Discriminations

There have been the most ridiculous statements about Obama since the very beginning. Was it Biden who said he was the first AA candidate who was "clean"? And Sharpton responded to that, "I want you to know that I bathe every day."

Ferarro's statement was unfair because Obama is black, for good and ill. He didn't wake up one morning thinking, "I think I'll run for President as a black man." He isn't running for President as a black man, as near as I can tell, but as for being black, he doesn't have much choice. (Yes I know his mother is white. Some biracial people look white. He does not.) He couldn't very well run for President as a white man, could he? What, he was supposed to sit back and not see how far a run at the presidency might take him because as a black man he might have an unfair advantage? There's no affirmative action in the voting booth.

So whether it's true or not, she should have left it alone. As you say, she's the last person to complain about that.

For the record, I will and have always intended to vote for the Republican nominee.

FYI. You state in your post that "Presumably Ms. Ferraro has forgotten that she was put on Mondale’s ticket because she’s woman, but let’s forget about that." I don't think that she has forgotten. I heard her on the Bill O'Reilly radio show yestday and then I saw the same quote in print today on the Nationalpost.com which is a Canadian media outlet. She states,
"If in 1984 my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been the nominee for VP." At least she is acknowledges the role that gender preference has played in her polical career. I have to say that I have a new found admiration for her.

I agree with laura, including whom she is going to vote for.

I hope mccain is getting sound advice about how to run against obama. he has to accept two things: that blacks will never vote republican and that no matter what he says he will be accused of racism. not by obama himself probably, but by everyone who supports obama.

Ferraro's comments reflect the hazards of playing racial identity politics - of course, with so many - Republicans too, play it - not just Democrats - they do it so often they are not aware that they are doing so and of the consequences.

The fact is that Obama's race may have something to do with his popularity. But at the same time, he is a bright, competent candidate with excellent communication skills (Note: there are very few issues to which I agree with Obama, but fair is fair - he is clearly a bright and competent man). These attributes are not ones that anyone rational would associate with past "black" candidates - neither Jesse Jackson nor Al Sharpton would be able to tell you what the Federal Reserve Board does - or relate any basic economic notions (other than we get ours) - so in contrast Obama looks especially competent and enticing - because what we have long hoped black politicians would do - reach out across racial lines and compete for everyone's votes.

Query what kind of trouble Ferraro would have found herself in if she relate what I relate above - saying look - this guy is attracting attention because he is for the first time a viable black candidate, and not a distracting frivolity dedicated to parsing out racial spoils?

I'd say Obama's race as a factor in the election is a wash.

Some people in the extreme left will vote for Obama simply because he is black. Some people in the extreme right will vote against Obama simply because he is black. These voters will cancel one another out.

I haven't decided. The history of almost absurd corruption among black elected officials has to be considered. The Big Man obsession of black culture is a reality. (See Marion Barry, David Dinkins, etc.) This is not to say that other races are exempt from corruption.

To the extent that Obama supports a racial spoils system that rewards black, his race is a valid subject for debate. Lost in this debate is the reality that Obama is half white, raised almost entirely in white society and discovered his blackness only when it was expedient for his political ambitions.

Using blackness for purposes of political ambition... now, that's a subject that we have the right to debate.

What is most interesting about Ferraro's comment is not what she says directly, but what she implies. Beyond the assertion that Obama has benefited from his ethnicity, both in the past and during this current race - one which is quite likely true - is what she is really saying by the statement "if Obama was a white man he would not be in this position." What she is suggesting with this is that he is neither qualified nor talented enough to be president. While I basically agree with that, it's a lot more contentious, especially if we're comparing Clinton to Obama. But really, given the divisive politics of the left, it would be difficult to condemn Ferraro for making the statement at all. One can disagree about her being correct or not in this particular case, but those who advocate using race as a factor in decision making hardly have a moral basis for which to paint Ferraro's assessment as "divisive."

Given the way the Democratic primary voting has split by race, especially amongst hispanics and asians, it is also true that Hillary has probably benefited as well by the fact that Obama is black, and she might not be in the same position today were he white.

The question is whether his race helps, not whether it is fair that it does (or not). I'm curious as to why John believes his race doesn't help.

Race obviously isn't sufficent either in the sense that it will cause him to win or in the sense that race without other attributes race alone could put him in this position. But the chances that race doesn't help seem remote. No one is talking about voting for Edwards "to make history".

I was very surprised to hear a Democrat say this, but Democrats routinely enforce thought control among themselves. Their fear of understanding reality shouldn't effect the rest of us.

Why is it ALWAYS left leaning pols, pundits, and academics, that continue to blow on the clinkers of race/gender discrimination, ever hoping to reignite the flames?

MJ writes:

>>>"Race obviously isn't sufficent either in the sense that it will cause him to win or in the sense that race without other attributes race alone could put him in this position. But the chances that race doesn't help seem remote. No one is talking about voting for Edwards "to make history".

Well, that's true that voting for Edwards wouldn't "make history."

One of the areas where Fox News Contributor Ferraro veers off course is in this statement:

>>>"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

The problem is, she is not supported by history. There have been Black candidates for President in the past--Barbara Jordan, Jesse Jackson, Lenora Fulani, Al Sharpton, and Carol Mosely Braun. And despite this, all 43 Presidents in American History have been White males. Wouldn't the TREND dictate that being White is a much better pre-requisite for success in Presidential campaigns?

Second, being Black alone is certainly not enough. This year we don't have one, but THREE Black Presidential candidates. Alan Keyes and believe it or not, Fmr. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney are running this year. I don't think their race has given them "good luck" as far as acquiring votes, has it?

As far as Obama's "qualifications" for being President goes...where is the great historical example he's supposed to live up to?

A glimpse at Mt. Rushmore would shows Four US Presidents held in the highest of esteem. It would also show that three of them had as much or less experience and time in Government than Barack Obama has.

--Cobra

cobra - let's be honest. None of the other former or present black candidates you mentioned - with the exception perhaps of Barbara Jordan - can in any way be characterized as serious or viable candidates, and they received (and continue to receive) the attention they do because of the media's nasty - and frankly condescending - urge to have the Jackson's and Sharpton's of the world provide a black viewpoint - as if black Americans held universal views and don't have individual preferences and differences. And your mention of former Congresswoman McKinney makes my point - outside of a small, hard left cadre of supporters, she is universally regarded as a joke - and that, not her race, is the reason she attracts little support.

And I don't get your point about the historical example he is supposed to live up to. As I said, he is clearly a compentent and qualifed candidate - irrespective of whether one agrees with his views. Obama doesn't need to emulate anyone of a particular race - he is who he is - and does what works for him. Ironically, if one were to ascribe characteristics of others to him, he has the communication skills of Reagan - with the political views of Ted Kennedy - this is the hazard of viewing everything through the lens of race.

Cobra:

What does Obama's current position have to do with past presidents? Did I miss the election? The fact that you must change the subject is an implicit admission that you agree.

"A glimpse at Mt. Rushmore would shows Four US Presidents held in the highest of esteem. It would also show that three of them had as much or less experience and time in Government than Barack Obama has."

It is hardly surprising that Washington and Jefferson had no prior government experience. Do I need to explain why? And in Jefferson's case, writing the Declaration and participating in the Constitution seems like experience enough.

Willowglenn writes:

>>>"As I said, he is clearly a compentent and qualifed candidate - irrespective of whether one agrees with his views."

Well, there's a poster to this thread you might want to take that up with:

jsingood writes:

>>>What she is suggesting with this is that he is neither qualified nor talented enough to be president. While I basically agree with that, it's a lot more contentious, especially if we're comparing Clinton to Obama."

willowglenn writes:

>>>"None of the other former or present black candidates you mentioned - with the exception perhaps of Barbara Jordan - can in any way be characterized as serious or viable candidates, and they received (and continue to receive) the attention they do because of the media's nasty - and frankly condescending - urge to have the Jackson's and Sharpton's of the world provide a black viewpoint - as if black Americans held universal views and don't have individual preferences and differences. "

--Cobra

Continued from above---

Willowglenn, I don't believe you can put Jesse Jackson in that category, because in 1988--

>>>“He captured 6.9 million votes and won 11 contests; seven primaries (Alabama, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Puerto Rico and Virginia) and four caucuses (Delaware, Michigan, South Carolina and Vermont).[15]. Jackson also scored March victories in Alaska's caucuses and Texas's local conventions, despite losing the Texas primary.[1] [2] Some news accounts credit him with 13 wins. [3] Briefly, after he won 55% of the vote in the Michigan Democratic caucus, he was considered the frontrunner for the nomination, as he surpassed all the other candidates in total number of pledged delegates.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Jackson#1988_election

Think of the election in 2008, where we have alleged "heavyweight" candidates like Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John Edwards not so much as win ONE primary or caucus, but nobody questioned the viability of THEIR Presidential campaigns.

As far as media attention is concerned, of COURSE the TELEVISED corporate news media is going cover Jackson and Sharpton. Corporate televised news media is about RATINGS.

--Cobra

OK, since we're going to keep going on this...

Black credentials appear to be important to Obama. By the accounts I've read, his church affiliation was carefully chosen to emphasize his blackness for the sake of black voters, who might doubt those credentials because he is after all half white.

If this is true, then blackness is mighty important to Obama. If he thinks that blackness is a qualification that enhances his appeal to black voters, why are we forbidden to discuss it?

Is this another one of those incredibly sensitive issues that are open for discussion among blacks, but not whites?

If Obama intends to give preference to blacks over whites as a means of attracting black voters, then his race is a concern for white voters who will find themselves cast as bottom feeders at the federal trough during an Obama administration.

cobra - Jackson has virtually no core or substance or competency other than pursuing the aims of racial identity politics. He has never been elected to any office, demonstrates virtually no understanding of economics, and has never run any organization other than not for profit one that lives on the edge of the tax laws and frankly lives on holding up organizations to properly pray at the alter of diversity (his own kind). He of course received votes in the past due to his racial identity politics and his race - which is why he never was a serious candidate, despite the media's silliness in giving him so much attention.

And by the way, while I think Obama is competent, he of course is receiving some votes because of his race, just as Hillary is receiving votes because of her gender and just as some vets will invariably vote for McCain. One can also posit that Obama is receiving proportionally "more" votes from his race than the other candidate's are receiving from their "attributes" - there is likely some truth in that - but in the end that doesn't mean Obama is not competent. That is the point I am making.

My own view is that too bad Obama is simply way too far to the left on issues - really much too far to the left - to sustain the inevitable attack that will come (and is now coming) as the election rolls on. If he was a centrist candidate, he would be difficult to beat. The Obama swoon will soon dissipate as savvy pols start to pound on his racist, anti-Semitic minister, his ties to Rezko, his countenance of Maoist radicals like Bill Ayers, his not too well thought out rant against NAFTA (which makes zero sense in a global competitive economy put plays well to an economically ignorant section of the populace), and his health care plan, which, as economists like Greg Mankiw at Harvard have pointed out, is more about wealth redistribution than providing health care for the 15/16 million (and that is the real number) that both want and need health care. And so on. I don't view this as a bad thing because for black politicians to be successful on a national level they will (and they are starting) to have universal appeal, and will have to compete for votes by adopting from time to time centrist positions, including positions that deviate from reflexive redistributionist and entitlement modes of operation. The anti-McKinney posture, if you will.

And as far as the media being about ratings - substance often be damned - of course you are correct. But I have been disappointed in the past that truly competent black politicians were eclipsed by the Jackson's and Sharpton's of the world in terms of media attention. Note, I don't think that this was the result of any conspiracy or anything of the sort - rather - it was just the general overall laziness of the media who has believed in the past they they can obtain the "black" point of view by pinging Sharpton or Jackson.

Willowglenn writes:

>>>"He of course received votes in the past due to his racial identity politics and his race - which is why he never was a serious candidate, despite the media's silliness in giving him so much attention."

I understand that you have an issue with Jesse Jackson's candidacy, but the man WON in 11 places. Only John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama can make that claim THIS year. On a personal note, I don't believe that Jesse Jackson was anywhere near the BEST candidate for elective office, HOWEVER, that doesn't stop people from running...and often WINNING.

>>>"But I have been disappointed in the past that truly competent black politicians were eclipsed by the Jackson's and Sharpton's of the world in terms of media attention. Note, I don't think that this was the result of any conspiracy or anything of the sort - rather - it was just the general overall laziness of the media who has believed in the past they they can obtain the "black" point of view by pinging Sharpton or Jackson."

Oh you would have loved the Discriminations discussions on the Imus Affair. I don't think the media is lazy. The corporate media wants bombast, vitriol, and confrontation instead of reasonable intelligent in-depth discourse on a subject. Look at the cable hosts they promote. They prefer to have Bill O'Reilly yell at somebody for three minutes, or have Chris Matthews turn simple questions turned into spit-soaked riffs.
Of course they want guys like Sharpton and Jackson. Sharpton is the "Ric Flair" of cable news, IMHO. On the drop of a dime, with no script, Sharpton can give you a 30 second promo spot that will either inspire, humiliate or infuriate every audience member of any given demographic.

When you choose to have black guests like that, it's not about "laziness". It's about entertainment.

--Cobra

cobra - I am not inclined to disagree with your about the entertainment factor.

More is coming out about Pastor Wright. Yikes! He blames America for creating the AIDS virus? That's not just loony, it's not just hateful, it is so irresponsible from a public health perspective that it is criminal. Why is that people in his flock don't call him on it? Populations all over the world - particularly, however, in Africa, are suffering from irresponsible and superstitious beliefs over this disease, and irresponsible statements like this are unforgivable. What rational community could not sanction this pastor? And how could Obama not have distanced himself at lightspeed from such a character?

Willowglenn writes:

>>>"More is coming out about Pastor Wright. Yikes! "

Before the inevitable Jeremiah Wright thread starts here, let me ask you a question:

How can this story NOT be considered a "double standard" if the same scrutiny isn't applied to the religious figures in Sen. John McCain and Sen. Hillary Clinton's life, whether through church affiliation or endorsements?

--Cobra

Obama has attended this church for 20 years, so I doubt he picked it out to appeal to black voters. And he made a big deal of his church affiliation b/c he was accused of being a Muslim.

HOWEVER. McCain's and Hillary's church affiliations may have been scrutinized and not been reported on because they're not newsworthy. Cobra, you could scrutinize 99.99% of American churches and not find statements from the pastor anywhere near as appalling as "God damn America".

Endorsements are not nearly as telling as church affiliations because from the candidate's point of view they are passive, not active. Even so, McCain and Hillary have done their share of disavowing things their supporters have said.

I just cannot believe the excuses Cobra makes for this "Rev. Wright", or should I say "Rev. Wrong" and his shocking statements. Simply unbelievable!

E - what excuses has Cobra made for Wright? What have I missed?

cobra - there is no double standard in play. No one is questioning Obama's religious affiliation - they are questioning his judgment for associating so closely with a pastor that has repeatedly spewed hate filled, racist and loony rants. I called out the AIDS quote - I can't imagine a more irresponsible statement from a pastor than his - especially since the black community suffers from the disease at much higher rates and the last thing it needs is an inaccurate hate filled rant - it needs compassion coupled with a plea to abide by the best scientific and public health standards available.

Upon hearing Pastor Wright's "ahem" - body of work - I am frankly concerned for significant elements of the black community. My own experience has been that those who follow hate end up hating themselves - to tremendous and everlasting detriment. What a shame.

And this is a watershed moment in Obama's campaign - Wright will be a ball and chain that he won't easily disassociate himself from - I am curious as to why Obama didn't see all of this coming. Unlike many past minority candidates, he clearly can see beyond the confines of the community in which he operates.

Laura,

First, Thank you for being fair and even handed in your posts. Even though we differ on many things, you display a level of understanding that isn't often acknowleged.

Laura writes:

>>>"Obama has attended this church for 20 years, so I doubt he picked it out to appeal to black voters. And he made a big deal of his church affiliation b/c he was accused of being a Muslim."

You see how the smear machine works? WHO was accusing him of being a Muslim? Clinton's political surrogates, right winged hate merchants and Fox News, which is actually redundant. Don't we all remember this?

Fox Attacks Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouKJixL--ms

So this latest dust up is par for the course. No suprises here. It was only a matter of time before the "guilt by association" attacks began, because in truth, the biggest news story of the week (and year)--far more important to all of us was the Economy showing more signs of heading for disaster.

Laura writes:

>>>"HOWEVER. McCain's and Hillary's church affiliations may have been scrutinized and not been reported on because they're not newsworthy. Cobra, you could scrutinize 99.99% of American churches and not find statements from the pastor anywhere near as appalling as "God damn America".

Oh no, I don't agree with that at all. Fire and brimstone evangelical and pentacostals have been preaching that America's "damned" by God for all sorts of reasons.

>>>"Television evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, two of the most prominent voices of the religious right, said liberal civil liberties groups, feminists, homosexuals and abortion rights supporters bear partial responsibility for Tuesday's terrorist attacks because their actions have turned God's anger against America.

"God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve," said Falwell, appearing yesterday on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club," hosted by Robertson."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28620-2001Sep14

I'm not thrilled with the marriage of religion and politics in the first place, truth be told. I cringe as every year, politicians seem to pander more and more to "faith based" ideology.

Watching try to "out Jesus" each other, (You live in Tennesseee, Laura; How many times was Jesus invoked in the Corker/Ford race?) and the pilgrimages to Bob Jones and Liberty University? Non-stop pandering to the mega-churches of all races and denominations, wacky televangelists and ethnic political action groups.

Where does it stop? I can say with no hesitation that an atheist or agnostic, no matter how experienced or qualified could NEVER be elected President in today's environment, and that runs against the principles that founded this nation.

Is it fair to scrutinize statements and sermons of Reverend Wright?

Yes.

Is it fair to EQUALLY scrutinize statements and sermons of Reverend John Hagee, who was solicited for endorsement by John McCain?

Yes.

Don't know who Hagee is?

John Hagee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qNi7tPanUA

And don't forget John McCain's "spiritual guide"...

>>>"The LA Times, the Baltimore Sun, CBS News.com, and, unsurprisingly, Fox News, also got into the act, drawing attention to Wright’s controversial remarks, and in some cases to his history of similarly inflammatory rhetoric.

Meanwhile, John McCain has a Christian ally of his own. At a rally in late February, McCain appeared with Rod Parsley, the pastor of an Ohio mega-church, and called him a “spiritual guide.”

Parsley has his own history of controversial statements. As David Corn reported this week for Mother Jones, Parsley has called for Christians to wage war against the “false religion” of Islam, in order to destroy it. He does not distinguish between Islamic extremists and ordinary Muslims. “What some call ‘extremists’ are instead mainstream believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam,” he has written.

And it’s not just Muslims he’s got it in for. Last year, Parsley’s organization called for people who commit adultery to be prosecuted, and in January he compared Planned Parenthood to the Nazis.

But the press has largely shrugged off the Parsley story. I couldn’t find one mainstream American news outlet that has so much as mentioned Parsley’s extremist views since McCain appeared publicly with him in late February."

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/rod_parsleys_free_pass_1.php?page=all

Laura if politicians are going to pander to the pew, so be it. But we shouldn't be "selectively outraged" when it comes to hyperbolic religious rhetoric, because you can find it almost everywhere you turn.

--Cobra

Cobra - I try to be even-handed because I don't want to be an ideologue, I want to get at the truth whatever it is.

We no longer live in Memphis, by the way - moved to Florida last year. I love Memphis but we couldn't take the crime and the unbelievable politics anymore. The week we sold our house it came out that the Memphis metro area leads the nation in violent crime. I hope Memphis can turn itself around but we won't be there to see it.

I know all about the smear machine. Bush has been smeared more than all candidates put together. The unfairness of some of the smears against him is breathtaking.

I never knew anyone, on the net or IRL, who was anything but horrified and disgusted by Falwell and Robertson after 9/11. See here for an interesting article about their backpedaling and about the WH's immediate disavowal of their statements.

Don't remember much about the Ford/Corker race except the "Harold, call me" ads. I don't watch TV so I don't see a lot of that. Am I missing anything?

Being solicited for endorsement does not equal being the pastor of one's church for 20 years. As to McCain's spiritual advisor only being talked about in Mother Jones, well, even though I read news on sites with political slants that I agree with, I never believe what I see until I see it from other sources If there is any dirt on McCain, it will be brought out.