America is post-racial? Are you fucking kidding? More homework from Kelso. Read another of our "favorite" "journalists," Juan Williams, on our favorite presidential candidate, Mr Obama (R-IL).
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30williams.html?ref=opinion
Juan Williams, like Sullivan and Obama himself, is a show, man. He's more fun than a box of Cracker-Jacks. You get it all with Williams, candy, popcorn, caramel, peanuts and a prize. He's got the whole Beltway earnestness, the neo-liberal politics, the bootstraps-n-personal-responsibility-4-thee-not-4-me thing, the Fox News platform, the religion crap, the sentimental memoir which gives White America a pass and sticks the boot in to Black America, the pretentious NPR thing, the love of "jazz" without knowing the first thing about it, the love of basketball (urgh) without knowing a broth made of the shadow of the first thing about basketball -- of course he's way into Obama. He's Obama's twin brother.
Read with this in mind:
*IF AMERICA IS POST-RACIAL, WHY IS THE ARTICLE ONLY ABOUT RACE?
*WHAT ARE "BLACK VALUES"?
*IF SUCH A DISCRETE CONCEPT AS "BLACK VALUES" EXISTS, WHAT ARE "TRIGUENO (LIGHT COFFEE-COLORED) VALUES?" (WILLIAMS AND OBAMA ARE BOTH UNIQUELY QUALIFIED TO ANSWER THIS BECAUSE, AT LEAST AS IT'S UNDERSTOOD IN LATIN AMERICA, NEITHER IS "NEGRO." BOTH ARE "TRIGUENO." )
*WHY ARE BARACK OBAMA AND JUAN WILLIAMS ASHAMED OF THEIR BLACK HERITAGE?
*WHAT IS THEIR VESTED INTEREST IN ASSUMING A FALSE "POST-RACIAL" AMERICA? WHAT'S ANDREW SULLIVAN'S INTEREST IN IT ESPECIALLY GIVEN OBAMA'S OVERT HOMOPHOBIA?
*IS THERE A CHANCE THAT OBAMA, SULLIVAN AND WILLIAMS ARE THEMSELVES ANTI-BLACK RACISTS? WHY DO THEY HAVE SUCH LITTLE REGARD FOR THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AMERICAN BLACK ELECTORATE?
*WHY IS HILLARY CLINTON CRUSHING OBAMA AMONG BLACK DEMOCRATS?
Kelso's Nuts love you
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The easy way to do politics is find a way to build a bloc of voters that will vote for you. Every person is a unique individual, but there are ways to get people to suppress their individuality and mindlessly follow like a flock of sheep.
Race has always been a good bloc builder, so we have to expect it to be exploited.
I guess there's no profit in trying to get people to think for themselves.
There's nothing wrong with counting votes. That's what campaigns are about. That's what Clinton has done in a textbook way. I've been fascinated watching the Obama train-wreck because I saw it coming the day AFTER that absurd speech. He's definitely been using race, ineptly, in an aggressive way. I am amazed how many journalists continue to buy into the propostion that he TRANSCENDS race.
I responded to you and the Boss over the other place this way as well, so sorry for repeating, but I think by and large Clinton, Kucinich and Biden have indeed run campaigns of ideas. I prefer Kucinich's and he's given me every reason to like him. Unfortunately, I can't vote for him in a primary because I'm not a US resident.
I don't reflexive love Clinton's centrism. I find her a little too conservative socially and a little too uncreative econmically and fiscally. She is way too aggressive for me on foreign policy, although she hasn't renounced her husband's approach. That was his best feature, actually. His first instinct was to help resolve a conflict. Nevertheless, what she has presented is a coherent whole that does show a way forward for the United States. Taxes will go up slightly and spending will go down. The middle-class and not-quite-wealthy will bear the brunt of the tax increases and that's no good. I would expect the National Security State to suffer the lion's share of the cuts and that's pretty good. The overall effect of this will tend toward sounder money with the attendant recession likely. Somebody's going to have to do this and it's never going to be Bush. Might as well be Clinton.
I expect her to have a lighter touch all around and be aware of her limits explicit in the Constitution and implicit in realpolitik.
She'll fight Iraq and Afghanistan kind of like Nixon fought Vietnam pre-1974. That's bad coming from a Democrat but it's a lot softer than anything the Republicans (ex-Paul) or Obama or Biden could come up with.
I don't expect revolution but I don't think revolution is good.
According to the NY Times and Juan Williams:
"BARACK OBAMA is running an astonishing campaign. Not only is he doing far better in the polls than any black presidential candidate in American history..."
And thus the article begins with a truism. Since there has never before been a black presidential candidate, the statement is defensible, I suppose. But it is an example of the disingenuousness of the Times.
NS:
We agree about the TISSUE-OF-LIES, albeit from different ends of the spectrum. I really wish you were right because I loathe Juan Williams but you've forgotten Jesse Jackson in 1988. I don't remember his delegate count but as I recall it wasn't much less than 40% of Dukakis's count. I like Jesse the Son and dislike Jesse the Father but I'd call his '88 run a legitimate presidential sortie.
kelso, I did not forget Jesse Jackson in 1988 any more than I forgot Al Sharpton pretending to seek the nomination to run against Rudy.
Neither Jackson nor Sharpton are "candidates". They are what they have always been: Publicity seekers exploiting racial animus.
It is an act of self-deception to believe that Jesse Jackson was ever more than a grandstanding opportunist willing to maintain his public presence by any available means.
He was no more of a candidate than Steve Colbert, Pat Paulson, or Steve Forbes.
Post a Comment