likely to advance. How about the hundred plus times Obama voted "Present" in the Illinois legislature so as to not have a paper trail of what he believes in for the voters to judge.

2) What, you mean that Hillary doesn't have a strap on?

3) The study focused on teenage girls. Why has no one asked the question as to where the STDs are coming from. Since lesbian transmission of STDs is neglible I have to assume that millions of young, straight men also have a high incidence of STDs that they are passing along. And leave us not forget that one of the things caused by abstinence education is a redefinition of sex as to not include oral and/or anal. And, as we should have learned from our years in the shadow of AIDS - unprotected anal sex is high risk sex whether one worries about HIV or STDs.

4) The generation covered by this study is the first to grow up entirely outside the shadow of AIDS and, due to lack of education, does not know just how deadly the consequences of unprotected sex of any sort can be,

5) "Then how do you explain John Edwards, who has far less experience than Obama? " Rather than make the point, Marco proves the reverse. It is the rush of 'non-traditional" voters to Obama for nothing more than the will-o-the-wisps of change and hope that derailed John Edwards' candidacy. Yet if you look closely at his candidacy you will see that Clinton and Obama have both co-opted the platform he was running on while the other two were Iraqing us to tears.

6) Why do gay men think that Obama has any great love for them. His Christian upbringing in evangelical churches and pandering to the very conservative black churches for support puts him in the precarious position of alienating his support base if he does anything on the subject of gay rights. And leave us not forget the Donnie McClurkin and Louis Farrakhan support (David Duke of the KKK as well).

7) Polls show that only 4% of the respondents would never vote for an African-American for President while 12% would never vote for a woman. Mathematically you could make the case that that is the overriding difference in primary results.

8) Since Obama is only half-African-American (how soon we forget that at the outset of the campaign there were concerns that he wasn't "black" enough) does it make us only half-racist if we think he has gotten as far as he has by dint of the tint of his skin?

9) "In regards to the presidential race, it’s ludicrous and insulting to believe that African Americans lack the capacity to be intelligent and objective in choosing the best presidential candidate for the job." Call me a cynic but I believe most Americans regardless of skin tone lack that ability. The American public is ignorant, easily swayed and follow bandwagons like lemmings, consistently voting against their own self-interest when voting at all.

10) Marco - I wish your candidate luck. As exit polling in Texas and Ohio showed, Obama's overwhelming support in the African-American community is causing racial/racist backlash amongst white men 35-50 who gravitated towards Clinton. These are the men who will go to McCain in the general election - particularly in those red states that Obama has won caucuses.

11) Need I point out that to the best of my knowledge Sen. Obama has yet to win a closed primary? Speculation exists that he lost the open primary in New Hampshire because people looking at his large lead in the polls crossed over and voted for McCain as a slap in the face to Mitt Romney.

12) Not that it matters in the scheme of choosing a candidate (and Sen. Clinton was my 4th choice) but what happens if Obama does lose? Will all of the non-traditional voters go back to their political abstinence? Does it spoil opportunities for future African-American aspirants to office?

I am old enough that the first Presidential campaign I worked on while in college was Shirley Chisholm - a black female. Would that she were still alive and the Democratic candidate in 2008. Ah, sweet nostalgia.

Marq

Racisim wears many hats.

Tim

Since I'm sure that most readers of this blog believe that we are products of evolution, and since our (mostly) disgusting species evolved in Africa, we are all technically "African".

There is absolutely no scientific definition of race. Race is a political creation. As a matter of semantics, Race is by its own definition a racist concept. If one "believes" in race, one is technically racist.

Now let's all examine the general "beliefs" that are held in the US of A. Actually we don't have to because we have Richard doing it for us every day. Thank-you Richard. Now should we be so surprised about current events?

Has anyone noticed the banks are tanking?

chamblee54

There are a lot of well spoken black people in America today. The question is, how was Mr. O able to rise to the top?
This is like saying that the only reason Madonna made the big time is because she screwed half of the music business. While this may be true, it ignores the fact that lots and lots of women(and men) screw lots and lots of music business types. Why was Madonna so special.
Also, you seem to forget the huge numbers of people who hate Hillary. Given the choice between Hillary and Godzilla, the "monster" would win. BTW, Godzilla was very offended by the comments of the former Obama staffer.

paul

I've commented before about why I support Obama, so I won't go there again. But I do have to say that you have a point, blacks are overwhelmingly in support of Obama right now, and that can't just be a fluke. But I honestly don't care and can't blame them. If there was an openly gay man in the running, I wouldn't vote for him at first, like I didn't vote for Kucinich even though he's for gay marriage, because I know he wouldn't be electable (I'm one of those who thinks that a vote for Nadir is a wasted vote). But once it became clear that he was, I'd throw my entire support behind him and campaign for him, because I know that my life would have a chance to be better because of it. I've been following this election from the outset, and blacks were not voting for Obama en masse at the outset, I think mostly because they didn't think he was electable, and too many are used to politics as usual. Now that he is obviously electable, they're flocking to him, and I understand it and agree with it completely. To say that skin color shouldn't be an issue is only true with one respect, nobody should vote against him because he's black, it's not like he's gonna say "fuck whitey my people are in power now!!". A black voting for him because they think he will take on their cause more than anyone else, and make their life better, is not racist. It's realistic.

As for the disease issue, FUCK THE FUNDAMENTALLY RELIGIOUS. This is not their Christian Nation, and their naive and puritanical views on sex are more of a danger to the wellbeing of our youth than the "homosexual lifestyle" is. It's fine that parents tell their kids to abstain if that's what they want, but it's the school's job to educate. Teens are going to have sex, and if they don't in high school they sure as hell are in college. It's a fact, and they need to know the risks and how to mitigate them. Period. Fuck I don't care, teach the facts in a biology class instead of health class. The facts are what matter, not some simplistic view of what morality should be.

I learned about safe sex and contraception in school before it was banned by those stupid people, and it wouldn't even cross my mind to live the stereotypical "homosexual lifestyle". I'd never consider having sex without a condom unless I knew the guy well and trusted him, and even then I'd probably make sure by getting us both tested before we started not using them. I'm horrified by the concept of prominent gays advocating unsafe sex, they need to be singled out and held accountable by intelligent gays, not the religious right.

And yes we need to admit that a subset of our people are killing themselves with their behavior, whether it's because they come out of repression and rebel, or just don't care enough about themselves to take precautions because society calls them worthless anyway, I don't know. But the religious fuckwits use the issue to demonize all gays, and it pisses me off. So there is a fine line to be drawn.

mkf

as regards the ferraro flap, of course you're absolutely right--obama's race is just as much a factor in this race as is hillary's sex, or mccain's age, or romney's religion, and as such should be no more off-limits for discussion than those respective issues.

the irony here (well, one of many) is that, while obama's camp is waxing high and mighty about ferraro's supposed racism, many americans (including myself) got their first listen today to the words of the right rev. jeremiah wright, obama's "spiritual advisor," and even though his strident, virulently anti-white rhetoric makes ferraro's remarks pale by comparison, i doubt you'll hear a peep of protest about same from any of obama's supporters.

Marco

I find it interesting that gay people (and I'm assuming that most of the people who frequent this blog are gay men) -- that because we're part of a discriminated-against minority, we automatically cannot be racist. Unfortunately, there is just as much racism in the gay community as in the population at large. And Alan adding at the end of his post that he worked on Shirley Chisolm's campaign is much like someone saying, "See, I can't be racist, some of my best friends are black." Being gay and being politically liberal doesn't insulate us from racial insensitivity. Of course race is a factor in this presidential race. So is gender. We have, for the first time in our nation's history, the real possibility of electing the first female or first African-American president, ending 230 years of tradition of electing white male presidents. There is rightly a lot of excitement in this campaign. But to imply that Obama is where he is because of his race is, simply, racist. Read Denny's post again. Blacks in this country have to work twice as hard to get half as much. If you don't believe that, then you're living in some sort of white fairy tale land.

The comments to this entry are closed.