Comment on: Random notes

Defending Geraldine

10 Comments

Did you say red hair?

"Were he Barry O'Bama, born of Irish and Jewish parents, with milk-colored skin and red hair, but with the same rhetoric, would Oprah be endorsing him over Hillary?"

Good point, although not part Jewish, and, ok, my rhetoric is different, I have yet to recieve a call from Oprah. Oh yeah, I'm not running for public office, either.

Anyway, saw this quote on the TH homepage. As always, congrats!

Redhead

Thank you!

Nice to hear form you again, and always good to have repeat visitors.

Let me know if ever you run, I'll be sure to send in an absentee ballot, wherever it is. Why should the Dems have all the fun with voter fraud?

Not very smart

You may know the English language but you are really not very smart. No one around Obama mentions his race. Obama never mentions race. Anyone with a half a brain would know it is not to his advantage to make race a issue. It is his detractors that are constantly bringing up race, then when the Obama camp reacts to it they say he is playing the race card. His detractors want to keep race an issue because they know it will alienate many white voters. Obama has done everything right. He has worked hard, played by the rules, and run a great campaign. still it is a very long shot that he will ever be president. He has shown though that a black man who gets an education and works hard and plays by the rules has the capability to be president. Perhaps that is the best we can hope for in America.

Bill

I appreciate the comment, but I beg to differ.

Obama is running on essentially no platform. he speaks of "change" and "hope" and avoid any details. He has a record to the left of 99% of congress. yet, he is running far ahead of the pack.

When John Edwards, with essentially the same credentials, ran, he lost in a big way.

What is the difference?

I just think you are buying into the Obama story as presented by Obama and not looking at the reason that others are buying into that story.

Please, let me know why you think I am wrong. But if not for his role as a safe black man, then tell me why anyone supports someone who has no positions?

Despite my disagreement with your position, please come back and comment again. I always appreciate comments, especially from those who do not agree with me.

Bill Part 2

By the way, it is not just his detractors who mention race. Those in the media who coo over him also talk about how his campaign will "represent a healing of racial divides in America" and other such nonsense.

Again, the people who support him are telling me it is about race. So, just because Obama avoids mentioning race, I should not listen to people telling me why they support him?

Andrews

Andrews, Barak Obama has a platform. If you are really interested in what it is, you can go to barakobama.com and read about it. Why was "change" and "hope" a good thing when Reagan was running, but now it is naive? BO has the ability to inspire others to try and do better, it is a intangible thing called leadership. He is not so arrogant to think that he alone can go to Washington and change the way things are done, but he is inspiring many Americans to get involved, and with them behind him perhaps he can start to fix what is wrong in Washington.

I like John Edwards. I would vote for him. I think though the perception is that he had his chance, albeit at the VP slot, and didn't get it done. There are a lot of similarities between Edwards and Obama. I think Obama outshines him though in the ability to inspire and motivate people.

The problem with Geraldine's comment is that it is just ridiculous. If BO is where he is just because he is black, why didn't Jesse Jackson have the same success? BO is where he is because he has great leadership qualities and has run an excellent campaign. Well you say he is getting all the black votes. True, but how do you measure all the white votes he is NOT getting because he is black? You would be naive to think there is not a lot of that going on.

Perhaps the reason BO is getting so much of the black vote is that they truly believe he is the best candidate, and they don't have the hurdle some whites have to get over to vote for a black man. But BO wouldn't be where he is without the support he has gotten from whites either. In fact I believe he has gotten more white votes than black votes. Those whites are not voting for him because he is black. To their credit, the fact that he is black did not prevent them from voting for him.

Sorry for the rambling.

Bill

Obama has a platform, but it is still just a string of platitudes. I have checked out his materials in the past, but even for a "high level overview" his is remarkably content-free.

As I have said in other posts, the few concrete stands he has taken, stating things he will do with specificity or saying what he believes have been flops. Either they were foolish in the extreme (invading Pakistan) or he took both sides of an issue (gun control). He studiously avoids stating anything specific.

Which is where your Reagan analogy falls apart. Reagan may have pushed hope and change, but he also gave those generalities specific meanings. He told us what he believed and what he would do. Obama is just "for change" and "for hope" with no specifics as to how he will govern.

And whether or not he is "good at motivating people" that does not meaning anything about how he will govern. Hitler and Washington were both good at motivating people, but they had rather different outcomes. Motivational speaking alone i is meaningless, which is why I am so critical of Obama's lack of a concrete platform.

And if you had read my post, it does explain why whites support Obama, perhaps even ingreater percentages than blacks. To a lot of whites, an Obama vote offers racial absolution (I have posted many citations to this in a recent post, so not my idea, but the words of Obama supporters). Blacks need no racial absolution, liberal whites do, so of course his appeal is greater to liberal whites.

As far as Jesse Jackson, I explained that in my post as well. Jesse pushes guilt, Obama is harmless. So of course he does better. He offers cost-free absolution. Vote for him and you are washed free of racism. Jesse demands some shakedown money instead. Why wouldn't Obama do better?

Well, enough rambling from me as well. Thank you for the reply. Please come back again. I do enjoy discussing these topics.

Andrews

Obama did not say he would invade Pakistan. He said if there was actionable intelligence, and Pakistan was unable or unwilling to follow up on it, then we would. Of course his detractors ridiculed this idea and said he was going to go of willy nilly and bomb our allies. Then a couple weeks ago our CIA does exactly what Obama suggested we should do, and take out a high level Al-Queda leader with a missile without consulting the Pakistanis.

Hope is never a bad thing and Lord knows we need change. BO does not take PAC money. His campaign is truly a grass roots one, fueled by millions (fact, not hyperbole) of donors, the American people. The change BO wants to institute is reducing the influence of lobbyist, and to have government be more responsive to its people. Also to try to reduce some of the partisan bickering and reach across the aisle to try and actually get something done for the American people.

As for the race issue, is it possible or will it ever be possible in your mind for whites to vote for a black simply because they think he is the best candidate, not for any racial absolution?

Bill

The idea that whites are voting for Obama because he is black is not in my mind, but in the explicit statements of his supporters. I have said that repeatedly, yet you ignore it and continue to state that I am just asserting it. Please, look at my more recent post, I have quotes from several supporters saying that they support him because he will "heal the racial divide". There is a letter posted on his site saying the same thing. I am not making this up, his supporters are saying it themselves.

As far as "reducing lobbyist influence" and the rest, that is precisely what I mean when I say vague and insubstantial positions. All politicians could support that, it is the particulars that matter.

It is as if you said "Obama has a platform, he wants to do only good and avoid doing wrong". Yes, that is a platform in some sense, but it still tells me nothing about what he will actually do. Everything Obama has said is of that nature, a nice platitude without even a hint of how it will be implemented. 95% of what he says could be the platform of any candidate in the race, from McCain to Paul to Obama to Nader. The other 5% is a little less vague, but could still apply to any Democrat. Nothing he says amounts to an actual statement of what he intends to do.

And I am afraid it is you who are rewriting history. Obama was not quite as sensible about Pakistan as you state. But let us ignore that for a moment and turn instead to his Iraq position. Look at http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2008/02/28/obama_begins_to _collapse.thtml and tell me that is the statement of someone you would trust handling foreign policy.

Bill Part 2

BY the way, I did forget his Iraq stand, so he did take another position.

Apparently that position is:

We will withdraw from Iraq to concentrate on Afghanistan, but will go back to Iraq if al Qaida is there. Of course, al Qaida is already there, but we can ignore that since Bush and Cheney are to blame. But if they are there AGAIN, then we will go back.

Or something. I have to admit, I can't make heads or tails of what point he was making.

As Best of the Web said in response to his statement: "Yes we can!"