WELL, THIS IS KIND OF STRANGE
From crooksandliars.com
Jackson accuses Obama of ‘acting white’
By: Steve Benen @ 7:11 PM - PDT As serious as the controversy in Jena, La., is, there’s no reason for this.
The Rev. Jesse Jackson sharply criticized Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama Tuesday over his reaction to the arrest of six black juveniles in Jena, Louisiana on murder charges, accusing the Illinois senator of “acting like he’s white,” according to a South Carolina newspaper. […]
The State newspaper reports Jackson later said he did not recall saying Obama is “acting like he’s white,” but continued to condemn the Illinois Democrat as well as the other presidential candidates for not bringing more attention to this issue.
Jackson, who endorsed Obama earlier this year, said, “If I were a candidate, I’d be all over Jena…. Jena is a defining moment, just like Selma was a defining moment.”
As a substantive matter, I think Jackson is on firm ground imploring the country to take the Jena Six matter more seriously. It is, as I argued the other day, one of the more painful examples of racism in recent memory. Everyone — the media, politicians, etc. — should demonstrate a sincere interest in what’s transpired.
But “acting white”? Jackson really ought to know better.
Filed Under: Election 08, Barack Obama
Ok, let's see if Kelso has this straight. A "black" political man with about a bazillion dollars worth of Coca-Cola bottling franchises accuses another well-to-do "black" political man, son of a Kenyan politcian of "acting white." That's what happened, right? Kelso's not missing anything, is he?
You are all going to have to pardon Kelso's lack of comprehension and overall air of superiority here, but a lot's very wrong here. Again, down in Kelso's bend in the river, where skin color is largely irrelevant, Obama is not a "negro." He is a "trigueno." That's what we'd call his skin color here. So, if we're discussing skin color only, trigueno is a light shade of brown, so if such things had currency here, Obama would have either equal claims to being "blanco" or "negro" or more properly no claim to be either because he is neither; he is a "trigueno." This all must sound very weird but at least where Kelso calls home, skin color is a means of describing someone's physical appearance. Nothing more, nothing less. The idea of "black" pride or "white" pride or "trigueno" pride would be so bizarre, the Ministry of Health would have every right to come for you with a butteryfly net if you expressed such points of view.
But that's not what we're discussing here, is it? Kelso knows what Jackson meant. He meant that Obama is a fucking Right-Wing pig. He just used inartful language. And played right into Obama's hands. The subtext, of course, is that Obama is currently holding the Senate seat that Jackson (and Kelso) believes should be occupied by Mr. Jackson's son -- a true progressive, who, himself, "negro" by skin color surely has a white, patrician way of expessing his left-wing point of view. In Obama's favor, he has every right to adopt any political point of view he cares to. He doesn't care about the injustice in Jena, Louisiana? Well, mazel tov. Why should he? Obama is a Right-Winger. Why is he obligated to present himself any way other than how he is and how he thinks? On second thought, Jackson could well have called Obama a hypocrite for using his "race" to curry favor with both liberals and conservatives.
But what race exactly? Obama's just another fucking guy with a skin color slightly darker than Kelso's and somewhat lighter than Jackson's. The newest candidate for president, Alan Keyes, Obama's opponent in the Illinois senate race, is darker by skin color than Jackson is, but ideologically closer to Obama than to Jackson. Then again, Obama is a professional politician. Why shouldn't he use every edge he can in order to win. That's what politicians do. Kelso does not like Obama. He does not respect Obama. He might even vote Republican against Obama despite being far to Jackson's left let alone Obama's. But Kelso doesn't blame Obama for being an ambitious politician. Good luck to him. The price on him to win the Democratic Nomination is 9/1 against. Good. Fuck Obama.
None of that changes the Jackson/Obama intercourse. It's absurd. White? Black? Whatever? This is an internecine fight between two wealthy members of the ruling class. Kelso prefers Jackson's point of view on the Jena problem, but Kelso has no illusion that Jackson is nothing if not an avatar of the ruling class. As Obama.
The skin color thing, however, has just become too weird for Kelso to deal with. Sorry. See you in person in about...never. This is just another indication of why USA-USA-USA is not #1. It's in the running for #15 if Bush/Cheney/Obama/Lieberman can't turn it from a fascist state to a National Socialist one. Then maybe USA-USA-USA has a shot at country #126 or so.
But we're glad we got down fading Obama for the Nomination at 5/2 on now that Obama "NO" is trading at 9/1 on. Yet, we have a little egg on our face about our advocacy for Clinton having read this in Mother Jones.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html
Starting to look like a PASS all around. And a vote in 5 years for Torrijos's party.
Kelso's Nuts love you
12 comments:
when OJ is back in the news
time to play that trump card ---- the racial one
can we just let OJ gets stuck in one of those locks in the Canal
believe me, if you knew what CdP was like, you'd make OJ a big favorite to be here within the week!
I can't listen to Jesse speak without staring at his forehead. I'm that shallow.
It distracts me from his patter which makes me a little nuts.
i don't think there is much "news" in the mother jones article. this information has been out there for years and years. carl bernstein, her most recent biographer, has discussed this in interviews as well.
and i'm wondering what it is, in particular, that you suddenly find so groundbreaking as to cause you to (once again) rethink you position on her? that her religion informs her politics? i would posit that your own lack of a spiritual practice or belief informs yours ... not much groundbreaking there, either.
as we've learned on this blog, membership in a tribe is very powerful. and lo and behold, we see that hilary has hers, of sorts.
in an unusual order...
D-CUP: I never thought about his forehead; it was always the moutstache that bugged me, now if I were a political cartoonist I'd have to draw him as a giant forehead with a moustache! I've always considered Jesse Jackson to be have an annoying way of speaking, too. I also think he's pretty corrupt, meaning he LOVES the GREEN GUYS. That said, I also think he's bright, his SON will be the first Black President Of The United States if life has any fairness at all, and the Kelso family didn't wasn't insulted a bit about the "hymietown" crack. We've said worse! Obama also owes Jesse Jackson a debt for Jackson having turned Obama onto David Axelrod (exactly why "hymietown" meant nothing) as a consultant...which leads to ....
ANITA: once again you're right, which is why you are such a pain! I had always thought of her as a high-church Protestant and assumed that Bill Clinton had the Baptist thing down -- albeit WITHOUT the dominionism. Having seen her do the amazing finesse in the Democratic "religion" debate, I was kind of fooled into thinking this was a dodge. You've got me here. My atheism DOES inform quite a bit of my politics, as does living in a country with no DE JURE but rather a 100% DE FACTO separation of church and state.
There really is nothing in the MOTHER JONES piece that would make me reconsider my posisiton. I suppose I will still vote for her if only for her intelligence and her sense of responsibility and the overall weakness of everyone else. There's certainlynothing outstanding in her voting record...which leads to....
FAIRLANE: You are 100% correct. Assholes. War? Yes Dumb moveon.org (who fucking fills their boots) pun? Heaven's no. Fucking joke, indeed.
Finally, thanks for the missing linguistic puzzle piece. THAT's exactly what Jesse Jackson MEANT and should have, but couldn't say.
Kelso, I seek enlightenment. I don't understand why you detest Obama so. Granted, I don't know much about his stance on many issues. But he speaks so well! After listening to dunderhead bumbling around for the past 6+ years, I am thrilled to listen to someone who can actually construct a complete, meaningful sentence without rehearsal or a written script.
As for Hillary, she speaks well too, and is obviously intelligent. But I absolutely would not vote for her or any other woman for President, given our present confrontation with the Muslim world. Since the Muslims seem to have zero respect for any and all women, how effective could a woman be in dealing with them? If you would like to trounce my theory, I would be grateful!
Z: Do I really have to go through this AGAIN? I've already made my case against him on the issues with all the links.
You have to do your own research and find out what his stances are. Perhaps, then you'll either see or not see much of what I detest about him. As for "his speaking well," I must disagree on three levels: (1) They ALL speak well which is why they are professional politiicans (2) Obama actually doesn't speak all that well because he doesn't really speak English. Just LISTEN to the words. They follow a structure similar to the English we know--subject, predicate, object, modifiers--but the words themselves are devoid of meaning. What does "get past the partisan divide" MEAN, for example? He is talking gibberish. (3) Much as I hate to call you down on this, I feel there is something to the "Lady Preacher" or "Dancing Elephant" to this point of view--it's not so much that he speaks so well but that he can speak at all is what's interesting. I have forgotten who wrote that. It may have been Dr. Johnson or perhaps Chesterton. Joe Biden certainly made the same point about him in starkly racist terms.
You may have first been expecting to hear the NYC-Virginia black accent or the LA-Texas black accent and when you didn't by contrast with your expectations he may have sounded like JFK.
Go watch some of the debates again. He's terrible. I will grant that he is far superior to George Bush as a public speaker.
As for your misgivings about Hillary Clinton on the world stage, please pardon me, but they are a little silly. I'm going to burst a bubble for you. I've known many female brokers who had any number of wealthy Muslim men perfectly happy with having these women move their money. These guys say what they have to say to keep the great unwashed pleased but the power in the Muslim world is neither as blind nor as sexist than you believe.
Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Golda Meir all faced way worse than Hillary Clinton as president will have to. I'd even go so far as to say Michelle Bachillet has a harder job as president of Chile than Clinton will as President Of The United States.
Also, Z, I happen to like the saying "when everyone agrees on something, it's wrong." I've heard Obama speak and I've researched him endlessly and it just can't be that of the entire (amateur) opposition FAIRLANE and KELSO are the only Obama skeptics and of the entire (professional) oppositon only DAVID SIROTA and MIKE MALLOY are. So, as I don't see anything particularly great about the guy and quite a bit that's scary, I feel it's my obligation to test the waters and see who else is out there who is willing to say they're right and the millions of Obama-philes are wrong.
More Obama: 3 votes in the Senate Thursday. Webb Amendment allowing 1-for-1 time-off for time-in-country; Feingold Amendment defunding war; Resolution condemning moveon.org...Obama? Hiding in corner. No vote. The "woman"? The coporatist? Yeah, her. Hillary Clinton. 3 votes. Yes on Webb. Yes on Feingold. No on condemnation of moveon.org.
How "effective" can a man afraid of his own shadow be in the patriarchal Muslim world? Hillary Clinton on Thursday voted as a standard Eastern Democrat would. Nothing particularly brave nor cowardly. She showed up. She voted. Obama versus the Saudi Royals? Well, with no offense to our gay brothers, we have a few words down here for Obama "marica,", "hueco," "mariposa"....
"You may have first been expecting to hear the NYC-Virginia black accent or the LA-Texas black accent and when you didn't by contrast with your expectations he may have sounded like JFK."
Kelso, I want to ASSURE YOU that this is not the case. I know that Obama is not a descendent of American slaves. However, I accept your dressing-down of my uninformed, FORMER good opinion of him. Thus far, I have only listened to HOW he speaks, not WHAT he speaks. I am ashamed of myself.
As for HC, thank you SO MUCH for letting me know that "the power in the Muslim world is neither as blind nor as sexist" as I believed. I have absolutely no personal contact with, or personal knowledge of any Muslims. I was just judging from what I see and hear in the MSM. And I must say, I HATE the TV images of Condi Rice in meetings with a bunch of sheiks (or whatever the hell they are), because it looks like they are smirking at her.
Anyway, I hope you didn't lose all respect for me because of my initial uninformed rant. And thank you for straightening me out.
My problems with Obama are;
Where in the fuck did he come from, and why is he qualified to be President?
His "good talking" makes me dislike him even more. He sounds manufactured.
And his "Can't we all get along?" rhetoric makes me ill.
I was big into Marx when I was younger. I dreamed of the day when we would all live in "Harmony," and we would at last celebrate the "Human Being" instead of Pamela Anderson's fake tits.
But I'm grown up now, and I realize two things.
1) Utopia is impossible. It cannot and will not ever happen, unless it's a "Negative Utopia," which is where we are currently headed.
2) I don't really want Utopia. I don't want my neighbor Chuck always smiling at me, and saying, "It's a blessed day isn't it?"
"No Mother Fucker, it's not!"
Utopia is TYRANNY.
Utopia is anti-thetical to our nature.
Utopia is the death of the human being.
Utopia is supported by fascists (Little "f").
If you want a "better world" tell me practical things you're going to do to make the world better.
Don't try and pass off some delusion about the day when we all stand together holding hands singing "Give Peace a Chance."
That's not a plan. That's bullshit.
Z: I've lost no respect for you. I'm just glad that I made you a little skeptical. I knew the guy would be a problem when he gave that insane speech at the Democratic National convention in 2004. The MSM gushed. All I heard was religion and as Fairlane says "utopianism" of the kind that means if we just surrender everything will be OK. I read portions of his "book" and it was the same shit. Just surrender to whatever Republicans want and Jesus will save you. Then, when I saw this putz show up Tom Harkin at Harkin's own party in the fall, then I knew he was not only a cheat, but a gutless cheat (to use my favorite line from The Sting).
Fairlane is absolutely right about him. He sounds manufactured because he is manufactured. Best to read the New Yorker profile of him and everything David Sirota has written. But here's a short history. Rich, bright kid. Well connected. Gets of law school. Does whatever he does and develops political ambition not surprisingly because his Dad was a Kenyan pol.
Terry McAuliffe is trying to sort out how to beat Ryan for the Senate seat. The best candidate the Democrats have is Jesse Jackson, Jr., but because the McAuliffe/Emmanuel tandem can't get along with Jesse Sr and the remainder of the Washington machine, the son figures fuck it and considers a run for mayor. Just as well because Jack Ryan was flying at that point. He looked like an absolute lock. Republicans felt betrayed by Governor George Ryan on the death penalty moratorium and were keyed up for a conservative and Democrats were in no mood for another Carole Moseley-Braun. Really, it looked like Jack Ryan COULDN'T LOSE.
McAuliffe assembled a bunch of lambs to the slaughter, one of whom was Barack Obama. Jack Ryan runs into a series of sex scandals and it's goodbye. Now, it's clear that whichever Democrat gets the nomination wins and boy did McAuliffe put a nice coat of paint on Obama. Everything according to the Democratic Leadership Council manual. And Obama was no Harold Washington ward heeler like Moseley-Braun. He looked nice. He sounded nice. He was Ivy League all the way. You remember what Biden said about him. Something like "Obama's no ghetto rabble rouser...like we've had...he's a great American story." Republicans threw up Alan Keyes as a sacrifice because no one else wanted to get beat bad and Keyes LOVES the microphone and doesn't care.
I part company with Fairlane now on a couple of things. I think Obama is a right-wing Democrat in the style of Lieberman, Evan Bayh or Ken Salazar, though most like Lieberman because he's got the huge religion thing. I don't think he's a utopian but I think he knows that his brand of collaboration with the Nazis can be made to sound like utopianism if he just uses the baritone voice and the meaningless words. Anybody can do that. Call me up and I'll read you "The Wasteland" over the phone and you'll be ready to vote for me. I have a nice baritone voice myself and my "immigrant" background is SO UNIQUELY AMERICAN.
I agree wholeheartedly with everything else Fairlane wrote about Utopia. I think my politics are slightly to Fairlane's right but no matter how much damage was done in the name of Karl Marx, The Theory Of Surplus Value and the concept of dialectical materialsm certainly carry currency and you can be a complete capitalist and not disagree with that. All the theory of surplus value means is that the owners of the means of production receive a larger share of the value of what labor produces than labor itself. And water's wet. Dialectic materialism is just a fancy way of saying a clash of opposing ideologies that produces some synthesis in between or a victory by one side or the other.
This comes right back to Obama and to a very capitalist concept, The Theory Of The Firm. In that course in which Bush got his pretend "B" they show you with simple geometry why businesses cluster in districts. Garments, diamonds, crack, whatever. A firm choose what it believes to be a location which optimizes its traffic but cedes no geographical advantage to the competition.
Obama's "let's just get beyond partisan politics and get along" is effectively picking the worst possible location for his "firm" and ceding the prime location to the Republicans. He's saying "you see this boardwalk? I'm going to sell my Italian ices at the far end way past the lifeguard stand. Mr. Giuliani, you may have the rest of the boardwalk all the way up to that new resort hotel."
He plans to make up for that lost territory by being the nicer vendor of Italian Ice. Whom do you reckon is going to do better business? Just like Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, Obama seems to WANT TO LOSE.
Not saying that Clinton is significantly to Obama's left but for better or worse, she's not giving up an inch. She's in this to win.
So, again which personality do YOU figure would be stronger facing down Muslims?
Post a Comment