Barkleying Up The Wrong Tree
Last night at the Democratic convention, Charles Barkley, the basketball retired player, spoke to a CNN reporter and said Barack Obama will get elected if white people will vote for a black man.
Jacob Weisberg lays the black/white social guilt blackmail out on Slate -- the idea that if Obama doesn't win it means America is racist:
Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.
Oh, please. I know there are white racists out there -- just like there are black racists out there who will only vote for Obama because he's a black man.
My problem with Obama isn't that he's a black man, or a half black man, if you're really counting, it's that he's a socialist!
Oh, and if you think it's just in the health care arena that he's going to make a mess of things, check this out.
An overall problem with Obama's popularity isn't that he's black, but that he's a rock star. As the WSJ put it in an editorial:
Mr. Obama's descent from his Icarusian heights earlier this spring reflects a shift in this race that has nothing to do with race. A skin-deep Obamamania had energized the country. Now that's giving way to serious consideration of credentials and policy substance. After all, voters are choosing the world's most powerful man. Mr. McCain has been drawing contrasts with his younger rival to close the gap in the polls. We'll see if the trend continues.As a matter of sober fact, many Americans look at the junior Senator from Illinois and worry, as his Democratic Vice Presidential candidate pointed out last year, that he isn't "ready" for the job. Does this mean that anyone who agrees with Joe Biden's previous assessment is a racist? Do Democrats really think so little of their fellow Americans?
I am white, and being a mom I have plenty of guilt, but I'll be damned if I'm voting for someone out of false guilt about what someone I may or may not have been related to did to black people 300 years ago.
I am not voting for Obama for any number of reasons, his skin color is not one of them. But no matter how many reasons I have for not voting for Mr Unqualified, to a certain segment of the population it will always be that I'm racist. It's ridiculous.
momof3 at August 27, 2008 7:09 AM
I've already been hammered by that on the message boards that I participate on. Apparently, my only problem with Obama is the color of his skin and that I'm a racist. (Well, no. It's because, as I already said, he's an idealistic fool.) One even went so far to insist that I had said that I could never vote for a black man. I never said that.
It was especially sobering to see the conservatives on the message board, who previously stigmatized me for my soi-disant hatred of Bush, to come to my defense.
Patrick at August 27, 2008 7:49 AM
I don't care what color anyone is, if I get a creepy feeling in my gut about them, I practice avoidance of that person at all times. This is one of those times.
Flynne at August 27, 2008 8:01 AM
Unfortunately, once you're accused of racism, there's nothing you can do to prove that you're not a racist. With these types of race-baiters, you are guilty simply by having been accused.
There is real racism in the world. And crying 'racism' every time you don't get what you want only works to desensitize us to the real racism when it happens.
wheatley at August 27, 2008 8:21 AM
But if he loses, he's got a ready-made reason. It'll never be because of inexperience, or his character or his plans or whatever.
Rachel at August 27, 2008 8:30 AM
Accusations of racism come straight from the liberal's playbook, which they have been following for decades: If you can't debate those who disagree with you on facts and issues (and what liberal was ever able to do that?), attack their motives.
Remember, it wasn't Bubba's sexual misdeeds that got him in trouble (albeit temporarily), it was the "vast right wing attack machine".
It wasn't that John Kerry lied to Congress about atrocities in Vietnam and then lied about his service record, it was that he was "swift boated".
It's not that Obama espouses socialist policies which would wreck our country or that he lacks experience and was weird ideas about how diplomacy works, not to support him is to be called a racist.
This sort of demagoguery is not only allowed but actively promoted in our mainstream media. In order to do this, members of the media must be either naive or despicable. I don't think they're naive.
Kirk Strong at August 27, 2008 8:53 AM
What Kirk said.
And yes, they do think that little of their fellow Americans.
Robert at August 27, 2008 9:11 AM
"Barack Obama will get elected if white people will vote for a black man."
Close. Barack Obama will get elected if white people will vote for a left-wing, big government socialist.
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at August 27, 2008 9:11 AM
Do Democrats really think so little of their fellow Americans?
WolfmanMac - Yes.
WolfmanMac at August 27, 2008 9:24 AM
For 40 years the white majority in this country has allowed itself to be systematically discriminated against. Obama is the expected result in a country that advances the undeserved based soley on the color of his/her skin.
Keep in mind, it isn't the children of the white supporters of these policies who have been adversely affected. Ted Kennedy's kids didn't go to community college so a "qualified minority candidate" could take their seats at Harvard or Princeton.
No, it is the children of working class whites that have suffered and continue to suffer under this legalized racial discrimination. [these same people that will be labelled "racists" if they don't vote for Obama] Its easy for the Ted Kennedy's of the world to vote for and support such measures because they come at no personal cost to them. Not only that, supporting such legislation helps them maintain their illusory sense of moral superiority.
Does anyone reading this seriously believe that if Obama was a white guy with the same credentials and "talent" that he'd be the Democratic nominee for POTUS?
What a joke.
Tom at August 27, 2008 9:26 AM
*insert evil maniacal laughter here*...
I wonder how things would stack up if it was Colin Powell against Al Gore...
It's enough to make the ganglia twitch...
People who are making this a problem always have a problem to make. From their standpoint anyone who doesn't agree with them is the enemy... it really doesn't have much to do with race. If it was Hilly instead of Obama, they'd claim the same thing about sexism.
Gotta love this statement:
"In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race."
I'd invite the writer to put their money where their mouth is and move. In the end, we are interested in how we are percieved in the world, but we can only care about that so much, because we have to take care of ourselves too. This is the same world that has allowed Darfur to continue as if nothing is wrong. I suppose we have to take it in the shorts for that too?
If this isn't about race, you have to make it be not about race. There are plenty of other things to play up for Obama, like being young and idealistic, and an agent for change. Yet it is HE who plays up race, as if he can't run on the other strengths. Does that mean he doesn't believe in them?
This is a race to WIN the presidency. If you CAN'T get it done, then you didn't convince enough people to vote for you. That IS Democracy In Action (tm) ;)
We vote for who we want to vote for at the time we do it. And whoever gets the most votes wins. The rest of the world doens't have a stake in that, because it is our government and not theirs. It is our choice and not theirs.
So may the best person win, and may the loser not be a sore one.
"mom! johny and I played 3234 rounds of rock, paper, scissors, and I lost!"
'yes dear, in a contest soemone wins, and someone loses...'
SwissArmyD at August 27, 2008 9:52 AM
George McGovern did not need black skin to lose to Richard Nixon in a 48-state wipe out.
The Democrats have committed political suicide by nominating a candidate for President who's greatest accomplishment is voting "Present" 129 times (yes, 129 times) in the Illinois state legislature. Tom, you're exactly right.
Martin at August 27, 2008 10:04 AM
There will be some who vote against Obama because he black, just as there are those who look at McCain and find him a just little too wrinkly. And there are those who will vote based on a plethora of other, seemingly meaningless criteria that, far whatever reason, resonate with them. That's what makes this country great. We get to pick our president for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all.
So, if Obama loses, it's because he's black. Same true if he wins? Or would that vote have been on the merits?
cat at August 27, 2008 10:13 AM
At days end, here is what it comes down to.
Every voter decides for themselves whether or not they think Obama is capable and ready...or not. The furor over race, manufactured as it is, cannnot sustain itself for the duration of the campaign.
You see we're all alone in that voting booth, there isn't going to be a left wing race baiter walking in with you to hold your hand and remind you that you should be feeling guilty.
When we're all alone, we can say easily to ourselves..."I don't vote for socialists" (A fair number of us have no problem with saying that anyway, but some people have guilt complexes)
So if the general population doesn't like what he has to say and what he plans to do, he will lose.
All the race baiting and recriminations won't change that fact.
Technically speaking though, Barklay was right. If only blacks voted for Obama, he'd lose. If whites refused to vote for him on the basis of color...he'd also lose.
If whites like his policy ideas, and have no problem with his race, he'd win.
However, whites can not care about his race, not care for his policies, and vote someone else up, and he'd lose.
Frankly, if his campaign (not supporters, his actual campaign) attempts any kind of a guilt trip, they've lost my vote. I don't waste time with historical guilt.
I care about results. Thus far, I don't see any evidence he can get the ones I want.
Robert at August 27, 2008 10:16 AM
Eventually, there will be an accusation that you are a racist if you don't re-elect Obama to a second term.
Andrew Garland at August 27, 2008 10:23 AM
If Jacob Weisberg doesn't vote for McCain, he hates the American military and so is not a patriot.
I like to extend the logic.
Otherwise, white people have been voting for black candidates for a while now. Doug Wilder as governor of the Old Dominion (no more southern state than that) for example. But will black people vote for white candidates when there are black candidates running? My feeling is 'somewhat, but not so much.'
BlogDog at August 27, 2008 10:57 AM
The bill you're referring to as further proof that Obama is a 'socialist' can be found here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110DTbyh6::
I doubt it will ruin the country, certainly, it can't possibly do as much damage to the economy as Bush/Cheney have done for the past 8 years, or as McCain will do over the next 4 if he wins.
Yesterday you said Obama was a pansy, and his wife was a butch bitch -- not in those words, certainly, but those were the tropes you were invoking. Today he's a 'rock star'. What does any of that even mean? Or even matter? McCain is far more of a 'celebrity' than Obama has ever been; he's been on the Tonight Show more often than Pam Anderson. Does his 'rock star' quality disqualify him from high office, too? Or is that only a negative when applied to non-Republican candidates?
Amy, I understand that this Pajamas Media gig must put some coin in your pocket, but honestly, you're way too smart to believe this b.s. Obama is nowhere near as progressive as I'd like him to be, he's certainly not a 'socialist', however it is you may want to define that at the moment, and as for all the he/she gender bending and rock star/celebrity crap, none of it has any valid meaning, nor does it have any actual bearing whatsoever on Obama's capacity to run our country.
Conservative operatives have been calling liberal men sissies, and liberal women butches, for generations now. And this most recent 'Obama is a celebrity, just like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears'... again, what does that even mean? What does that have to do with anything that matters? Aren't you the one who was pissing and moaning a few days ago about how neither candidate is talking about anything substantive?
All you're doing is sticking to the conservative attack points, throwing around a lot of emotionally loaded, semantically meaningless textual noise meant to push your readers' emotional buttons and make them associate unpleasant visceral responses with the opposition candidate. This is pretty much exactly what those retards from Sadly No were trying to do to you when they hacked your wikipedia page and wrote that vile nonsense about your gender. In response to that, you professed to be baffled as to why someone would try to insult you, or anyone else, on that kind of basis... and yet here you are, spewing the same toxic horseshit at the evil Democrat. Is Obama's wife a post operative transsexual too? Would it matter?
You're way too good for this nonsense, Amy. I understand this must be a good gig -- throwing red meat to the morons can't exactly be hard -- but that you put your talent in service to this kind of mindless posturing is repellent, and beneath you.
You don't like Obama because he's a socialist? Well, fine. He's not, but at least you linked to something to kind of vaguely support the charge (although a link to the actual bill Obama supports, which isn't even vaguely socialist, would have been more honest). But when you say that the stuff that really bothers you about him is he's a semantically and contextually meaningless phrase like 'rock star' or 'androgyne' or note how interesting it is that his wife 'power walks' out ahead of him when they're both moving to speak with supporters... honestly, Amy. It's just nonsense, and you know it.
You know what I like about McCain? He's the only presidential candidate for as long as I can remember who isn't making a big deal about what church he goes to; for all I know, the man's an agnostic. I'm far more comfortable with that aspect of him than I am with Obama's overt embrace of fundamentalist Christianity. I find it odd that an avowed atheist such as yourself, who openly ridicules people for their religious beliefs, isn't attacking Obama more for his, and praising McCain for his lack thereof.
However, I assume a memo has been passed down the line advising all conservative mouthpieces to avoid bringing this subject up at all costs, for fear of sending more of the lunatic mouthbreathing fringe away from McCain and over to Obama.
You want to attack Obama, by all means, knock yourself out. There are many things about him I don't like, although none of them will keep me from voting for him. But you're too smart a person and too good a writer to keep throwing around these emotionally charged, semantically clueless allegations. Go after his politics, go after his record, go after his stated intentions, his promises, his policies. But calling him a sissy? Or saying that what really bothers you about him is that he's a 'rock star'? That's just stupid, and you're not.
Doc Nebula at August 27, 2008 11:05 AM
At the end of the day it comes down to: do you want to extend the foolishness of the last 8 years (unneeded military adventure and major expansion of the debt) or trade it in for a different type of foolishness. Seems like that is always the choice we end up with cause there is no viable, rational, third party with a chance to win.
Jim at August 27, 2008 11:20 AM
Blog Dog said: But will black people vote for white candidates when there are black candidates running? My feeling is 'somewhat, but not so much.'
Not sure how you can say this and not turn it around the other way as well. Are you suggesting that black people are more racist than white? As someone above suggested, what if the Republican was black and the democrat a white guy?
moreta at August 27, 2008 11:22 AM
I've already said everything that needs to be said regarding race in this election.
brian at August 27, 2008 11:24 AM
I am not sure if Obama is a socialist. That seems a little extreme but I do know he has been flirting with some pretty dangerous ideas. Not renewing the Bush tax cuts (one of the only good things that man did in 8 years - at least in my view) and reopening NAFTA (presumably to make trade a little less free). Now is not the time (for the US and the rest of the world) to put up trade barriers and increase taxes ... lest we forget the economic lessons of the 1930's.
Charles at August 27, 2008 11:32 AM
what Doc said.......
Jim at August 27, 2008 11:33 AM
Charles - Obama and the entire Democratic party are talking just like politicians did in 1930's America. It's how we wound up with WWII.
Disengagement is a bad idea. It didn't work for Roosevelt, and it won't work for Obama.
brian at August 27, 2008 11:42 AM
"Eventually, there will be an accusation that you are a racist if you don't re-elect Obama to a second term." ~Andrew Garland
*shudder*
Sandy at August 27, 2008 11:58 AM
Yesterday you said Obama was a pansy, and his wife was a butch bitch -- not in those words, certainly, but those were the tropes you were invoking. Today he's a 'rock star'. What does any of that even mean? Or even matter? McCain is far more of a 'celebrity' than Obama has ever been; he's been on the Tonight Show more often than Pam Anderson. Does his 'rock star' quality disqualify him from high office, too? Or is that only a negative when applied to non-Republican candidates?
What I mean by this is a "rock star" in the perception of too many of his supporters. McCain is an old man people recognize. There's a cult of Obama...far different thing.
Amy Alkon at August 27, 2008 12:01 PM
I understand that this Pajamas Media gig must put some coin in your pocket, but honestly, you're way too smart to believe this b.s.
I like money, but if you think I'm somebody whose integrity is for sale, first of all, you don't make all that much from blogging unless you're Instapundit. I certainly don't. It's just nice not to do it totally for free...although, after my server costs with the new, better server company (Nexcess.net, a bunch of guys in Ann Arbor, Michigan, who I recommend), well...let's just say I'm not making out like a bandit.
Even with my syndicated column, I've written stuff that I know will get me fired/dropped from papers. I write what I believe. If you have an issue with what I post here, you can call me an idiot, or silly, or somebody with wrong-headed ideas, but don't call me a whore.
As I said to a friend, on a different angle of whoring, "I always found it cheapest to give away sex for free."
Amy Alkon at August 27, 2008 12:05 PM
You're ignoring most of what Doc Nebula asked, Amy. I, too, have been taken aback by the last few days of screechy posts, and have chalked it up to displaced emotion from the twin headaches of the identity theft and the S,N attacks, but really, yesterday was the last straw: Do you really find it "verrrry interesting" that Michelle Obama took a few steps ahead of her husband to greet some people she recognized instead of clasping his arm like a Prudence Goodwife? What's so interesting about it? Explain.
Nance at August 27, 2008 12:42 PM
Oh, come now, Nance.
I've actually come to the conclusion that you're a bit angry at me for being a libertarian, and it's reflected in the tone of all your comments, but until now, I haven't mentioned it.
These posts weren't "screechy." And I'm not weak in the head from anything, but thanks for your concern.
And yes, it's my opinion, that when your husband -- or wife -- is running for president, that you don't bolt out ahead of them to go shake hands. It would have been just as inappropriate for Bill Clinton. As the spouse, you're support staff.
Amy Alkon at August 27, 2008 12:48 PM
I don't get angry with people for their political beliefs. Having lived in the reddest state in the country for 20 years, it would have eaten a hole in my stomach by now. What does bug me is when people espouse beliefs and then immediately contradict them, and nowhere is this easier than with so-called libertarianism. To cite but one recent example from this blog, a while back you suggested the airlines were losing their shirts because they were hassling people with security measures, and cited a six-year-old column by Glenn Reynolds as some sort of proof. Never mind the column was the usual content-free, heh-indeedy stuff from the Instapundit -- that's not my concern here. Because the obvious reasons the airlines are struggling today -- a reason they repeat in the newspapers over and over and over and over and over -- is high fuel prices. And fuel prices are high -- another fact repeated over and over, etc. -- is because of increased world demand for oil.
Isn't the law of supply and demand something libertarians pay attention to anymore? Because I thought respect for markets is, like, the cornerstone of the belief system.
But back to yesterday's post, which you backed up with that essay by the guy with three names, one I read with Doc Nebula's question uppermost in mind: WHAT DOES THIS SHIT EVEN MEAN? I'm not the smartest person in the world, but when a guy manages to dump Oprah, Balzac, Camille Paglia and "sagging sperm counts" into one column, the only response is to make wanking motions with your arm, roll your eyes and turn the page. Bullshit in the Wall Street Journal is bullshit just the same. And then he compares Obama unfavorably to "the man on horseback," Ronald Reagan, a man who was bossed around by his wife, whom he called "mommy," until his dying day! You gotta love these right-wing sinecures. Are there no editors anywhere?
As for Michelle Obama, if I'm walking next to my husband and I see someone catching my eye and waving madly, I'm going to step out and say hi. Just call me butch.
Nance at August 27, 2008 1:10 PM
Amy,
I'm not calling you a whore, or, if I am, I'm envious of your status. As I said in private email, it's a signal accomplishment in today's world to actually get paid for what you're writing. If you want to take offense because I've implied you are being carefully selective in what you criticize and/or praise McCain and/or Obama about because you don't want to lose money, well, I suppose it's an offensive assertion... assuming it's true.
Having said that, I agree with Nance -- you've ignored 80% of what I said and pretty much all the questions I've asked. It's your blog and you can write, or not write, anything you like. But I will note that it's a remarkable coincidence that every critique you have of Obama so closely echoes whichever of Karl Rove's attack points are currently being circulated. I wouldn't have thought you and Karl were such soulmates. Live and learn.
You and Nance may both find something I posted at Talking Points Memo yesterday interesting. It's an essay directly responding to your entry linking to the "Shaman" editorial by Mr. Benen. You can find it here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/keeping-them-in-their-dresses.php
Have a great night.
Doc Nebula at August 27, 2008 2:02 PM
Brian,
I agree with you. Obama is trying to negotiate with dictators and terrorists ... it won't work. I did make that point yesterday. My point today was economic. The US and the rest of the world raised tariffs and created other economic barriers and pretty much caused the Great Depression. I am worried Obama is on this course. Perhaps you disagree?
Charles at August 27, 2008 2:14 PM
Charles -
I don't disagree with that assessment at all. He's said as much, concerning NAFTA and CAFTA, and if memory serves, he was against the trade agreement with Columbia because it didn't pressure them to respect the "human rights" of kidnappers and thugs.
Obama's a trade protectionist just like Pat Buchanan.
How's that for a nice comparison? The racist, jüaut;denhassen, xenophobe and the Enlightened One are virtually the same on foreign policy (both trade and military).
brian at August 27, 2008 2:30 PM
Sorry. That should be judenhassen. I don't speak German, so I figured it MUST have an umlaut. I was wrong.
And I'm using that loaded term because "anti-semite" is not specific enough, and "anti-Zionist" is not accurate.
Pat Buchanan hates Jews. He doesn't have anything particular to say about any other Semitic peoples. He's also an anti-Zionist, but that is likely an extension of his judenhassen.
judenhassen is the literal German for "Jew hatred".
brian at August 27, 2008 2:35 PM
Doc, that was a nicely written piece over at TPM.
Nance at August 27, 2008 2:58 PM
Not really, Nance. I mean, it's the same regurgitated rhetoric we've been getting from the left for decades. To wit, the right are a bunch of testosterone-addled violence-prone neanderthals.
I mean, why else start with the vivid weaponry metaphors?
Sure, the argument of "Obama as she-man" is way overdone. But it can also be shown that he has nanny-state tendencies in the policies he prefers.
Not that paternalism is any better in government, but still.
The whole "image thing" (as a certain former President once called it) is what's going on here. Obama has tried to paint himself as post-modern, post-racial, post-sexual, post-everything. He's bound to catch some flak for that. The reason there aren't many substantive arguments against Obama is because there isn't much substance to Obama.
And all Doc managed to write, with all those pretty words, was "I know you are, but what am I".
brian at August 27, 2008 3:13 PM
Just ask the Sadly Pathetics, Barack isn't half the she-man I am. After all, they blog about me all the time, and I don't see a peep about him!
P.S. I have a book due August 1. That's the August 1 that just passed. So, I'm only riffing off Brian's "she-man" above and going back to the salt mine. I'll read the rest of the stuff above after I get done writing, later tonight.
Amy Alkon at August 27, 2008 3:38 PM
brian: The reason there aren't many substantive arguments against Obama is because there isn't much substance to Obama.
Obama seems to have striven his entire life to achieve blandness. He was a community organizer who never ran the organization. He was a college lecturer who never tried for tenure. He was a lawyer who never argued a case. He was a state legislator who voted "present" 129 times.
The most sensational things about Barack Obama are not the things he's done, but the things people around him have done: Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, even Michelle Obama. These folks are more substantial than Barack Obama. He's just the guy who came to the party for the free sandwiches.
Barack Obama represents the triumph of mediocrity.
The first African-American president should be more than that.
Conan the Grammarian at August 27, 2008 4:05 PM
As an interested bystander to the north, I'll admit I'm not following as closely as all of you. But from this vantage point, I can agree with Nance that it was a nicely written piece, but I'd have to go with Brian on about all it said. I would like to read more argument about the policies that both candidates are forwarding and less about girly-men or anti-gay, gay republicans (sampling comments on Nance's site). But with the democratic convention going on, it does seem to be the nuances of appearance that are being discussed more by both sides. All the news is about the dem party, so issues aren't really being debated. As a party they allegedly all agree on the "issues" so there's not really much to talk about except party positioning, appearances and who's wearing what.
moreta at August 27, 2008 4:41 PM
I want the white guy to win.
Jay at August 27, 2008 7:16 PM
Do you really find it "verrrry interesting" that Michelle Obama took a few steps ahead of her husband to greet some people she recognized instead of clasping his arm like a Prudence Goodwife? What's so interesting about it? Explain.
As for Michelle Obama, if I'm walking next to my husband and I see someone catching my eye and waving madly, I'm going to step out and say hi. Just call me butch.
-Nance
Well Nance, firSt I must ask you, how often are you and your husband walking arcoss a stage twoards random ideological supporters of your husband and you just happen to know who they are and he doesnt? Because otherwise your second statment takes no account of the circumstances that were pointed out.
And as for it being interesting, well why did she fell the need to approch a bunch of strangers at such a higher rate of speed when those people werent there for her?
And why did you automatically equate a woman on EQUAL footing with her husband as being SUBSERVIENT?
Seriously wht kind of feminist short circut logic mode assumes she has to be in front of her husband to be his equal?
lujlp at August 27, 2008 7:19 PM
For someone who writes so well...you recognize so little, I am a little disappointed doc.
If you don't mind, I'd address your points meself.
You asked about the meaning of the term "rock star"...its fairly simple.
Rock stars are loved just because they are rockstars. Its the perception of being special & unique, its very much a "cult of personality", it has nothing to do with substance. How many devoted fans of obama can recite his voting record, or name his accomplishments...or even tell you what bills he sponsored or helped sponsor during his tenure in office? My guess...some...but not many, a great many people love obama just because he's obama. He's a unique presidential candidate, and his stance on issues is not relavent to their adulation.
There is no such cult of personality for McCain, people know him...but his most bitter opponents (not necessarily obama supporters) and his most ardent supporters, could probably tell you more about his record.
Does that "rock star" status disqualify obama? Of course not, but it does sort of degrade the opinions of speculating, thinking, reasoning voters, regarding his campaign, and himself. It might not disqualify him...but it might cost him.
And by the by, a politician that favors disarming our nukes to make our less friendly rivals feel better...is definitely an unrealistic pansy, I don't care who said what 20 years ago, he is definitely in possession of weak knees if he thinks playing nice with everybody will put the country in a strong position.
Another thing you suggest is that its "nonsense" to be disturbed a bit when a would be president's wife tries to upstage him at his own rally. Make no mistake, when the presidential candidate is walking in with his wife to meet and greet supporters...and she dashes off to be out front...that IS an attempt to upstage him. Why should that be disturbing?
Because if I DID vote for Obama...I'd be voting for OBAMA...not Mrs. Obama, and if she'd try to upstage him at a rally, what else will she try? Years ago someone asked, "when did I vote for hillary?" when she was getting all the press and pushing her own agenda down the public throat...I have no interest in a repetition of that.
Robert at August 27, 2008 8:19 PM
are you a tranny?
dailey at August 28, 2008 12:51 AM
"Rock stars are loved just because they are rockstars. Its the perception of being special & unique, its very much a "cult of personality", it has nothing to do with substance."
Sorry, but no.
Rock stars are loved because they make singles and/or albums that touch people on an emotional level. That may seem frivolous, but there is some degree of substance to that perfect song or album that made the connection in the first place.
That doesn't necessarily mean you should vote them into office...but the idea that such connections with the public are purely imaginary is naive.
LYT at August 28, 2008 1:58 AM
Now, there's an interesting comment. Interesting because of the IP address:
140.90.233.67
Seems this tiny little thug is posting on our dime:
Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 2:00 AM
Details on our boy Kevin Andrew Dailey, the brave man who left the tranny comment from his government job as a satellite controller, follow here:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/28/sadly_on_the_ta.html
Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 4:52 AM
Doc and Nance, do you really think it doesn't matter that Obama doesn't seem to have the strength to run this country?
Nance, you can't really think that image doesn't matter and that the etiquette of when you run out ahead of your spouse to greet people you know has absolutely no bearing on the circumstances and setting? For you to run out ahead of your husband at a party is one thing; for Michelle Obama to do so at a televised function meant to support him in getting elected to the highest office in our government was crass at best. Maybe she needs to sit down with Miss Manners and take a course in etiquette. If you think her behaviour proper in a potential first lady, maybe you do. Whether or not you think manners important, they are. Frankly, I'm far from one for "proper" behavior at all times but there are times when proper behavior should be followed and, at such times, it doesn't make one subservient to display some knowledge of polite society, it makes one classy. I, for one, think a presidential spouse -- male or female -- should have some class. Would you seriously want the first woman president's husband to be remarkably similar to the embarrassment that was Billy Carter?
I was rooting for him to beat out Hillary but since he has, he's done nothing but open mouth and insert foot. Everything that comes out of it lately seems more moronic than the last statement that did.
As for this stupid, racist bit that if he doesn't win, it's because this country is racist, it's exactly like that line we white chicks get from black dudes about if you're not bigoted, you'll sleep with me to prove it. Are there actually white chicks out there stupid enough to fall for this line? Apparently must be because they keep using it. Is our country stupid enough to fall for it? If Obama wins, should I jump to the conclusion that is why he did the way they're jumping to the conclusion that if he loses it'll only be because he's black. Meanwhile, the first lines they used was that he wasn't black enough because he was racially mixed. Honestly, he's lost me because of this idiocy and because he'd play the race card.
And, frankly, you can't be a sissy and an effective president, male or female. If the US weakens its defense, we'll be attacked again. Osama's probably watching this election keenly. What's that apt old saying? The best way to ensure peace is to prepare for war or something like that.
And, yes, Doc, I agree. One thing that he's really coming out with that bothers me greatly as an Atheist is all god rhetoric and McCain has at least been open-minded enough to go on the Daily Show, crazy like a fox that given what quicker way to reach the younger demographic, which only shows he's shrewd.
But just as all this Religious Right nonsense makes me nervous as an Atheist citizen, Obama playing the race card makes me nervous as a white citizen. Why? Because it displays racism on his part. I'm all for a black president but I'd want one who doesn't think it's all about raising black above white as opposed to us all being on equal footing.
All that said, anyone know who's on McCain's short list for VP? If he's smart (though it shouldn't have to be this way), it will be Colin Powell.
T's Grammy at August 28, 2008 6:24 AM
I just love how Shrillary and Bill are now saying how "prepared" Obama is to be president when just a month ago they were saying how "UNprepared" he is to hold office. Hypocrisy is running rampant at the DNC, and I sure hope like hell the voting population catches on, before it's too damn late.
Flynne at August 28, 2008 6:55 AM
Oh T's Grammy, I hope like hell it IS Powell, McCain'll win by a landslide! Then the ones playing the race card won't have a leg to stand on. Ooooo, the more I think about this fantasy, the more I like it...
Flynne at August 28, 2008 6:58 AM
I wouldn't vote for someone because he is black. Just like I wouldn't vote against someone because he is black. Obama is black. Everyone knows he is black. Most black people are black. Black, black, black, black.
You, Amy, are a genius.
Dan at August 28, 2008 7:02 AM
>>Does that "rock star" status disqualify obama? Of course not, but it does sort of degrade the opinions of speculating, thinking, reasoning voters, regarding his campaign, and himself. It might not disqualify him...but it might cost him...
Well the opinion-degrading movie star status of Reagan didn't disqualify him, I guess...
Jody Tresidder at August 28, 2008 7:04 AM
Sorry but yes. Emotion is about as far from substance as you can get before you hit fantasy land.
And whatever love we have for various songs...that does not create any "connection" between the public & the artist.
It just means the artist made some money, and the public got a song it liked. That "connection" is purely
imaginary, and that worshipfulness that has fans hanging on their idol's every word and deed, has nothing to
do with who the person actually is. It revolves entirely around a percieved quality or talent, musical in the case
of rock stars. When we compare Obama to a rock star, we're saying that this perception of connection between idolizers
and himself is not based on substantive knowledge, but rather the aura of who he is.
Robert at August 28, 2008 8:16 AM
Well the opinion-degrading movie star status of Reagan didn't disqualify him, I guess...
Being a two-term governor of California indicated he'd had at least SOME executive experience.
Conan the Grammarian at August 28, 2008 8:19 AM
>>Being a two-term governor of California indicated he'd had at least SOME executive experience.
Indeedy, Conan.
But they still called him "The Gipper" in his obits!
(Just because people are said react to Obama "as if he were a rock star" signals to me that there are a limited number of ways to describe a mass of supporters reacting ecstatically to a figure in a stadium. Doesn't mean he IS a rock star, or that's what they're stupidly thinking when they trot home afterwards!)
Jody Tresidder at August 28, 2008 10:03 AM
> Doesn't mean he IS a rock star,
> or that's what they're stupidly
> thinking
Well, once they're on their way home and their ticket money is in the bank, who cares what they're thinking? (Rock stars are famously indifferent on that point). Rock star fascinations are remarkable for being inexplicable and non-transferable.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 28, 2008 10:29 AM
> the idea that such connections
> with the public are purely
> imaginary is naive.
It's not that they're imaginary, it's that they're unmanageable. And often transparently bogus, though no one cares.
Rock stardom is a bad way to do politics.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 28, 2008 10:34 AM
Crid,
I agree - yes, "who cares what they're thinking?>/i>"
It seems to be tilting at smoke to get antsy because of one's own grumpy perception of other folks' allegedly airhead perceptions!
It was Amy who amplified her position in this thread with: "What I mean by this is a "rock star" in the perception of too many of his supporters."
(Mind you, I never really believe rock stars who insist they're indifferent...)
Jody Tresidder at August 28, 2008 10:44 AM
The "rock star" designation is due to the fact that the decision to support him for so many is based upon a fairly high degree of emotion rather than evaluating his positions on issues, his experience, and what in his past might have helped to prepare him for the duties and situations he will face as president.
To a certain extent, all presidential elections are decided by the degree to which the candidates connects emotionally with the voters. But there is still an element of rational evaluation of the candidates' experience, behavior, intellect, and ability.
In their statements about him, Obama's supporters have put forth very little in the way of his experience and almost nothing in the way of examples of his decision-making skills, leadership skills, and managment skills. They've based their public statements of support almost solely upon his charisma, his empathy, his non-threatening mannerisms, and the way he makes them feel.
On the other hand, Reagan was fairly extensively evaluated by the voters and the media on his policy decisions as governor, the policies he advocated in the campaign, as well as on his practical experience as governor and beyond.
Most candidates have been similarly vetted by the voting public. Obama seems to be getting a pass from the public, from the media, and from his own party.
I don't remember a major media figure like Chris Matthews saying Reagan sent a thrill up his leg.
...there are a limited number of ways to describe a mass of supporters reacting ecstatically to a figure in a stadium.
You could use: Dictator, Cult Leader, Mass Hysteria....
Conan the Grammarian at August 28, 2008 10:55 AM
"You could use: Dictator, Cult Leader, Mass Hysteria...." conan...
Especially since what is required IS the individual charisma, and not looking past it to lead a cult of personality...
SwissArmyD at August 28, 2008 12:16 PM
Socialist? You're making the word pointless by misusing it. The Democratic party is to the right of most Western right-wing parties, whatever metric you choose for comparison.
Poisoning the well by undermining terminology is the tactic of a coward.
Jay at August 28, 2008 5:05 PM
Jay, "left" and "right" and "liberal" and "conservative" have very different meanings depending upon which side of the pond you find yourself.
The American left as constituted in the Democratic party is liberal (American) in that they see the Constitution as a hindrance to their social agenda. The closest comparison would be something like the German Social Democrats.
The American right as constituted in the Republican party (circa 1994) is conservative in that they see the Constitution as the basis of government, and wish to "conserve" the limited government that was the intent of the founders. The English "liberal" party is probably closest to them in terms of fiscal policy.
The problem for us is that certain (mostly) religious groups have decided to hijack the Republican party to implement THEIR social agenda, which is every bit as totalitarian as the American left, except substituting puritanism for nihilism.
Which leaves us with no effective brake on socialist and pseudo-socialist governance.
The American Democratic party is socialist. There's really no other way to describe a party that has as its fiscal foundation the concept of wealth redistribution with the relative merit of activities being decided by a central authority. Very Soviet.
The American Republican party is being torn in two by the Constitutionalists and the Religious, well, Socialists. And right now, the socialists are winning. However, rather than fiscal redistribution, they seek "cultural purification".
So, we've got Stalin v. Mao, and Jefferson's being squeezed out.
brian at August 28, 2008 7:25 PM
3rd party. We've got to get the balls to vote 3rd party, when possible and when the 3rd party candidate isn't just some rich nutcake. It's the only way to break the two-party system. (Or perhaps even the Religious Right's stranglehold on the Republican Party.)
I may register to vote to do just that. I followed Amy's link to Bob Barr's page and haven't read too much yet so I don't know but I did like his comment that voting Republican or Democrat is really the way to waste a vote. I've been saying just that for quite some time. In fact, I'm finding less and less difference between the two.
They both seem to want to force me to God and marriage anyway -- neither of which I want in my life.
T's Grammy at August 29, 2008 5:29 AM
Yes, T's Grammy, yes! I've been longing for a third (and fourth and...) party for years. Even "threw my vote away" that one year. LOL, your comment on marriage reminds me of a Chris Rock line "I don't understand why some people think gay people shouldn't marry. Why not? They have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us." (paraphrased.)
MonicaM at August 29, 2008 7:20 AM
I don't understand the "logic" of using race or gender as the defining factor of making a voting decision. I vote on issues. I'm not a big fan of Obama the person, but I like McCain even less. What makes my decisions isn't what race either is, but with whose agenda I'm MOST CLOSELY aligned. Obama was not my choice for Dem nominee; even though he and my choice have similar ideology. She just has more balls and that's what made my decision. It isn't because she's a woman and I'm a woman, or she's white and I'm white. DUH!
MonicaM at August 29, 2008 7:27 AM
I found the Chris Rock clip to which I referred here: he's pretty damn funny!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sKWo3Q-UZ8&NR=1
MonicaM at August 29, 2008 7:35 AM
LOL! Monica, I especially loved the bit about Michael Jackson.
Too funny. I've never followed Chris Rock (maybe I should) but I usually say something very similar -- gays have as much right to be fools in love as anyone else.
Thanks. I needed the laugh.
T's Grammy at August 29, 2008 9:45 AM
What medications can slow pounds loss?
Why Choose Protein Snacks? Quality articles: LoseBodyWeightQuickly.com
It encourages body fat burning and thus weight loss by rotating your ordinary intake of food and consume on a fortnightly basis by precisely what is known as ?negative energy? food items (or catabolic food items)
[url=http://losebodyweightquickly.com/exercising-during-pregnancy.html]here[/url] There are lots of such fake centers, who claim excess fat loss by massages and vibrators [url=http://losebodyweightquickly.com/are-you-overweight.html]website[/url]
Foogeoveany at September 9, 2011 12:52 AM
Leave a comment