I watched the entire netcast of yesterday's Meet The Press interview with Senator Clinton. Media Whore #1, Tim Russert, absolutely grilled her for an hour straight and not only was she not defensive for a second, but also her recall of detail and specifics was remarkable.
I can accept that this is being spun as "Hillary's mastery of detail is exactly what the public's not looking for this campaign season. It's too representative of traditional, partisan politics. The people want to be inspired, not necessarily informed."
I can accept that the typical question that Barack Obama is asked is: "What is it about you that connects so deeply with the American voter?"
I can accept that the typical question that Hillary Clinton is asked is: "You voted for the authorization of war in Iraq in 2002, yet you favor withdrawal of American forces today. Why should American voters trust you on any issue?"
But...
...earlier the I saw a tape of her making her outrageous remark that President Johnson had signed the Civil Rights Act in law and I have a youtube of President Clinton's calling Obama's lost and newly found and newly lost and newly found "dovishness" on Iraq "a fairy tale"...
...so, I what I cannot accept is that the Obama campaign has somehow convinced the press that the Clintons are racists. The Clintons! My god, you can criticize them for any number of things, but racism? Or bigotry of any kind for that matter? Seriously? Bill and Hillary Clinton? This isn't really happening, is it?
I've really lost the thread or the focus or whatever. This is not like anything I've ever seen in American politics before. I consider myself to have the normal level of prejudice the average person generally has. The Clintons have none whatsoever.
And Obama's still succeeding in selling this "post-racial" thing? Will Dick Cheney campaign against military contractors next? Maybe George W. Bush will campaign against war in the Middle East.
I'm sorry but you people are seriously fucked up. Just call me Christopher Columbus, baby, because the only way you're getting me back there is in chains. Wait, was that offensive?
Kelso's Nuts love you
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Kelso you must realize that no one in the Obama camp made any mention of The Clinton's being racist. The Clintons brought that issue tpo the table. There were few people in the black leadership in S. Carolina who took umbrage to her minimizing Dr Kings contribution to Civil Rights. We can all assume Lyndon Johnson would not have rolled out of bed one morning and decided to sign the historic bill sans the effort of Dr King and many others.
Just like Tilghman and her lynching comment, she forgot she was on T.V..
The Clintons stand to benefit from the race issue -after all, black folks are only twelve percent of the population. By polarizing this into a race battle Hillary will win landslides. Even in a 'post-racial' world familiarity wins every time.
I hope the issue of race is toned down and Obama can successfully stick to his message of hope.
Politics is rhetoric it really does not matter much who wins p the similiarities outweigh the differences.
We need a radical to sneak in.
C'mon Kelso give it a shot.
I've been avoiding commercial T.V. for so long, that I forgot that the main idea is to sell stuff through ads. The content is irrelevant so long as it attracts an audience with the appropriate demographics. I have a sister in advertising and sometimes I'd rather that she be in a whorehouse. She gets a little defensive when I rant about ads and their influence. I have a son-in-law in marketing and sometimes I'd rather that he be in politics (trying for a male equivalent of a whorehouse).
Since I don't have my DVR down here in Naples, FL, I have to be subjected to commercials when my wife puts on her frigging CNN. Anyway, since the MSM is just trying to sell soap, there's no sense in trying to figure out what they mean.
Thank God Jon is back so that we can see what's really happening.
Kelso- mi amor, como estas? Yo regreso!
The whole thing is so fecacta Kelso. Honestly, I am not Hillary crazy, but she is getting some beatings that she does not deserve.
I was just on a pro-Obama blog that had a post where it said that Hillary "looked like Hitler" and honestly, I could not keep my mouth shut.
So I posted a comment, expecting to get kicked in the touchas by the blog author, that said "what is the point of this? Is it not a republican wet dream to see this kind of rhetoric?"
Well I got my first ass kicking by another reader who clearly is just glad to see Hillary get dragged down.
To what purpose? And this serves our nation how?
Oy. It makes me head hurt. I have done more Hillary defending in the past week or so and I an not even a supporter!
Thinking people... where are you all???
Talvez en Panama?
Besitos y abrazos-
Fran
I am a "thinking" person, and what I think is that we're killing ourselves with "isms!" Why can't we just look at the candidates and see them as people, not a gender, and not a race? Clinton and Obama are both intelligent, articulate people with opinions and proposals that are different in some ways and similar in others. Grow the fuck up, America and use your ears and your brain, not just your eyes!
Dave:
Your comment is so thought-provoking that I want to write a full post about the subject based upon what you've written but I want to write to you, specifically.
By asking me to take a shot, I assume you mean with regard to a radical sneaking in. If that's what you meant, I'm all for it. My candidate of choice is Dennis Kucinich. In the 2006 NYS Democratic US Senatorial primary, I voted for Jonathan Tassini against Clinton because I liked his radicalism and I passed in the general election. I didn't care enough.
I am assuming you didn't mean that OBAMA was the radical in the race. If so, we'll never be able to communicate on this issue, nor learn from each other, so we'll agree to disagree and pick up the next topic. Like Kelly Tilghman because I think that was way more serious than anything either Clinton or Obama have said at ANY TIME IN THEIR LIVES. It is identical to her saying that they should shove Jonathan Kaye or Skip Kendall into an oven. Maybe she would have but neither of those two are within 3 strokes a round of Woods! It may seem like an over-the-top analogy and it might have to me some time ago because we don't hear the word "lynch" much in New York City. I can't recall ever having heard it in conversation, so my image of it was like sporadic Klan violence or Bull Connor stuff. Then, I read about the subject and found out exactly what lynching was, how it was as normal a part of White society as tea dances or something and not only accepted by enjoyed by nearly every White person in the South. These were social events, not random acts of violence. And it was nothing at all like kidnapping someone and throwing a noose around his neck and hanging him and he dies in two minutes. Lynching had protocol. The events were scheduled. And slow, maximum torture pre-hanging was involved. For the white spectators, always including families, there was a time for drinks and snacks and music and the main mean. It was indifference plus sadism on a level hard to imagine. In some ways, the Nazi death camps were less cultural and personal. No, make that in ALL ways. As human beings we can consider ourselves very lucky both the CSA and Germany lost those wars.
So, please, let's keep this in perspective.
None of this dust-up is the fault of either Obama or Clinton. And Clinton's "playing racial politics" would be an historical strategic and tactical blunder. It is very difficult to put a Democratic coalition together even in intra-party contest. The Democrats do not have a base as reliable as the Evangelicals are for the Republicans. What's happening is that the Democrats' two BEST identifiable voting blocs -- women with some post-graduate education and African-Americans -- are voting in unexpected patterns. Both blocs are needed desperately.
I have problems with Obama because I believe he is a bullshit artist and she's absolutely right that he hasn't "shown up". He has been rather indifferent to his role of Senator. She has not. In fact, she has allowed Schumer to have far more "face time" and has been more involved in the nuts-and-bolts of her work than either Obama or Schumer.
I know that they all flip-flop. I have, however, found aspects of him to be unsettling: the overt coziness with all things Republican and religious for starters and I've already gone through all the rest over and over again here.
But the Republican business is the crux of the matter here. Somehow, I don't see how making prospective cooperation with the Republican party a centerpiece of his campaign in a time of total Republican revanchism to be "a message of hope." It scares me to death, quite frankly. I am not the world's expert on Dr. King but I was alive then and I don't remember King's rhetoric being so soft and compromising. You are absolutely correct that there's no way in the world Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act into law without King being the prime mover. But I am absolutely right that there's nothing even slightly different than the status quo that can come out of an Obama presidency other than something to do with skin color and I'm telling you Dave his skin is not a whole lot darker than mine and he is a zillion times more aristocratic.
So, big fucking deal, another center-right Democrat who takes his marching orders from Time Warner and Joe Lieberman instead of from Pfizer and Harry Reid. If that makes you proud, mazel tov. The prospect of a Joe Lieberman ('00) vice-presidency and a Joe Lieberman ('04) presidency did less than nothing for me ethnically. Just because there is so little ideology and partisanship in the USA -- unlike EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION ON EARTH -- there is all this emphasis on first African-American this, first woman that, first Jew the other, first Latino the fourth thing...You do know that AGAIN these "firsts" are old hat in most of the nations that are creaming the USA economically. I like the idea of dialectical materialism and ideologies clashing to produce a negotiated result everyone can live with part of.
Again, you are right that very little separates the mainstream candidates as a philosophical matter. Kucinich and maybe even Ron Paul are more progressive than either Clinton or Obama. You and I, Dave, are probably both a little paranoid here. I probably heard ghosts I didn't like in that '04 speech. You heard ghosts you didn't like in the Johnson comment.
So, what is to be done? We can argue the "experience" question if you like. Neither has a tremendous body of legislative nor executive experience. I like hers better. We can argue the wars if you like. She's made no secret about being pro-war. He's been all over the place. He first claimed to be the "dove" because of an off-hand remark he made to a reporter while an Illinois State Senator. Then as a US Senator he was more supportive of the wars than she ever was. Now, he's against them again, except when he's speaking to AIPAC. We can argue silly things said before cameras. She: "Johnson more significant than King." He: (When told to cool it at press conferences at DNC '04 because KERRY was the nominee) "Fuck you, I'm LeBron James."
So, I'm picking the center-right candidate I prefer. I also happen to like that she has some familiarity with macroeconomics which lacks entirely. I like carrots; you like peas. No problem.
I'm sorry that the press coverage has been so slanted his way. It has infuriated me but I expected nothing different. The press guessed wrong in 1992 and made the mistake of assuming the Clintons would just run away each time or beg forgiveness or whatever and they didn't and they're pissed off and aren't going to be in the mood to be too helpful to Wolf Blitzer. So, enter the Black Religious Centrist (tm) and you have your tailor-made Beltway Press Doll. I've seen this movie many times. The last version was Harold Ford, Jr.
I know it's all bullshit and my vote doesn't count anyway. My personal intesities lie with the P.R.D. over the U.P. The PRD has close ties with the Clintons. The UP has close ties with the Bushes. Obama's an irrelevancy here. He might as well have stuck to debating debt amortization of Moline, IL, munis than trying to be president. But PRD v UP is what I have to worry about. I hardly expect any American to worry about it.
I'm glad he's a US Senator with a "D" after his name, though I have my doubts about how long that will last given his debts to Lieberman and Richard Parsons. He's way better than either Jack Ryan or Alan Keyes would have been in that Senate seat.
Having lived in NYC and having voted for Dinkins and Sharpton, I'm a NOT A REAL BIG FAN of Giuliani, let me tell you! I think that HRC will win the nomination but should Obama win and have to face Giuliani, you are not going to enjoy this at all. If you think this Johnson business was bad, wait until you see what Rudy's got in store and trust me, Dave, the press is going to be with HIM not OBAMA. For their lungs.
So, hell yes, I agree with you. Give me the radical. I think it is indeed worth a shot. Too bad Americans don't.
the times may be calling for a radical, yet at the same time, you have mayor bloomberg doing serious "exploratory" stuff re the possibility of an independant run. the only thing "radical" about that would be the possibility of his pulling in a republican as a running mate (because, as we all know, bloomberg himself is not a republican).
on another note, i don't know if anyone watched charlie rose last night on tv. but his guests included rep. james clyburn and a SC state senator named fletcher smith, as well as patricia williams from The Nation. i was somewhat impressed because the guests clearly were trying to diffuse the race/gender fireworks. you got the feeling they were walking over hot coals, carefully trying to bring the discussion back to where it should be: on qualifications, not skin color, the X versus the Y chromosome, or the (very unfortunate) argument as to which is more deadly, racism or gender inequality. it's clearly extremely tough for people to pull themselves out of it, to rise above it. it's really personal. most everyone probably has a horse in the race, and, in fact, many people have a horse in EACH contest (the word 'race' and 'contest' entirely for the lack of a better term).
i don't know WHO is to blame for the recent ugliness ... to say it's not coming from either camp is kind of naive. these political operatives are nasty mofo's. each candidates have people who work as "surrogates" ... to distance themselves and to keep their hands "clean" ... the way that billy shaheen was working for clinton in NH. these guys want to WIN, and their supporters want them to win. i wouldn't put it past either one to at least attempt to get some leverage on this issue.
i seriously hope "the people" will let each campaign know, in no uncertain terms, that they will not abide by such such tactics in the future.
Obama has as much substance as the proverbial bowl of steam.
I don't like the man, and am frightened by his religiosity.
No more religious freaks. Unless they're Scientologists, because that would just be funny listening to them talking about Marvin the Martian (Or whomever it is they believe created us).
In the trenches, among the 500 media and political elites who really decide who is bright and shiny enough to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office, this is called grasping at straws. Obama wanted to run a "post racial" campaign but what happened was he needs to be able to point to the slights that will inevitably come and stand aghast as the media fall upon the offenders like so many Baby Grands dropped from the top of 30 Rock.
The counterintuitive part of all this is that as my good friend Clark Clifford has noted many times, "if America is post racial then no reference to race real or inferred is germane to the political discussion at hand. At best it should be treated like dandruff on ones should and brush aside at worst it should be treats as a heap of dung in the street and walked around to continue moving forward."
Sit down with someone from the Obama campaign and you'll get a very blank stare after saying that quote. We have done it and that is why you are seeing the conciliatory tone being offered now by Obama's people to the Clinton's who will still be a far blacker couple than the Obama's.
Feel good? Whatever. Resonates? Fuck that. All of these same attributes were applauded in white, protestant churches in the South and Midwest as values that qualified an empty suit named George W Bush. Haven't you had enough? Don't you want to be that character in Pulp Fiction that knows his time of having the high hand is here and you can go and get "two hard, pipe hitting, niggers and get medieval" all over the neocons?
Why would Liberals, Progressives and Independents want to give the rest of Terra the notion that they are dumber than conservatives, theocrats and revisionists? I'm sorry Ser Kelso, I don't get it either. Presidential politics ain't bean bag and if something as simple as a de facto statement of history, Johnson did sign that bill into law, sends the Obama camp into a fit of "we been bamboozled!" then wait until they get to South Carolina and get to back off the plate from some serious political hardballs.
Dave: I've responded to your comment as sincerely as I could.
HM: I like your attitude. I've always liked your attitude. I like Jon Stewart, too. I don't like his endorsing Obama not because I loathe Obama which I do but because as you note Jon Stewart has become one of the realiable "journalists" in the whole thing.
FRANiAM: Todo chevere. Muy ocupado pero come siempre me queda tiempo pa' la bulla, los desordenes, y tal!
I like HRC a lot more than you do so of course I agree with what you write. The funny thing about all this is that I started out as much a Clinton skeptic as an Obama skeptic. While I maybe agree with her on 60% of things and with him on 50% of things, she has not failed to impress me througout this campaign, while he has not failed to make himself seem more and more vacuous. He could be bright and capable as a legislatior or executive or politician or a brilliant orator, or all, I suppose. But how the fuck should I know? He neither says nor does anything of substance.
"Hitler"? For real? Well, that certainly puts things into sharp relief, doesn't it? Being media-paisana you know of course that there are only two true Jewish swear words "cancer" and "Hitler". "Cock", "cunt", "fuck," "shit", whatever, have no real meaning in Jewish English. Nor do "chucha" "verga," "leche," "huevo-puta", whatever, in Jewish Spanish. It's just a way of speaking that even old Jewish ladies use in casual conversation but the words "cancer" and "Hitler" mean the shit's serious.
Again, please clarity this for me, please? "The Civil Rights Act would not have become law without President Johnson" is some grave racial insult, but comparing Hillary Clinton to Hitler is fine?
So, go over to the HELLIONS to read the Clark Clifford piece to get a very precise analysis of all this.
I AM NOT AMUSED ABOUT THIS "HITLER" BUSINESS AT ALL, BTW.
Hasta luego y un abrazo de oso de mi parte.
Z: Well put and concisely so. May I ring up another satisfied customer?
AXN: Much wisdom from you as always. I've always liked Clyburn -- funny thing is how very, very strong he was on floor of House during Clinton impeachment -- and Patricia Williams for her pieces on the law. Fletcher Smith, I don't know. But how you recount the Charlie Rose show goes to prove my point, I think, about the difficulty of coalition-building within the Democratic Party and the odd phenomenon of the two main blocs being at odds and polling in unexpected ways.
Good point also about the competitiveness. We're all do used to the meme of "I hate the horserace" that we've forgotten that IT IS A HORSERACE. I thought you were very much on point about Billy Shaheen. As with Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., in the Obama campaign this was not accident. There are only a few important family names in power New Hampshire: Almy, Loeb, Sununu and Shaheen.
FAIRLANE: Right as usual. Empty suit or media creation or the real thing? We'll probably never know, but we DO know that Obama is something of a troubling religious freak.
You know I tend to believe it's certainly not option 3.
Obama's "story" and "message of hope" and "skin color" are so crucial? Fuck that shit. My picture's up on D-CUP's list of liberal blog-hotties. I think I'm better-looking that Obama is. I've spent the last couple of afternoons poolside, so my skin is maybe just a hint lighter than his but at least it doesn't have that greenish tint to it. OK, he's got the full curly head of hair and mine is straight and disappearing but my VIEWS are far more in synch with the African-American community than his are. And "stories"? Christ. My story and the story of my family is far more part of the bootstraps narrative than his is. He is an aristocrat. Don't forget that. If I didn't like my choices more or less, I'd run for president because if Obama is a factor, what am I, chopped liver?
Ser Fred: Your comment came in while I was finishing my round-up and I specifically referred to the Clark Clifford editorial. I have punted a few pounds on the Democratic nominating contest, so my partner and I have been trying to tease this apart every way we know how. The problem is that we are both rationalists and quantitative analysts and are missing something in the cultural aspects of it all. We always expected HRC not to be "liked" and we always expected the media to be with him all the way, but we didn't expect the latter to matter because it never had in any situation involving the Clintons before.
Repeating myself here, but I like partisanship. I like dialectical materialism.
So, my best explanation for the Obama phenonmenon was expressed by Clark Clifford. And by Michael Jordan (though unaware of how awful he was with this at the time). When Harvey Gantt ran for Senate against, of all people JESSE fucking HELMS, Dean Smith asked Jordan to campaign with him for Gantt. Jordan's response: "No, coach. Republicans buy sneakers, too."
That would be ipso facto and QED for those of you in the back.
I still think she's gin rummy for this but apparently it's not going to be easy.
DAMNIT! If it weren't suggested before the Goodlatte subcommittee than my "kind" maybe wasn't so welcome in the USA anymore, I might consider moving to Illiois and challenging Obama for the Democratic nomination for IL Junior U.S. Senator.
As we've all aged, I've been mistaken for Robert Downey, Jr., (fucking nice compliment) and Andy Bloch (not so great, but he's a hell of a poker player). Obama's tall and I'm small, but I have nice baritone voice with an unfortunate New York accent. Last I checked, however there's pretty fair-sized Latin community in the cities and in the farm towns as well. My Puerto-Rican inflected Spanish accent would kick ass in Chicago and if I put on a Panamanian accent in the farm country it might appear somewhat sophisticated and aristocratic to Mexican-American voters which would take away Obama's social class edge over me at least with those voters.
Unlike Obama, I am completely unashamed of all my hypocrisies. Moreover, I would never be disrespectful of Senator Durbin. Whatever he might need me to do on his behalf, I'd be happy to do. I think he's a good Senator and it would never occur to me to show him up in any way, even I could, which I can't.
With a little finesse and parents in the literary world, I might be able to do something, something with the Oprah book club and maybe neutralize 2% of Obama's natural advantage there.
If I had the slightest desire to live in the US, this could WORK!
Nice fantasy. I'm going to leave it to my fellow Native New Yorker, US Atty Patrick Fitzgerald to take care of Obama in 2010.
FAIRLANE: In a way I'm finding this thing with Obama kind of funny even though I'll lose a lung and my son's Nintendo if he wins the nomination.
The most brazen daylight robbery I'd ever seen was this summer when Davydenko in the 2nd round of a 32-draw $150,000 tournament in Sopot, Poland, won the first set 6-0, lost the second 7-6 and retired leading 4-1 in the third to Vassallo-Arguello. The "funny" thing was that AFTER Davydenko had won the first set, millions of pounds showed for Vassallo-Arguello to the point that every place in the world had to take it off the board. I heard a rumor that the Russians won 50 million pounds.
The way the press is in the tank for Obama is WORSE than Davydenko's dumping that match. Obama has been very quick to chastise other black people for "feeling sorry for themselves" and look at this shit! He start to feel a little heat after NH and just becomes an even bigger crybaby, yet the press is calling Bill and Hillary Clinton RACIST.
Do they let Jews into the Christian Identity Movement? If so, save me a place and a Swanson Hungry Man dinner, ok? If all the Swansons are gone, I'll take a Tuna Helper.
Cuidate, mi brother.
Kelso, what's up bro? I'm sorry for having not passed through here in a while. I have no excuse, really. I read this post with great interest because it goes to the heart of what's wrong with politics in general in this country. We focus way too hard on the shit that does not matter.
Yes, we have a still have a race problem in this country, but it won't mean a fucking thing if we don't deal with the issues that matter like the economy and the our ever eroding Constitutional freedoms?
I won't spend my time arguing this point in detail because I will only end up repeating points already made. But I really couldn't give a rat's ass about who insulted whom with this remark or that. It's times like these when I wish I give this country a cocotaso and say "Snap out it!"
Spartacus:
You got right to the heart of the matter: the economy and the constitution. Have you heard one word about either from any of the major candidates? Edwards isn't fooling me with his "Highlights For Children" version of Keynes. I've heard Kucinich make sense and Ron Paul make sense fairly consistently and the latter only on a couple of issues. Dodd was brave once when he needed to be. That's it.
How many fucking lechugos de cocotasos se necesiten, pue'? Dime la verdad. Not a week has gone by since the 2000 election when something truly wrong didn't happen without a whisper. I can't think of any time in my life or in the American history I know that's similar.
I think of the likely winners she's the one who can begin to take the first baby steps back to what's at least average. Republicans and Obama, in my estimation, can only make it worse.
But don't ask me, just look at the tables of commodities futures prices and USD f/x futures. Republicans like it and "LeBron James" doesn't understand it, but wotta surprise! -- as inspirational as he is he couldn't figure out a ball-point pen. I heard a rumor today that he fancies himself a brilliant NLHE player but can't play at all, so David Axelrod told his staffers to dump to him.
There must be something to the guy if everyone's dumping for him, si o no?
kelso, you wrote:
"...so, I what I cannot accept is that the Obama campaign has somehow convinced the press that the Clintons are racists. The Clintons! My god, you can criticize them for any number of things, but racism?"
Like the Don Imus affair -- Don seems to have supplied the model for contrition here, leading Bill to call Al Sharpton -- some watchers, scouts, forward observers, whatever, spotted something and worked it. With extraordinary success, apparently.
This episode shows one of the differences between black and white realities. The Clintons, as you noted, have an impeccable record in the race department. But that doesn't matter.
The interpretation of this controversy splits on racial lines. Whites see it for the innocuous moment that it is, and blacks see it for what it is not.
But what brought it to life? Some political operative throwing spaghetti at the wall hoping for some to stick? Some blogger who circulated the Youtube clip with a few off-the-cuff thoughts? An Obama supporter hoping to draw media attention? A Republican operative hoping to undermine Hillary while aiding a presidential hopeful who hasn't got a chance?
Hard to say. But clearly the Clintons were not flashing some heretofore hidden racist or anti-black sentiments.
You asked:
"This is not like anything I've ever seen in American politics before."
Cuomo. Not the homo?
True, it's not the same. But anything to get voters off the track of important matters. Unfortunately for Obama, he's running a campaign about nothing, though he recently announced his intention to fight for animal rights.
I guess that means human problems are all solved and now it's time to play Dr. Doolittle and talk to the animals.
Kelso, the truth is I don't know how many cocotasos are needed. But I do know that those candidates are not focusing right now on what matters. And you're right about the rising cost of futures. What that translates to someone like me who purchases the by-products made from this futures (such as cereal and gasoline) is that I am getting DP'ed by the rich and the current administration serving them.
However, I do need a bit of help with your comment. What is the NLHE? And I assume that David Alexrod is telling his peeps to dump to LeBron because he's being setup the way a pool shark at a local bar. Correct? It sounds to me like Mr.Axelrod fully believes that a fool and his money are soon parted.
Ok, I am way late to this. Great post, great comments, fascinating stuff. So I'll only add my wholehearted support of you moving to Illinois and challenging Senator Obama for his seat. We'll run your campaign form my kitchen. (Now you know where I live!)
No_slappz: This is truly a red-letter day. It is, I believe, the first time you and I have agreed on anything! I love to be surprised like that.
If what you say about The Don Imus Model Of Contrition is true, it's a very sad state-of-nature indeed. I'm not sure exactly what Al Sharpton has to do with any of this. Why is he of all people in charge of the the "yes-racist, no-racist hammer"? Too much responsibilty for one very bizarre person to have. Sharpton's a complicated guy: did some shitty things -- was a paid rat to FBI about other African-American leasders. Tawana Brawley. And his being Al D'Amato's liaison in all sorts of creepy ways to things African-American. On the other side of the ledger, his three major runs for office (NY Senator), (NYC Mayor) and (President Of The United States. He wss funny and clever and well-informed and defitely along with Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich the Party's Big Progressive voice. None of that gives him the power of racial simony.
Because I'm a free-speech absolutist, I don't think Imus should have felt the need to kiss Sharpton's ring over the Rutgers remarks. He was supposed to apologize to the players, the coach, and all the students of Rutgers and just get on with it.
I also don't know what he did to make CBS want to terminate him. They hired him to be a racist asshole and he was one. Having followed Bill Clinton and Al Sharpton for many years, I just KNOW they're working some angle together. I least I really HOPE they are.
I'm not complaining about hard-ball political tactics. And that's pretty much where I'd file Obama's remarks. "Vote for Cuomo not the homo is not the homo" was nothing new. Just a hardball way to pick up Brooklyn votes for a liberal Democart losing the primary to a conservative Democrat. I'd say Bush's tactics against McCain US '2000 were tough but not dirty. I think Nixon's tactics against Voorhis and against Douglas were fairly rich as Nixon himself admitted later but they, too were not hard to understand. At that time "communist" was an effective accusation in a political campaign.
I don't begrudge Obama the right to use every hardball tactic available to him. Perhaps, having a tan complexion despite being the son of a wealthy diplomat father and blue-blood mother gives him the added edge of being able to cry "race" when the pressure's on. Or even when it's not, as goes with his whole story of "hope" (hmm...from whom did he steal that one? Oh, right. It was Bill Clinton '92). I am enfuriated that the press THEN accepts this tactic not as normal hardball but turns it around and BELIEVES that it is the CLINTON FAMILY which is racist and that Obama is running a "positive, post-racial" campaign. Bill Clinton said it wasa "fairy tale" (what and he didn't also get accused of homophobia)? I'll go a little further. It's fucking horseshit.
I liked your Dr. Doolittle reference so much, I'm going to steal it. But unlike St. Barack Obama, I have the balls to ADMIT to you ahead of time that I plan to steal your great joke. A quick thought: is Obama's Dr. Doolittle okey-doke a way to "distance" himself from Michael Vick?
How many more times in 2008 do you think we'll agree on something, No_slappz? Probably not often. But I appreciated your comment on this post. Be well.
SPARTACUS:
NLHE is short-hand for "No-Limit-Hold-'em". Apparently, while Hearts was the card game of choice in the Bill Clinton crew, NLHE is the game of choice in the Obama crew. From how I hear it, Obama likens himself to Phil Ivey but can't play at all, so campaign manager David Axelrod asks of the staff to lose on purpose to Obama.
SuziRiot: Thanks for the offer, but..."if nominated I will not run; if elected I will not serve"...Obama's lucky because my debating experience was with the Pub Debate Society in college and I'm not shy about pointing anything out. I'd certainly have to mention that playing poker for money whether at home or online (after Obama's friend Bill Frist snuck the UIGEA into law) is illegal in the United States Of America and how did it feel to be a felon? As poker is also considered to be a sin by some of Obama's big-time fundie buddies like Warren, Dobson and LaHaye, not to mention all of those really, really nice people who fill his churches each Sunday with that lovely anti-gay rhetoric, what is going to be then, eh? Is Obama going to compound the sin by lying? And if so, how so? And does that make him a wimp or a jack-leg? And should he tell the truth that he likes NHLE, would he care to play me heads-up for a decent amount?
See, better this way. You and Senor Riot don't need to be called racists along with me by Tim Russert.
Here on planet earth (i.e., in another developed democratic capitalist republic, that of Panama) we don't worry much about poker or ethnicity. Earlier this morning, I finally realized that I was playing No-Limit Omaha with a table of Arab-Panamanians and Arab-Venezuelans and you know something, everybody there was a friend or acquaintance and all were more interested in whether or not they had flopped top set and a flush draw and should open with $1500 to protect the set or open smaller to preserve the draw, this instead of worrying about the best way to export terrorism and destabilize regions. It's funny how in a truly "post-racial" country we don't worry about terrorism or who's what "color" or "race" or "ethnicity" at all but are worried about the USA destabilizing our region.
DAVE: Thanks for coming back for follow-up. The ironies sure do pile up, don't they. Following on my comment to SuziRiot, I really wish I could make Obama and his White supporters know what it feels like to live a really "post-racial" society. Skin "color" or "ethnicity" (there's no word really for "race" -- "raza" has a whole Mexican meaning which doesn't apply here) is irrelevant. As everybody's circle of friends is so mixed up, you only take account of someone's APPEARANCE so you can describe that person to someone else. You "know" people by their names. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with describing someone by their skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, whatever, because (note this, Senator Obama) in a "post-racial" society there's nothing NORMATIVE about these descriptions. There are "insults," however, like everywhere else. I don't mind being called "blanco" or "judio" or "ruso" or "neoyorquino" but I won't tolerate being called "gringo" because it's insulting and because it's inaccurate. To be a "gringo" you must be a White Amerian Christian or an American soldier or intelligence officer or represent a big-time American company.
And we circle around. It won't surprise you to know that I've done very well investing in oil and tobacco, thanks, and I don't drive or smoke. I like the arts and entertainment because everyone does and because my parents are both writers and editors. I do not like TimeWarner nor Richard Parsons, however. Nothing to do with the color of the latter's skin. because I'm not a fan of Sumner Redstone either.
I'm getting around to the BBQ thing again. I didn't fine Jesse Jackson, Sr,'s "Hymietown" remark offensive in the slightest. I thought it was pretty funny, actually. He offended me when he said "oh, the Jews think they're so special because of the Holocaust...well, all they are is another kind of White to me...there's a Black Holocaust going on every day." Very rich coming from someone so rich, si o no? Best part about Jackson's remark was that I actually BELIEVE that there is now and has always been a Black holocaust in the USA. Lynching was very much a part of that and thanks for noticing that I understood. Clarence Thomas did NOT experience a "high-tech lynching". He WON a close-fought POLTICAL contest. Dammit, even Goodman, Schwerner and Cheney -- two of my paisanos and one of yours -- weren't "lynched". They were murdered. Without doing the research, Northern Whites are not going to know that lynching is a baroque, medieval and sadistic commedia dell'arte (arts & enterainment, my friend!) with STRUCTURE. Southern White know but won't admit it. Or are ashamed, as they should be.
Funny story about Durbin's crew being cheap.
I get exactly where we're at on this election and we're not all that far off. I think we both share a desire for peace, prospertity and progressism but failing that we've come to like the center-right candidates each of us has chosen but understand that we're not getting nearly everything we want.
The great racial divide between white and black realities became clearer with the following reportage:
"Obama's spiritual mentor
Powerhouse Chicago preacher draws attention, and plenty of controversy"
By Michael Hill
Sun Reporter
January 16, 2008
CHICAGO
"The packed house at Trinity United - some 3,000 in all - had been in the pews for almost two hours, energized by a 200-voice choir and a rousing dance performance Sunday, when the Rev. Jeremiah Wright stepped up to speak.
"Wright is well-known in Chicago and in the black church world for taking over a small United Church of Christ congregation in 1972 and turning it into an 8,000-member powerhouse. More recently, his name has become familiar as the longtime spiritual mentor of Barack Obama, who joined the church in 1988 - a move Obama says was important to shaping his identity as an African-American.
"The connection has thrown a spotlight on some of Wright's more controversial remarks in a church that advertises itself as "unashamedly Black and unapologetically Christian" - at times espousing a black liberation theology that can sound as exclusionary as Obama's message is inclusionary. He has also equated Zionism with racism.
"On Sunday morning - amid intensified crossfire between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Obama over the use of race in the Democratic presidential campaign - Wright was preaching from the Gospel of John, using his powerful style to link the story of the loaves and fishes to a contemporary political message.
"Man should not put limits on what God can do, but that's what people always do, he told the crowd. Just as God made five loaves and two fishes feed thousands, God has provided liberators for blacks in the past - from Nat Turner to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and now Barack Obama. But, Wright said, there were always reasons not to follow them.
"Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton "because her husband was good to us," he continued.
""That's not true," he thundered. "He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky."
"Many in the crowd were on their feet, applauding - amazed, amused and moved by the fiery rhetoric of their preacher, who is about to retire.
"It is just such rhetoric that has made Wright's remarks an occasional staple on conservative talk shows. They often make the rounds in anti-Obama e-mail."
Post a Comment