Very Funny:
Thanks to InstaPundit for the pointer.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
Sources on the Second Amendment
Very Funny:
Thanks to InstaPundit for the pointer. |
ContactHanah Metchis Volokh, guest-blogging Robert Brauneis, guest-blogging Subscribe
FeaturesStuff from usAcademic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates Sources on the Second Amendment BlogrollArchivesThe Volokh Conspiracy uses and recommends: |
I'm not saying that she is not. But I have not noticed it.
Regardless, I think Ferraro's comments were some of the dumbest comments I have ever heard from a politican. Obama is "lucky" to be black because if he weren't black, he wouldn't be in the position he's in. If she actually believes that, then Dan Quayle is not even close to being the dumbest person ever on a national ticket.
1. If Obama were white, I am reasonably sure that he would be doing very well in the primary. As Kevin Drum mentioned, the Democrats have often had serious contenders of Obama's age who were charismatic and inspiring speakers -- eg, JFK, RFK, Gary Hart, Bill Clinton. If Obama were white, he would likely be doing better than he is doing now.
2. Every President from Washington to George W Bush almost certainly would not have been elected if they were not white man (of course, there were tons of other reasons they were elected, but I think it's pretty safe to assume that if any of them were black men or women, they would not have been elected).
This reminds me of Chris Rock's routine about white guys being the most pissed about how bad it is to be white . . . I guess Ferraro proves that white woman are susceptible to the same delusions.
Isn't the point that Obama is doing well based on personal story rather than record? Do you really deny that Obama is popular with many voters primarily because of personal intimacy with civil rights issues and affirmative action. I'll admit that he's also attractive due to talk about post-partisan consensus and apparent smarts, but that does not distinguish him. If he brought the same ideas, but were a white half-term Senator with earlier undistinguished service in state legislature, his inexperience would be a much higher bar in this race.
As a supposed moderate I'll also admit that I like Obama as a supposed consensus-seeker, but am somewhat concerned that he has gotten a bit of a pass on the light record and quite liberal beliefs.
I think Ferraro's comments were accurate, but it was incredibly stupid of her to say them. I'm not saying this to whine or complain; every candidate has some intangibles about them that you just mention.
For example, it's "lucky" for McCain that he was a prisoner-of-war, because it gives him a moral authority about war and torture. But it would be fucking stupid for an opposing campaign to say what I just did.
Senator Clinton obviously wouldn't be in this race if she were a man, because she wouldn't be Former First Lady Clinton. That's not to her fault or to her credit. It's just the way things are.
Bill Clinton was lucky that the economy in 1991 tanked at the time it did. It doesn't make sense to whine or gloat over it. It's just the way the cards fell.
Another person of similar experience, by the way, was George W. Bush --- he had less than six years of experience at the state level, in a state that has a very weak executive, and that was it. Now, the symbolism of being a governor is looked at as "more experience," but in reality, Obama has more political experience than W had in 2000. (Now, Obama will never make this argument, because he does not want to say that he will be like Bush.)
As to Dan Weber: Do you really agree Obama would not be a serious contender if he were a white male? Really?!? If you actually think, I am reasonably certain you will conclude that Obama would be in a better position were he white -- this is beyond doubt in the general election.
If so, why isn't Obama characterized as mixed race? Why is he any more "black" than he is "white? Isn't it racist that someone can be black when there's no more blackness in his genes that whiteness. This is not a joking question. Seriously, what gives?
In the U.S. if you are mixed black and white, then you are black. My college roomate's father was a Lithuanian jew and his mother was a black woman from St. Kitts. In the U.S., for almost any practical purpose, that made him black -- a black jew, but still primarily black.
The only mixed race we seem to endorse is White Asian. Black Asian still equals black. Or do you think most people think of Tiger Woods primarily as being "mixed"?
If Obama was white, I don't think he would've won, or even been running for, Illinois's 13th District. I think his race was significant in him being a speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, which gave him a national stage.
I don't think this is Obama's "fault" or anything. He's worked with the hand he was dealt, same as Clinton, McCain, or any other politician.
I think he's probably the best of the three candidates, too.
See what the slippery slope of gay marriage brought us to...
Then it became national policy.
That's a totally separate issue.
I think his race was significant in him being a speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, which gave him a national stage.
There is nothing at all to back this up. I can't remember if there has ever been another black speaker at the convention in that coveted spot (introducing the nominee). The last one I remember was Bill Clinton in 1988, but I guess he was black too. . . .
see: the media and "black leaders" who pounced on tiger as "one of them."
fwiw, i certainly think of him as mixed. because he is.
tiger commented on this himself saying that he was "cablinasian", but the media consistently (*check the articles when he came out as a star) as BLACK.
you could argue he "looks black" or whatever, but the reality is the media plays a big part in this.
Yeah, when a black guy makes good in America, Whitey goes to almost any lengths to deny that he's black.
1) why do you assume i am "whitey"?
prejudice?
see, 2 can play that game
2) TIGER HIMSELF has said he does NOT self-identify as simply a "black man" but as mixed race.
apparently, his opinion means nothing when race hucksters wanna play their game
"Woods made his remarks on "Oprah," when he was asked if it bothered him to be called an African-American. "It does," he said. "Growing up, I came up with this name: I'm a 'Cablinasian.'" As in Caucasian-black-Indian-Asian. Woods has a black father (or to be precise, if I am interpreting Woods' reported ancestry correctly, a half-black, one-quarter American Indian, one-quarter white father) and a Thai mother (or, with the same caveat, a half-Thai, half-Chinese mother). "I'm just who I am," Woods told Oprah Winfrey, "whoever you see in front of you."
But just "who I am" remained contested ground. According to Time magazine, Woods' coming out as a Cablinasian caused "a mini-racial firestorm ... Woods' remarks infuriated many African Americans who ... see him as a traitor ... Some blacks saw Woods' assertion of a multiracial identity as a sellout that could touch off an epidemic of 'passing.'"
3) the fact is he IS mixed. he has multiracial parents
"Woods has a black father (or to be precise, if I am interpreting Woods' reported ancestry correctly, a half-black, one-quarter American Indian, one-quarter white father) and a Thai mother (or, with the same caveat, a half-Thai, half-Chinese mother). "I'm just who I am," Woods told Oprah Winfrey, "whoever you see in front of you."
but don't let facts get in the way. after all, whitey just uses facts to oppress people of color like tiger.
(rolls eyes)
1) why do you assume i am "whitey"?
prejudice?
see, 2 can play that game
2) TIGER HIMSELF has said he does NOT self-identify as simply a "black man" but as mixed race.
apparently, his opinion means nothing when race hucksters wanna play their game
"Woods made his remarks on "Oprah," when he was asked if it bothered him to be called an African-American. "It does," he said. "Growing up, I came up with this name: I'm a 'Cablinasian.'" As in Caucasian-black-Indian-Asian. Woods has a black father (or to be precise, if I am interpreting Woods' reported ancestry correctly, a half-black, one-quarter American Indian, one-quarter white father) and a Thai mother (or, with the same caveat, a half-Thai, half-Chinese mother). "I'm just who I am," Woods told Oprah Winfrey, "whoever you see in front of you."
But just "who I am" remained contested ground. According to Time magazine, Woods' coming out as a Cablinasian caused "a mini-racial firestorm ... Woods' remarks infuriated many African Americans who ... see him as a traitor ... Some blacks saw Woods' assertion of a multiracial identity as a sellout that could touch off an epidemic of 'passing.'"
3) the fact is he IS mixed. he has multiracial parents
"Woods has a black father (or to be precise, if I am interpreting Woods' reported ancestry correctly, a half-black, one-quarter American Indian, one-quarter white father) and a Thai mother (or, with the same caveat, a half-Thai, half-Chinese mother). "I'm just who I am," Woods told Oprah Winfrey, "whoever you see in front of you."
but don't let facts get in the way. after all, whitey just uses facts to oppress people of color like tiger.
(rolls eyes)
(That's not proof that Obama's blackness helps him, but it sure as heck isn't proof that it doesn't.)
Well, one way to examine this would be to recalculate what the delegate totals would look like if Obama were getting only, say, a third or a half the black vote rather than 90% of it. Hard to imagine that this racial voting would be going on if Obama were identified as a white
I hope.
but im not sure.
if so, my bad :)
That's the problem nowadays - it's really hard to be sarcastic. Because a ridiculous statement that is meant to be sarcastic is too often similar to the excesses of political correctness. Sigh... how I long for the good ol' days.
But the way she framed her comments (at least twice about Obama, and once about Jesse Jackson) is extremely demeaning, implying that Obama is just a black novelty act, and people are only voting for him because he is black. She compared it to when Mondale picked her to make history as the first femal vice president, but it's not at all the same thing. No one "picked" Obama to be ahead of the inevitable front-runner who every thought was going to win easily. And her condescending attitude towards him is what many people find offensive.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.