BS: Popular Views on Obama

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 01:58 AM

In case Mudcatters aren't familiar with Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" remarks ,here's a link to a YouTube video of former President Clinton's comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Ytbr-7VaE
Bill Clinton on the campaign trail, January 8, 2008 (more)


**

I haven't found the video of the New Hampshire campaign event where Hillary Clinton compared the relative importance of Martin Luther King, Jr and LBJ {former President Lyndon Baines Johnson}'s to the Civil Rights movement. However, here is a link to an interview that Hillary Clinton made about her comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9LhWUsrJnM

**

Bill Clinton apparently recognizes that Hillary's campaign needed to do some damage control among African Americans because of our reactions {and others' reactions to} his comments and his wife's comments since he {Bill Clinton} called in to at least 4 national Black talk radio shows today to talk about these comments.

I happened to hear one of these interviews today. It was interesting to listen to Bill Clinton trying to back pedal his "fairy tale" comment and his wife's remarks about Martin Luther King, Jr, President John Kennedy, and President LBJ.

Unfortunately for Bill and Hillary, their remarks have "gone viral" {meaning they're all over the Internet and all over the talk radio/Black media circuit].

I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't buy Bill Clinton's explanations of his and Hillary's remarks.

The results of the South Carolina Democratic primary may show whether people accepted Bill's explanations for those comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:07 AM

It is funny. The righties are steaming about Obama bieng full of hot air.

The WaPo has a different take.

"So what explains the magic?

The most obvious explanation is Obama's stirring oratory, with its notes of generational change and unity. The key to his seduction, though, resides not just in what he says but in what remains unsaid. It lies in the tacit offer -- a promise about overcoming America's shameful racial history -- that his particular candidacy offers to his enthusiasts, and to us all.

Obama's allure differs from the infatuations of past election cycles because it can't be traced to what he has done or will do. In his legislative career, Obama has produced few concrete policy changes, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a rank-and-file fan who can cite one. Not since 1896 -- when another rousing speechmaker, William Jennings Bryan, sought the White House -- has the zeal for a candidate corresponded so little to a record of hard accomplishment. But merely asking if Obama has done enough for us to expect he'd be a good president misses the point, because that measures the past rather than imagining the future.

Yet if Obama charms us by pointing to tomorrow, he doesn't come bearing a new ideological vision. In the 1980 primaries, the insurgent Ronald Reagan won on his robust, pro-military, anti-government conservatism, a philosophy that until then had languished even within the GOP. Similarly, in 1992, Bill Clinton triumphed because he was the first Democrat since the 1960s to formulate a viable and vital new liberalism -- one rooted in years of policy wonkery, a frank reckoning with his party's failures and an early recognition of the importance of globalization.

But where Clinton converted voters to his philosophy with binder-thick proposals, from AmeriCorps to welfare reform to the earned-income tax credit, Obama fans rarely tout his specific ideas. No one claims his agenda entails radical innovation or differs much from Hillary Clinton's. On the contrary, Obama's ideology, insofar as he has articulated it, seems to be a familiar, mainstream liberalism, heavy on communitarianism. High-minded and process-oriented, in the Mugwump tradition that runs from Adlai Stevenson to Bill Bradley, it is pitched less to the Democratic Party's working-class base than to upscale professionals.

The Obama phenomenon, then, stems not from what he has done but who he is. As the social critic John McWhorter has written, "What gives people a jolt in their gut about the idea of President Obama is the idea that it would be a ringing symbol that racism no longer rules our land." He is the great white hope."...

---

The key is "who he is". That is where the righthas betrayed American consciences.

People trust him.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:25 AM

Indeed Amos - I would worry that Obama does not actually bring any actual promises of any concrete meaning. Hot air is fine,if you want to send up a hot air balloon. A candidate for goverment office ought to have accurately described, fully costed plans for what he wants to do, and I see little of that yet from Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:38 AM

For a start, folks can read Senator Barack Obama's statements on issues by visiting his website, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 10:16 AM

Richard:

The key thing about Obama is that he articulates policies, not hot air. Your dismissive approach does him a disservice. Your premise that what a candidate needs is a complete, fully costed plan is, I think, both unrelaistic and possibly tactically off. Treating the Presidential election like a board room squabble is exactly what was repugnant about Bush, Bush, Nixon, and Reagan -- the conversion of the nation into a corporate structure within a corporatocracy.

Obama provides something more important, I suggest -- a guiding vision and the policies which derive from it which can bring together people into a higher quality of organization. Obama will not be able to escape the details, of course -- but they are not his first line of attack and given the conditions it is possible they should not be, because what has been so badly missing from the nation's leadership is not people who can play board-room gotcha but people who can be trusted to represent ideals and principles. Obama's position is principled. This is worth a lot, because it means (if it is true and consistent) you can trust him to grapple intelligently with the projects of government and the collisisons of events in an ethical way.

It depends on whether you place your importance on ethics first, and then on administration, or whether you place them on administration first, and let ethics follow as it can. usually being scrapped or torn up.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 10:31 AM

To look more closely at his specific plans, take the time to read this PDF paper:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 10:44 AM

I have to correct something I said about Obama. Unlike Clinton and Edwards, his health care proposal actually doesn't require everyone to buy coverage. In that way it's not really universal health care. He's characterizing it as "virtually universal".

Basically he's saying that with his proposal, economy of scale (creating a large risk pool) will bring the costs of insurance down, and he's saying that by bringing the costs down, everyone will want to buy insurance. This sounds good, but if everyone doesn't decide to buy it, the risk pool may not be big enough to bring insurance costs down low enough for most of the currently uninsured to be able to afford it. It seems a bit circular to me. This guy thinks that Obama knows his plan won't work, but that it's not important because he knows he can't get it passed anyway...

http://www.spot-on.com/archives/holt/2007/12/president_obamas_brilliant_hea.html

Clinton's and Edwards' plans are just as bad in their own ways. If everyone is required to have insurance, how will it be enforced? And what if someone still can't afford to pay the premiums, even with their plans? What sort of penalty will they be subjected to?

Same guy as above talking about Clinton's and Edwards' kind of plans here...

http://www.spot-on.com/archives/holt/2006/04/post.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 10:47 AM

I agree, Amos...

Other tham Hillary, who tends to be too wonkish, no other candidate is being held to a higher standard of articulating policy details than Obama...

This in itself is somewhat racist...

"Wwell, Ralph, let's see if the black guy has a brain..."

Duhhhhh!!!

I mean, let's get real here... Who is it who is being hounded more for policy details than Obama... Clinton ain't... She juts enjoys spoutin' 'um off to show how smart she is...

Heck, no one even asks Dennis anu questions and John Edwards ain't too far behind Dennis is that regards...

As for the Repubs, who is asking them anything at all...

So it comes down to some PR crap that the Repubs have devised to try to set aome doubts in the minds of the voters about Obama's grasp of policy... Well, there will be plenty of time to get down to the nitty gritty... The Repubs are collectively scared to death of Obama, understand fully that they most likely will have to defeat him and are starting early with their subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on him...

What I really want to know is the specifics on Hucklebee's "Fair Tax" idea... No, not the glossy version but the details??? And I want to know the specifics on McCain's plan in Iraq other than stay the course for the next 1,000,000 years??? And I want Guiliani to tell us why being the mayor of NewYork when it was attacked qulaifies him to be president??? Or why his kids don't support him??? Or how he expects to win "family values" voters with his womanizing past... And I want Romney to tell us why we should believe him when he flip-flops like a fish outta water...

Yeah, until these questions are being asked of the white candidates, there is, IMO, a certain amount of dual standards being pushed here...

Obama/Richardson or
Obama/Warner
    '08

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 10:59 AM

Yes, Bobert. Nobody is asking Dennis any questions. That is the problem. They're not failing to ask questions because they're giving him the benefit of the doubt (contrary to what you appear to be suggesting, and thereby implying racism on the part of those who support him). They're failing to ask questions of him because they are attempting to marginalize him. They try to shut him out of debates, and on the occasions when he is allowed to participate in debates, they try to avoid giving him any questions.

This is not preferential treatment, I assure you. Dennis would be grateful for more questions, and I think you know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 11:01 AM

Funny, isn't it, Bobert -- you way off in the hills of West Virginia, and me down here in the artificial desert of San Diego, and seeing eye-to-eye regardless, innit? :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 11:02 AM

Why will Obama lose? Because he will not carry the black vote as well as Hillary. Besides there are more women than blacks.


The current notion of Black Power is an angry chip on the shoulder agitator.
Obama is eroding 'perceived' Black Power since he makes white people more comfortable and will not cast whites as racist. Compare that with Sharpton or Jackson Sr.
Barak will continue to show that he has white support with his message that he came from a white mother and black father. Whites will be assured that he knows the non racist white person in the most intimate way.

The inarticulate argument by blacks that Obama wasn't black enough is based on the challenge to the popular perception of black power as angry victimhood. Obama challenges the old notion of black power by merely making whites comfortable, at least to the paradigm of black power that persists today.

Now listein up: Until we see a candidate as a person and not a representative of his or her race , WE WILL NOT BE FREE of predjudice.

But we are here ready and able to support Obama.
Personally I would like to see Obama as President if he had the cabinate and economic advisors that Bill Clinton had.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 11:09 AM

Amos it seems you have sterotyped West Virginians by finding it funny you could find consensus with one all the way from your perch in San Diego.

A successful politician would have stated that differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 11:11 AM

I was funning with my mate Bobert, Douel -- he knows I lovvim.

And by the way, I don't think Obama will lose, and if he does I am really doubtful it will be because he "isn't black enough".


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 11:17 AM

If Obama wins the recount in New Hampshire, he will have Dennis Kucinich to thank (who, by the way, will have to pay for the recount himself, despite the fact that his campaign has less money than the other candidates)...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7779

Now that's principle.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 11:33 AM

Indeed. It remains to be seen whether there will be a recount at all. But I wouldn't miond seeing it happen.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 11:48 AM

Yes, Kucinich suspects that there was fraud involved in the New Hampshire primary count, as do I, as quite clearly did some of the very surprised commentators on CNN that night (though they didn't come out and openly say so) and if so, that fraud deprived Barack Obama of the win, not Dennis Kucinich.

Yet Kucinich is the one calling for an investigation, and yes, that is idealism. Dennis Kucinich might just be the most honest and patriotic man left in American politics at this juncture.

If there was fraud, it was arranged so that Hillary Clinton would "win", needless to say.

Both the exit polls that day and previous statewide polls had indicated a strong win for Obama. Not just a win, a strong win.


Azizi, you said: "I stand with an increasing number of African Americans and non-African Americans who believe that the Clintons and their campaign spokespeople are using racial code words in their descriptions of Barack Obama, and are thus exploiting racism for their own personal gain {to try to win the Democratic nomination."

Right on. That is exactly what the Clintons and their campaign spokepeople are doing. Is it "racism"? Perhaps...but I'll tell you what else it is, quite aside from that...it's a totally cynical and unscrupulous attempt to damage Barack Obama through innuendo so that the Clintons can get back in the White House....and YES, it IS an exploitation of issues of race. It's despicable behaviour on their part, and I hope they pay a big price for it.

Donuel, you said: Now listen up: Until we see a candidate as a person and not a representative of his or her race , WE WILL NOT BE FREE of predjudice.

EXACTLY. That is what I have been saying for a long time on this forum. We have got to see a person simply as a person, not as a representative of this or that race...or religion. We have got to see ourselves that way too. There's a desperate need for people to do that...to see others simply as equal human beings, not stereotypes...and I hope I live to see the day when that is accomplished.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:48 PM

Donuel, with regard to your comment that "the current notion of Black Power is an angry chip on the shoulder agitator", that depends on who you ask for a definition of Black Power.

Also, it remains to be seen if your statement that [Obama] "will not carry the black vote as well as Hillary".

Hillary, and her spokespeople-including her husband former President Clinton-are doing a good job of royally pissing off many Black people. And Obama's doing a very good job of energizing and inspiring Black people. In my opinion, the era when Black people "loved" Bill Clinton, has passed.

With regard to your statement that "there are more women than blacks", as I'm sure you know, the two categories are not mutually exclusive. More than 1/2 of African Americans are female.

However, I don't accept your implications that the majority of Black people will vote for Obama just because he's Black and that Hillary will get the majority of the women's vote just because she's a woman.

And with regard to your statement that you "would like to see Obama as President if he had the cabinate and economic advisors that Bill Clinton had", I'd prefer that a President Obama would not consider Bill Clinton as his role model for anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:58 PM

Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 01:10 PM

I have now (very rapidly) read the pdf of Obama's "detailed" plans you suggested, Amos, thanks for the link.

No "unfair dismissal" law
No "redundancy" law
A whole 7 days sick entitlement per year (wow!)
A proposal to reduce public sector deficit - but reductions in tax for many. Wow, I'd like that magic wand.
He's going to do something to reduce meth addictions. Er - what?
Plans to make trade agreements work for the USA - has he grasped what that will mean in terms of exchange control and transfer pricing regulations in tax law?

A lot of "inspiration" but still not a lot of detail. Gordon Brown he does not seem to be. Incidentally, what is the word "wonk" I keep finding? There is a similar word with a different vowel that I know (that does not refer to closing one eye). I know the adjective "Wonky" to describe an artefact so crooked that it will not stand stably on its base. But what is "wonk"? Is it another of these baseless neologisms like "pwned"?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 01:21 PM

Actually, I didn't see anything (perhaps I read too fast) about prison reform and doing something to address the awful facts that the USA imprisons more of its population than any other first world country, a disproportionate number of them are non-white, and the prisons are brutal, demeaning, and run by the inmates...

Indeed I haven't seen anything on that from any candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 01:44 PM

What's the point of firm policies that effectively get junked after elections? Far more important is whether people feel they can trust the people they are voting for.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 01:48 PM

A wonk is someone who specializes in discussing policy -- the kind of person who breathes euphemism and eats a bowl of watered down bureaucratic nuances with sugar for breakfast.
And who knows all six phases of a complete Medicare application.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 01:49 PM

"Wonk is a slang term with several meanings:

Wonk (colloquial American English) was originally a 1960s slang word applied to an excessively studious person (equivalent to "grind", "geek , or "nerd").[1] [2] It is commonly used to refer to a person who is knowledgeable about and fascinated by details of a particular field.

The origins of the term are obscure. It has been linked to an obscure Old English word 'wancol'[1] and attributed to United States Navy slang for a learned but inexperienced midshipman.[3]

Presumably from the above, a policy wonk is someone knowledgeable about and fascinated by details of government policy and programs.[1]"

From Our Friend Wikipedia

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 02:04 PM

I received a pm asking me what I meant by the phrase "racial code words".

"...racial code words are words politicians (usually Republicans) are accused of using to supposedly help them win votes by raising whites' fears of minorities. According to pundit Clarence Page, racial code words include terms like "states' rights," "crime in the streets," and "welfare queens."
http://www.nationalcenter.org/2004/04/some-thoughts-on-racial-code-words.html
"Some thoughts on racial code words from Ed Haislmaier"

-snip-

Racial code words refer to stereotypes about a specific group, and are often stated indirectly. Other referents for using "racial are "playing the race card", "race baiting", or using "racial innuendos."

Here's an example of Hillary Clinton campaign's use of "racial coding":
Bill Sheehen's expression of concern that if Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, the Republicans would bring up the fact that he used drugs and the Republicans would question if he {Obama} ever sold drugs.
{Note Obama experimented with marijuana and cocaine as a teenager and never sold drugs. Other politicians-including Clinton have admitted to using drugs. However rarely if ever have they been accused of selling drugs. This "concern" fits into the "Black men as drug dealer steeootype.

The most recent example of the use of racial code words by the Clinton team is use of the phrase "shucking and jiving" to describe Hillary's competitors campaigns. See this Jan 10, 2008 article entitled "Racial code words rear their ugly head?"

"I've been pretty familiar with New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's work for quite some time, so I'm willing to extend some benefit of the doubt here, but this was certainly a poor choice of words.

A big Hillary Clinton supporter and statewide official in New York might have just given the Hillary campaign a real headache. During an appearance yesterday on talk radio — at almost the same time as Obama co-chair Jesse Jackson Jr. questioned Hillary's tears — New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo used some words with a very troublesome racial history, apparently in reference to Barack Obama.

"It's not a TV crazed race. Frankly you can't buy your way into it," Cuomo said, according to Albany Times Union reporter Rick Karlin. He then added, "You can't shuck and jive at a press conference. All those moves you can make with the press don't work when you're in someone's living room."

Because the phrase "shuck and jive" has a racial background, Cuomo was speaking on Clinton's behalf, and Obama is Clinton's principal rival, the comments raised a few eyebrows..."
-snip-

That article also links to a recent article by Karl Rove that is full of racially charged language. Here's an excerpt of that article:

"...in the course of a single column Rove manages to flag Obama's "trash talking", "his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard", and the alleged fact that "he is often lazy." "

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14197.html

-snip-

See this poster's comment from a dailykos diary:

"It is more than Cuomo's comments, it is a growing number of moments where those associated with the Clinton campaign (formally/informally) have dropped racially tinged innuendos. This is becoming more than a series of dis-associated accidents. Are the Clinton's racists? I can't answer that. I haven't looked into their hearts. Are they playing to the racial insecurities/fears/prejudices of many Americans? Yes. Is that racist behaviour? You make the call."
-Sansouci on Fri Jan 11, 2008
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/11/21112/9507/891/435412
Clinton "mistakes" on MLK vs LBJ
by Texas Populist
Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:29:09 PM PST

-snip-

See also this comment from a poster to that dailykos diary combines a number of the racial innuendos that the Clintons or their campaign staff and spokespeople have used to refer to Barack Obama:

"Give me a break, this whole thing is just a fairy tale. The Clintons are just shucking and jiving about their invisible hip black friend who is busy selling powder (or was it crack) at his local madrassa."
-by Walt starr on Fri Jan 11, 2008

-snip-

Also, see this excerpt from another dailykos diary:

"...Day after day we have seen the racially charged comments from Clinton aides, endorsers, and even President and Mrs. Clinton themselves. They have been extremely clever, delivered in such a way so that there is plausible deniability (especially in the cases of the Clintons) or where there are no Clinton fingerprints, the classic delivery method of a swiftboat attack."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/12/74429/0283/721/435566
The Swiftboating of Barack Obama
by Walt starr
Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:22:09 AM PST

-snip-

There's a number of other examples that could be cited when Hillary Clinton used racial code words. The latest one I read about online is this one:

RUSH: Did you hear what Mrs. Clinton said on the Today show today with Matt Lauer? She said that Barack Obama "hasn't done the spadework necessary to be president."

...Now, let's imagine, shall we, if Trent Lott or Mitt Romney or Ross Perot had said that Barack Obama "hasn't done the spadework necessary to be president." Nothing that happens in the Clinton campaign is coincidence, folks. Barack Obama hasn't done the "spadework"?

http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/is_hillary_playing_the_race_card/

-snip-

In this instance, the racial code word is "spade" which has been used as an informal reference for Black people.

What could be the reason for these uses of racial codes?
I believe these codes are purposely used to inject "race" in the campaign and to reinforce the view that some people have that a Black person should not be President of the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 02:16 PM

shucking and jiving has a pretty benign meaning to many of us..I had never heard of racial meanings to it..if there are very public discussions of this I presume Cuomo should have known it, but I have never in my life heard of it in anhy more than a cute expresion..sort of meaning someone is slacking off, bullshitting, etc...not a horrible expression.means someone is trying to hoodwink you.

AI do think the Clintons actually would applaud a Black person being president of the US...perferably one they had lots of control over..but certainly not one who was running against them..how inconsiderate..and not someone who would not kiss up to them.   mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 02:58 PM

They would praise any Black person working for their campaign, they would find devious ways to undercut any Black person competing with their campaign...meaning Mr Obama.

It's not exactly racism per se, not necessarily...it's just the usual typical political dirty tricks we see in every election...one of which is to pander to people's fear of minorities...(and a minority's fear of being discriminated against too!) I guarantee that the Clintons will use such dirty tricks to hurt Obama, and I guarantee that the Republicans will also. To do so is a lot easier and more certain than predicting rain! ;-) Let's hope that they don't get away with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:05 PM

Some folks just don't know their place; fortunately Obama is one of them. Or, actually he does. I think he'd make a good President and would like to see him in the Oval Office.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:18 PM

CarolC,

Of course I agree with you 100%... Yes, I am terribly frustrated that Dennie ask been rlled under the bus my establishment media... I have said many times over the years that I have been a Green Party supporter, worker and voter and consider myself still a Greenie... Dennis, to me, is a Green Party candidate who has been elected as a Dem... Doesn't really change much... I don't think you could get light to pass between Dennis's positions and those of Ralph Nadar...

With that said, I now can see some light between the Dems and Repubs and especially between Obama and everyone else and I hate to say it but Dennis ain't gouing to get nominated... Obama or Clinton will be, however... A Clinton nomination will put me sqaurely back into the Green Party...

It's not that I'm no happy backing Green Party candidates it's jus that I feel Obama gives everyone a little time to catch thier breath after Bush and we all need that, regardless of party...

This is why I support Obama... Is my reasoning 100% reasonable... I'll be ther first to admit that it isn't but it's my reasoning...

I fully support the work you are doing for Dennis and hope that should Dennis not be successdfull and Obama get the nod, that you will keep an open mind toward voting for him...

Kucinich/Richardson in 'o8 would be fine with me...

Kucinich/Obama, kuchinich/Warner, Kucinich/CarolC all work for me just fine...

But those aren't going to happen...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:25 PM

I repeat..whoever is using the word swiftboat in a derogatory fashion is slandering veterans. Do it with full knowledge and take responsibility for it. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:27 PM

Thanks your for the information, Azizi. Like mg, I would never have considered some of those expressions to be "racial code words". I have used "spadework" all my life to refer to making adequate preparations for something, and I played pickup basketball myself in college. I guess "shuck and jive" has an African-American background but, as a person who has been light pinkish-beige all my life, I can honestly say that it has always been an synonym for "screwing around" in my subculture, regardless of the skin color or ethnic background of the person who was doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:28 PM

More on Cuomo's use of the phrase "shuck & jive":

..."Speaking Tuesday to the New York Post's Fred Dicker, whose show airs on Albany's Talk 1300 radio station, Cuomo said of the early primaries: "It's not a TV-crazed race. Frankly, you can't buy your way through."

He added later, "You have to sit down with 10 people in a living room. You can't shuck and jive at a news conference; you can't just put off reporters, because you have real people looking at you, saying 'answer the question.'"

The 1994 book "Juba to Jive, a Dictionary of African-American Slang," says "shuck and jive" dates back to the 1870s and was an "originally southern 'Negro' expression for clowning, lying, pretense."

A truncated version of Cuomo's quote appeared first on the Albany Times Union's Capital Confidential blog Wednesday with the claim - later clarified - that he was talking about "Hillary's win in New Hampshire."

Like a virus, the notion that Cuomo had made a racially insensitive remark about Barack Obama's loss leapt from Web site to Web site yesterday.

Politico.com entered the quote into its so-called "department of word choice." Wonkette.com. called the term "racist."

But several sites, including Newsday's SpinCycle blog, posted updates after hearing from Cuomo.

"The attorney general was clearly saying that Iowa and New Hampshire were important primaries because the candidates could not duck the tough questions," said Cuomo spokesman Jeffrey Lerner. "He clearly meant no offense to either candidate because he was praising both in the interview. 'Bob and weave' would have been a better phrase; that's certainly all the attorney general meant." ...

But Temple University's Nathaniel Norment Jr., a professor of African-American studies, said the history of the Cuomo's phrase made it inappropriate because it springs from an ugly period of our past.

It refers to "how black people had to behave in the presence of white people to survive. You have to shuck and jive or buck dance; you're putting on an act," Norment said. "In the context of a presidential election, I think it's very derogatory to say." ...

Cuomo's comments on the early contests, from a transcript supplied by his office:

"It's not a TV-crazed race, you know, you can't just buy your way through that race ... It doesn't work that way, it's frankly a more demanding process. You have to get on a bus, you have to go into a diner, you have to shake hands, you have to sit down with 10 people in a living room.

"You can't shuck and jive at a press conference, you can't just put off reporters, because you have real people looking at you saying answer the question, you know, and all those moves you can make with the press don't work when you're in someone's living room.

"And I think it's good for the candidates. I think it makes the candidates communicate in a way that works with real people because you know in a living room right away whether or not you're communicating. And I think the questions are good and I think the scrutiny is good ..."

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-uscuom115533466jan11,0,3011306.story

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:56 PM

mg, I'm sorry that the word "swiftboat" has taken on this negative meaning. I understand why you don't approve of that referent being used that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jeri
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:07 PM

Mary, I understand your point of view, but you have an awful lot of folks to correct (Google search), including Wikipedia!.

I don't believe race or sex matter as much as some people would like them to.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:09 PM

But that then gets into the whole issue of evolution of the language, not to speak of the fact that some words have multiple meanings. Should we not use the word "jazz" because it (perhaps) once meant fornication? Should we not discuss a type of amphibian because "frog" is also a derogatory word in some circles for Frenchmen? If "shuck and jive" originated with southern Blacks and meant clowning, lying and pretense, than why can't anyone use that word about anyone else if that's approximately the meaning intended, since it is now in general use in the American dialect of English?

Sorry, but while she has her faults (as does every other candidate, including Sen. Obama), I have problems believing that Sen. Clinton and her minions (or most of the other candidates) are cherry-picking phrases in order to cleverly disguise their real desire to throw the n-word carelessly around.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:18 PM

Here's the newest example of the Clinton campaign being racial insensitive:

"When I asked Bendixen about the source of Clinton's strength in the Hispanic community, he mentioned her support for health care, and Hispanic voters' affinity for the Clinton era. "It's one group where going back to the past really works," he said. "All you need to say in focus groups is 'Let's go back to the nineties.' " But he was also frank about the fact that the Clintons, long beloved in the black community, are now dependent on a less edifying political dynamic: "The Hispanic voter—and I want to say this very carefully—has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/12/171256/424/480/435807
Clinton pollster: Latinos don't like Black leaders
by Hope08
Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:37:58 PM PST

Here's an excerpt from that dailykos diary:

" I really think that Clinton's people need to go to a cultural competency lecture. Like a real retreat, where they sit down and talk about how not to offend voters...

Just replace the word white with hispanic:

The White voter—and I want to say this very carefully—has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.

Does that make it more clear?

I truly believe that this is how the Clinton people view the world. Mark Penn in all his Blackwater/union busting glory says: let's divide us all up into our specific groups and I'll appeal to you on that basis. Latinos don't like Black leaders, well let me talk to you. She'll even tell you you're not illegal, but you can't drive. Poor white person, let me tell you how scary Al-Qaeda is, waiting for a "new guy" to come along so they can blow us all up!

It's sick, it's disgusting, it's a bridge to the past. We need a bridge to the future. Let's elect a leader who is striving to unite us despite our differences not play to our worst instincts. It's no wonder that young people are attracted to his [Obama's] candidacy. This battle to unite the country is not one that will be easily won. I think the tragedy is that the leading Democratic candidate is not even trying.

I just hope that those in the Latino community see beyond this cynical ploy she's going to play in Nevada and soon in California."

-snip-

Here's a poster's comment from that diary:

"[former Clinton political advisor] Dick Morris called it 2 weeks ago On Fox News he said the Hillary camp would bring out the race card in a subtle way and would try to convince American that the black candidate Barack Obama would be unelectable. He nailed it 2 weeks ago and now we are see sh** come out every day on the Clinton camp bring up the race card."
-illinihusker on Sat Jan 12, 2008

-snip-

[note I edited the "s" word with the asterisks]

**

Here's another post from that diary:

"They are wrong anyway...
My husband is from Mexico...in fact he is Aztec...he knows 80% of the Aztec language..and he likes Obama...there are so many kinds of Hispanics...Hispanics from Mexico are a diverse community in and of themselves...look at the brave women of Oaxaca who took over the radio stations and led a civil uprising to get the governor of that state to resign..

They would love Obama.. and there is black blood in Mexico too...and Irish blood and French blood as well as Mayan blood and Chinese blood..so I don't know where these people come off painting all Latin people as a homogoneous group..they are not...there are lots of ethnic backgrounds in Mexico...indigenous people all over the world are treated the same, however, they are treated like dogs...

Obama...si se puede

-RubyGal on Sat Jan 12, 2008

-snip-

["They" here referrs to pollsters. "Si se puede" "Yes We Can" is a Latino activist chant that is also used by the Obama campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:22 PM

artbrooks,

you wrote that you have used some of these phrases and therefore they may not be racial code, context is everything. Also, with regard to the repeated incidence of the Clintons, and the Clinton campaign's use of racially charged words & phrases, what's that quote about once is an occurance, twice is concidence, and three times it's enemy attack?

Let me repeat a post that I previously quoted:

"...Day after day we have seen the racially charged comments from Clinton aides, endorsers, and even President and Mrs. Clinton themselves. They have been extremely clever, [the racially charged comments are] delivered in such a way so that there is plausible deniability..."
-Walt Starr

[I added the hypenated words for clarity and the emphasis is mine.]

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:25 PM

Correction:

Artbrooks, you wrote that you have used some of these phrases and therefore they may not be racial code. Let me say that context is everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:26 PM

MG,

Your indignation about the term "swift boating" would have more substance to it if you were to come out and admit that John Kerry was immorally slammed by people who were ***not present*** on the day where Kerry and his crew state they came under attack, Kerry turned the boat around, engaged the enemy, killed the enemy and also pulled one of his men to safety...

It was these people, who by all accounts ***were not there*** who used million$ and mllion$ of "527" dollars to promote an utter lie about a decorated veteran...

Talk about being disrespectfull of veterans???

Your protests, without standing up to the Swift Boat "Lairs" rings hollow...

John Kerry did not deserve to have his service distorted by other vets who just happened to be Bush supporters...

You either respect vets or you don't... You can't have it both ways...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:33 PM

MG:

The people who used the word Swiftoboat in an operation to vilify an honorable veteran are entirely the ones you can speak to about where the term evolved to in the language. The term reflects on the dishonorable and dishonest use to which it has been put. Recognize and take responsibility is a fine charge, but lay it where it belongs. It has become a household word, like xerox or quisling, whose antecedents are past complaining.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:35 PM

"Hispanic", by the way, was invented by several mid-level Federal bureaucrats back in, if I remember the story correctly, the late 1960s who were looking for a gender-neutral (ie, other than Latino/Latina) word for a specific group. In concocting their definition, they managed to exclude Portuguese and Brazilians...the oral history is unclear if that was on purpose or not. My "Hispanic" neighbors, a few of whom even speak Spanish, would be insulted by the idea that there is such a thing as a "Hispanic voter".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jeri
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:47 PM

Bobert, step off.
Mary probably knows some swiftboaters who, because of a handful of underhanded, slimy jerks are lumped in with them by people like you who can't tell that there's a difference and don't bother to look. It's prejudice, just a different kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:55 PM

No one likes to see honorable men and personal friends slandered...doesn't matter which side of the fence you're on.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 07:16 PM

No, Jeri, mg probably hasn't a clue how hypocritic she sounds in not first standing up ***the*** "swiftboaters who slandered John Kerry... Unless you were on the moon during the '04 election, when BTW, most folks hadn't ever heard of "swiftboaters" or if they had didn't really know much about them, the "Swiftboater for Truth" put the term firmly on the map of consciesness!!!

Yeah, this was the beginning of "swiftboaters' coming into our consciouness and for probably 99% of Americans this was the 1st time they had heard the term... Yeah, the "Swiftboaters for Truth" came out and lied...

Yeah, I'll "step off" when I hear mg, regardless of how many siftboaters she knows, step up and admit that shaming a decorated Vietnam vet by people who ***were not there*** was wrong...

When that occurs I will never, never, never again make it an issue with her... Until then, it reeks of hypocrisy!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 07:23 PM

Here's another dailykos diary about the issue of race in the Democratic primary:

I'm worried
by david mizner
Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:16:47 AM PST

"...I'm worried about the turn that the Democratic Primary has taken. The Clinton campaign--trying to push the idea that Obama would be arisky bet in general election--is using language and making claims that are at best racially insensitive. The Obama campaign, in turn--hoping to increase its advantage among blacks in South Carolina and beyond--is exaggerating the extent of the Clinton campaign's trangressions.

This discussion--which has dominated the Primary since New Hamsphire--diminishes the Party. We're parsing surrogates' statements for racial subtext while the war in Iraq rages on and the country slides into a recession. It makes Democrats look ridiculous, like a parody of ourselves.

But the impact is much worse than that, potentially. I'm sure Obama and Clinton don't want to be spending their time making and answering to charges of racism, but in campaigns, demographics are destiny. Clinton does much betterthan Obama among the white working class, meaning that Obama has to do extraordinarily well among blacks to win. The Clinton campaign knows it helps them with working class whites to highlight Obama's blackness, and the Obama campaign knows it helps them with blacks to highlight the Clinton campaign's racial insensitivity.

In my opinion, the best hope for Dems and the country has long been to unite the blacks and whites (and Latinos) of moderate means. Knowing this, the GOP uses racially charges issues--affirmative action, welfare, etc--to peel away working class and middle class whites. Division between blacks and whites helps the GOP--it preserves the GOP--and now we see that very division emerging in the Democratic Primary, of all places. We're doing the Repulicans' work for them..."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/12/121312/890/608/435679

-snip-

Here's a comment that was posted by a reader of that diary which list the Clinton campaign's use of race code:

"Let me refresh your memory.

Clinton campaign staffers/volunteers get caught spreading the muslim email rumor, and one sent to a Dodd staffer.

Billy Shaheen dropped references that the GOP will state Obama sold drugs. That statement outraged the black community. Totally. Which resulted in Clinton apologizing personally to Obama.

Bill Clinton states Obama's campaign is a fairy tale.

Hillary Clinton states that it was the will of LBJ to pass the Civil Rights Bill. Ask Rep. Jim Clyburn of SC how angry he is of THAT ONE, when he was a partcipant of that movement.

Clintons supporter, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, drops the "shuck and jive" line, but said it was not in reference of Obama.

Former Senator Bob Kerrey, maligns Obama's heritage and his name. And Kerrey is a Clinton supporter.

Now who in the hell is baiting whom here?" ...
-icebergslim on Sat Jan 12, 2008

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 07:25 PM

It occurred to me that a large number of people voted for George Bush believing that they knew his mettle and his character, and were willing to trust hom. Having now been badly disillusioned, they may think that pinning a candidate to specific programs is the only way to avoid the same pain again.

But that's fixing the wrong problem. There were also a lot of people who knew that Bush had an untrustworthy character despite all his assertions, and shunned him for that reason.

Seeing clearly who you are vcoting for is a differnt, some might say more reliable, basis to send a person into the presidency and the unknown future that waits there over four years, than specific programs and projects which may have to be changed with the coming of new events.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 07:49 PM

Well, well, well...

Racism??? Not in America the Pure...

But nevermind that for now... Lets look at the reality of what is most likely going to unfold here and it hasn't got one thing to do with racism but thwe will of the American people and that is...

The Democratic race is between the establishment Democrat, Hillary Clinton, who BTW, as a woman deserves our respect and admiration for being the first woman to win a primary, and Barak Obama who come out as an "outsider" Democrat... Let's keep in mind that the last 3 presidents came in as outsiders and if you take out Bush I, this phenomona goes back pushing 4 decades!!!

That is one heck of alot of trend to overcome...

But that's not all... Edwards is slipping and slipping and one more defeat and he's probably out... Who do the Edwards supporters go with??? Let me suggest that most won't go with Hillary which means that once Edwards is out of the way, Obama will pick up even more steam...

Okay, I will admit that even being a news junkie, a historian of sorts, a political science minor, etc. that I could be wrong but I don't think so...

Right now, this is Obama's race to Penn. Ave to loose and right now, I don't see him finding a way to do that... He is too sharp... He is too in tune with what America craves... And he has the best personality for the job that awaits him...

Yeah, we'll get beyond the cyber-bickerin' about race and we'll come out of it a stronger nation with a better story to tell for it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 07:58 PM

Very true, Amos. Leaders at all levels have staffs - the President's senior staff is called the Cabinet - who, with their (appointed and career) subordinates develop the general goals and desires of the leader {"I want peace in the world and a balanced budget"} into detailed legislative proposals, action plans and implementation programs. We who call ourselves liberals or Democrats (or progressives, conservatives or even Republicans) need to try to step aside from the name-calling, and perhaps give others the benefit of a modicum of doubt, and support a person that best exemplifies what we want for our country...without worrying about whether that person has a fully-developed plan for everything under the sun available for dissection on her/his website.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 08:04 PM

Azizi - Yes, the Democratic Party is being damaged as you suggest by all this back and forth sniping that is now happening. That is an unfortunate aspect of the way the primary system works in the USA...it sets people against each other who ought not to be fighting one another, but joining in a common cause.

We have a very different system in Canada, as follows:

1. Our federal election campaigns are only 6 weeks long, by law.

2. We do not precede a federal election campaign with almost a year of infighting in the parties where different people battle each other in primaries.

3. The way that a party leader is selected in Canada is this - when the party caucus reaches a collective decision that it is time for a leadership review....which can happen at any time...the party itself holds a leadership convention. It's a process that happens within the party itself only, and it is usually preceded by a period of, say, a month or two during which there is much discussion in the party ranks and in the media as to who might best be the new leader for that party. Various people are nominated from within the party, and they campaign informally...not through having public plebiscites, but through discussion amongst the party membership.

4. Then the convention is held, and the delegates vote. There may have to be 2, 3, or 4 ballots before it's done...depends how the field is split. That happens on one evening.

5. This doesn't necessarily happen in the period immediately prior to a federal election. It more likely happens after an election...when a party has generally lost confidence in its current leader to the extent that they are looking for a new one who can lead them better. Or it may happen when a party leader decides to step down.

6. So, you see, our party leadership conventions are briefer, they don't depend on going all over the place to the public for many months and battling each other with promises and innuendo in order to scoop up the most popular votes, and they don't precede the general election, thus dragging ill will and innuendo into it.

7. The party, whichever one it is, usually tries to select whomever they feel might best lead them to victory in the next election (which might be several years away), and whomever they feel is best qualified to lead them. Sometimes they make strategic errors in that regard, naturally. ;-)

Your American elections are too long, too drawn out, and way too divisive, because they set people in your political parties against their own party members...and a lot of damage gets done which then has big fallout in the federal election that follows the primaries. It's a "field of dreams" for the practitioners of dirty politics.

In Canada, we are usually voting for a party whose leader has already been its leader for an extended time, and we've had time to get used to that person and what they stand for.

The process in the USA is simultaneously both too rushed...and too lengthy at the same time, if you see what I mean, because it tries to do everything in one frenzied continuous dead heat of about a year's duration which encompasses the primaries, the conventions, AND the federal election.   That's too much. It damages the candidates and it damages the entire process.

However, I guess you're stuck with it, right? I just wanted to explain a possible alternative way of going about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 08:29 PM

Hey,

You know one of the best things (among many) about Barack Obama is that he isn't getting sucked into the "race issue", even though realistically he has of course always known that it is a significant factor in the career of any black politician - even in Africa.

He won't bite.

They're trying to poke him, bait him, goad him - but when you look at him he doesn't look like someone in a cage. He looks like he's soaring above all that - it doesn't bother him - and he can see something better in the distance nd he's going to get there. And he makes it seem more important and more interesting.

as we spit at each other down here in the pit, he carries on working to excel as a fully rounded politician and presidential candidate. When people turn round to hear him talk, he is too busy speaking to and fighting for Americans to get drawn in to the big distraction.

Of course the fact that he is black is hugely significant. To pretend otherwise would be naive and patronizing. It is a burden of such complexity and weight that it is testament to his characer that he remains so professional, optimistic, realistic and idealistic despite it.

He isn't president - yet - but he already stands high on the shoulders of his African ancestry as a possible candidate for the position of leader of the free world.

With each dignified, brave and groundbreaking speech that he makes I find myself more and more agog at his strength of character.

Sorry, but if a man is to be judged by his character then boy - you don't need to look any further.

I envy you this opportunity.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Lox
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 08:31 PM

Hey Bobert,

I like your style bro!