DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on January 10, 2010, 01:36:36 AM
-
Reid apologizes for referring to Obama as ?light skinned? and ?with no Negro dialect? and
Clinton:
[A]s Hillary bungled Caroline, Bill?s handling of Ted was even worse. The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/09/bill-clinton-2008-on-obama-a-few-years-ago-this-guy-would-have-been-getting-us-coffee/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/09/bill-clinton-2008-on-obama-a-few-years-ago-this-guy-would-have-been-getting-us-coffee/)
Are folks being thrown under the bus in an effort to rouse sympathy for Obama's plunge in the polls?
-
How is that going to generate sympathy for Obama? It just generates anger at some of the people around him.
It weakens him by chipping away at the members of his team. Makes him look like a dope or a helpless schmuck for surrounding himself with people who despise him. He either knows they despise him but needs them because he can't find competent people who don't despise him, or he was too dumb to realize what they were when he picked them, but either way he is looking bad.
-
You know, I'll add on to that last thought. Obama is too fucking conciliatory. And it got him nowhere. Deservedly so. He dumped the people who supported him whole-heartedly and picked instead people he thought were going to be less objectionable to his worst enemies. Well, the essence of leadership is LEADING. HE was the guy elected President and he should have picked the people HE wanted around him, Jeremiah Wright instead of that bitch Hillary, Van Jones, Bill fucking Ayers for christ sake. If they couldn't pass Senate confirmation, then he should take a leaf from the Bush playbook and build a parallel "advisory" structure with them, completely by-passing whatever weasels the Senate would approve. Also he and his team should target any Democratic legislators who don't support their President, take the case directly to the people of their state or constituency and make the people understand that a vote for the legislator is a vote for the oligarchy that oppresses their lives, then run progressive, left-wing Democrats against them at the first opportunity.
Obama's a classic Democratic sell-out, another Hubert Humphrey, pitch to the left and run for the middle. Totally fails to realize that there is NOTHING the guy can do, apart from self-immolation, that will appease the right.
-
How is that going to generate sympathy for Obama?
Are targets of racism not worthy of our sympathy?
-
That is not a racist comment. It is simply true: Obama is rather light-skinned. He does not speak with the accent that Black people tend to use. This made him more acceptable to White folks, just as Halle Berry is more accepted than, say, Alfre Woodard.
Just as Biden himself observed that bald guys do not get nominated for prsident, and do not win in the rare instances when they do (ie Hubert Humphrey) so he got hair transplants.(Eisenhower was a war hero, and TV was not the major force in 1952 ans 56 that it is today, either).
Short candidates lose. Observe Olebush's comment that he was TALLER than Reagan.
But height and hair are not associated with race.
It was, at most, and indelicate comment. It was also said in confidence. But it was not racist. Observe how Jesse Jackson, who is darker and has a pronounced Afro=american accent, was unsuccessful as a candidate.
This may be unfortunate, but it is undeniably true.
-
This made him more acceptable to White folks, just as Halle Berry is more accepted than, say, Alfre Woodard.
Why is he more acceptable to whites than a dark skinned negro?
-
Because he is more like them in their minds, of course.
There is the old saying:"If you are White, you're alright;if you're yellow, you're mellow, if you're brown, stick around; but if you are Black, stay back."
All American culture is pervaded with an obsession about color.
At Howard University in DC, a mostly Black university, there was a sorority that would only admit women who were the color of a brown paper bag or "brighter".
See that Spike Lee film, "School Daze", especially the dance number with the Jigaboos and the Wannabees. Men and women who want a light skinned mate are called "color struck".
-
Because he is more like them in their minds, of course.
And is that not racist?
-
>>All American culture is pervaded with an obsession about color.<<
This would be correct if he had said, "All American LIBERAL culture is pervaded with an obsession about color."
-
<<Are targets of racism not worthy of our sympathy? >>
Not if they're the President of the U.S.A. Unless he's a total schmuck, he shouldn't have to put up with it. If anything, he's worthy of anger and contempt for suffering these racist fools in his administration.
-
Unless he's a total schmuck, he shouldn't have to put up with it. If anything, he's worthy of anger and contempt for suffering these racist fools in his administration.
What could he possibly do to them? Can't Trent Lott Reid, he needs every vote in the Senate he can muster. and he can't touch Bill Clinton.
-
I'd fire them and try to manoeuvre around without them, Trent Lott be damned, or I'd quit. It's an affront to the man's dignity to have to put up with that kind of shit in silence and the real question is how badly does this guy want to be President and how much shit will he eat in order to hang on to it?
And if I were going to soldier on with an anti-racist administration, I'd take my case directly to the people and I'd use the power of the office to go after any and all Democrats who DON'T support vigorous anti-racist action. No more apologies and kow-towing to the GOP. If he goes down, he comes back again, this time fighting both the racist opposition in his own party AND the GOP and letting the people know what HE has in store for them as well as what his enemies - - the GOP and the centre-right Democrats - - have in store for them.
If he can't win on that platform, then he doesn't deserve to win. If the people are presented a clear choice and elect a GOP government, then God-damn it, that's what they want and that's what they should have.
I can see with 20-20 hindsight now that one of the major problems with the 2008 elections was a lack of clarity. We knew what McCain and Palin stood for, but it seems nobody really knew - - until now - - what Obama and the Democrats stood for. They stood for winning the election.
-
Because he is more like them in their minds, of course.
And is that not racist?
=============================================
Duh! that was the point Reid was making: that for a Black man to win the presidency, he must not appear to the White voters as a member of the lower classes, or a Jesse Jackson Al Sharpton type that is likely to favor Black people than Whites.
The rightwing will not vote for ANY Black man, period, and the Democrats will not vote for any Black man, just one they can identify with.
Reid was simply speculating on how Obama was a viable candidate that could be elected. And he was proved right, even though types like our resident haters Kramer and Rich would not vote for him.
-
For Reid to say he must think it, else he would have clarified his statement.
I think the man has a racism problem.
And Mikey:
Obama can not fire Reid. neither he nor Bill Clinton work for him.
He could have denounced them, but he blew that chance.
-
<<And Mikey:
<<Obama can not fire Reid. neither he nor Bill Clinton work for him.
<<He could have denounced them, but he blew that chance.>>
I thought Bubba went on some kind of half-assed mission for him, but maybe I'm wrong. Reid and Bubba should have been denounced immediately. If Bubba ever did go on a mission for Obama, or was being considered for one, Obama could announce that that was the last mission Bubba will ever get on HIS watch.
The guy is just eating way to much shit for the kind of results he's getting. He needs to salvage his dignity, gain some respect.
-
His "the buck stops here" is nonsense.
Do we really expect a CEO to personally monitor emails and embassy visits to make sure the appropriate agencies are notified and the appropriate actions are taken. And the direct supervisors of the staff responsible for these deficiencies needs to correct them immediately. Obama is not responsible for their actions, the bureaucracy that is in place before he came on board and will be in place after he leaves is responsible, and they should be held accountable.
Anything else is just posturing.
-
His "the buck stops here" is nonsense.
Do we really expect a CEO to personally monitor emails and embassy visits to make sure the appropriate agencies are notified and the appropriate actions are taken. And the direct supervisors of the staff responsible for these deficiencies needs to correct them immediately. Obama is not responsible for their actions, the bureaucracy that is in place before he came on board and will be in place after he leaves is responsible, and they should be held accountable.
Anything else is just posturing.
=============================================================
I agree with the whole of the post, BT. Don't see where it fits into this thread, but it WAS nonsense, a pathetic excuse for his failure to take action against those who apparently failed in their job.
If indeed they DID "fail in their job." If their job was to stage a provocation in the form of a fake attack on an airliner that was never meant to succeed, then they didn't pull it off completely, but had the misfortune to be overheard at a crucial point by a bystander who went public with what he overheard.
At this point, my mind is open to both possibilities - - one, he's just protecting those who tried to stage a provocation to justify the invasion of Yemen and had the misfortune to be overheard; or two, he's weaseling out of an obligation to fire underlings who have majorly fucked up.
-
If indeed they DID "fail in their job." If their job was to stage a provocation in the form of a fake attack on an airliner that was never meant to succeed, then they didn't pull it off completely, but had the misfortune to be overheard at a crucial point by a bystander who went public with what he overheard.
Seems posturing is the major fad of the day.
And really not helpful.
-
I guess when you want to deny the obvious possibilities, "posturing" is as good an accusation as any. Requires no proof, doesn't really address the issues and serves as a handy excuse for those who don't WANT to see to say they see nothing there. Nice recovery.
-
I guess when you want to deny the obvious possibilities
I deny no possibilities, i am waiting for more information before jumping on the conspiratorial bandwagon, just because the current theory happens to coincide with my worldview. And i don't think you can say the same.
What do you know about this attorney?
-
<<I deny no possibilities, i am waiting for more information before jumping on the conspiratorial bandwagon, just because the current theory happens to coincide with my worldview. And i don't think you can say the same.>>
Sure I can. I stated the conspiracy to fabricate a casus belli was one of two possibilities. You seem to be saying that the attack is what the MSM claims it to be is one of one possibility.
<<What do you know about this attorney?>>
LOL - - on no evidence whatsoever, you're ready to shoot the messenger? Believe me, if that attorney had any al Qaeda links, radical background, or even substantial income tax arrears, the whole fucking world would have known about it by now and the MSM wouldn't have to sweep him and his story under the rug. Typical right-wing smear - - knowing nothing whatever about the guy, you try to impugn his integrity. Throw mud, see if any sticks. Textbook example of the baseless smear, nice one.
-
Typical right-wing smear - - knowing nothing whatever about the guy, you try to impugn his integrity. Throw mud, see if any sticks. Textbook example of the baseless smear, nice one.
Kinda like your comments about Geoffrey Canada?
-
>>The rightwing will not vote for ANY Black man, period ...<<
Typical drone. Must fit template.
As for democrats voting for Blacks, if the districts weren't gerrymandered to included a vast majority of Blacks, they wouldn't get elected either. Blacks of course can't be racist, so voting 98 percent for Black candidates indicates they are enlightened, not racist.
Sure.
-
The rightwing will not vote for ANY Black man, period, and the Democrats will not vote for any Black man, just one they can identify with.
::) Color is rarely, if ever the issue Xo. It's what they believe in, campaign on, and most notbaly, what their history of legislative, judicial, and/or executive actions demonstrate
Color is simply used by folks like yourself to inject race into the equation, when, as I noted, is rarely the case. Obama could have been as white as Robert Byrd, he still wouldn't have had my vote. You simply present it as some form of asanine racist act to disagree with Obama, minus even a shred of support to the accusation