How Racism WorksWe can use the same argument to prove that Barack Obama would have gotten nowhere near the nomination if he were white. White guilt has granted Obama a free pass on failings that would have destroyed a lighter-hued Democrat.
What if John McCain were a former president of the Harvard Law Review?
What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating
class?
What if McCain were still married to the first woman he said "I do" to?
What if Obama were the candidate who left his first wife after she no longer measured up to his standards?
What if Michelle Obama were a wife who not only became addicted to pain
killers, but acquired them illegally through her charitable organization?
What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?
What if Obama were a member of the "Keating 5"?
What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?
If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election
numbers would be as close as they are? This is what racism does. It
covers up, rationalizes and minimizes positive qualities in one
candidate and emphasizes negative qualities in another when there is a
color difference.
How did Barack Obama become president of the Harvard Law Review? How did he get into Columbia and Harvard? His grades, by all accounts, were not spectacular. And why didn't he publish anything while he held that position at the Harvard Law Review?
Why was an unpublished author -- a nobody -- given a massive advance to write Dreams From My Father? An advance big enough to justify renting an office and going on a "working holiday" in Bali? (Correction: A reader informs me that the office was granted unto him by the Powers That Be at the University of Illinois, where Obama was immediately granted a comfy sinecure that most lawyers could not hope to attain until later in life.)
Joe Biden saw his presidential ambitions end amid accusations of plagiarism. Obama has been caught plagiarizing repeatedly, the Deval Patrick "just words" speech being only the most flagrant example. If Obama's skin were the same color as Joe Biden's, wouldn't he have shared Biden's fate?
What if John McCain said during a debate "I barely know Tony Rezko" -- and then an FBI informant later came forward to tell a tale of daily contacts? Wouldn't McCain's candidacy have ended right then and there?
What if John McCain had frequently made sure that fat government contracts went to crooks who poured big bucks into his campaign?
What if the money for Stately McCain Mansion came from Nadhmi Auchi, the billionaire associate of Khaddafy and Saddam Hussein, convicted by the French for theft of public funds?
What if John McCain had sponsored changing a state law in order to help scamsters and thieves raid a hospital fund?
What if John McCain had done everything he could to make sure that subsidized housing was "privatized" in order for crooks to abscond with $100 million in state monies?
What if John McCain's first general election commercial claimed that he voted for a bill (on military health care) that he actually did not vote for?
What if John McCain had promised to take public financing for his campaign and then suddenly reneged?
What if John McCain counted the crooked head of Fannie Mae among his financial advisers?
What if John McCain refused to denounce those supporters who threatened the lives of those advocating for an opponent?
What if John McCain had firmly promised not to run in 2008 -- and did anyway?
What if John McCain had no record of accomplishments whatsoever?
What if John McCain had worked closely with a terrorist like William Ayers? What if John McCain lied about the association?
How quick would Democrats be to forgive any white candidate who rigged the caucuses?
How quickly would Democrats forgive any white candidate who rigged the roll call vote at the convention?
What if John McCain had insisted that Social Security was "not in crisis" during an October debate, only to call it a "crisis" a month later?
What if John McCain had taken every conceivable position on Iran?
What if a white candidate claimed to be a staunch opponent of the Iraq war, yet refused to support Russ Feingold's pullout measure and voted repeatedly to fund the conflict?
What if John McCain claimed in campaign literature that he never supported NAFTA, when in fact he had and continues to do so?
What if John McCain was caught giving the Canadians backdoor reassurances that he didn't really mean what he said on the campaign trail? Wouldn't that scandal have ended the campaign of any white candidate?
What if any white candidate said that he was a vigorous opponent of the Iraq war during a 2004 Senate campaign -- when the record shows that, during this time period, he did everything he could to avoid talking about the invasion?
What if any white candidate purged his website of his speeches condemning the Surge?
What if any white candidate said that he would filibuster any bill offering telecom immunity, only to vote for it?
What if John McCain had spent twenty years attending a white racist "identity" church? Okay, never mind that: What if he had spent twenty years in Jerry Falwell's church? Or, heck, even a Gnostic church, or the Theosophical Society, or a Buddhist temple, or any other religious institution that was even slightly off-beat? Realistically speaking, would such a candidate have any chance at the presidency?
What if a white Democrat had headed up a campaign which encouraged an army of zombie followers to shout an unending stream of insults and lies at a former first lady and a former Democratic president?
Would any white candidate be allowed to run a smear campaign in a primary?
Would any white candidate be allowed to change his positions so radically on gay marriage, taxes, and gun control?
What if McCain's father were a self-proclaimed Socialist tied to a corrupt foreign regime?
What if John McCain's mom had irresponsibly handed the kids off to Grandma in order to travel the world on a voyage of self-discovery?
What if John McCain had never served in the military and never held a real job?
Would any white candidate get away with lying about "living on food stamps" when in fact he was brought up in affluence?
Would any white candidate get away with claiming that his parents were married when, in fact, they were not? (I don't care either way, personally -- still, I think the matter would have been a bigger deal if the political bastard were, say, Chris Dodd.)
I could go on and on. But the point is made: No white candidate in history -- at least, in recent Democratic history -- has had so many career-endangering political sins forgiven so readily.
So why does Obama hold a "get out of political jail" card?
The answer comes down to guilt. White guilt.
Frankly, that guilt exists because history is inescapable, and because white people have indeed done much to justify a deep and lasting sense of shame. Many Democrats feel, as I feel, that the party should have fielded an African American candidate a long, long time ago.
That's the reason why Barack Obama has been allowed to do what others may not.
Let's not pretend that he has struggled. This man has never struggled -- for anything -- ever. Golden opportunities have been handed to him, just as they were handed to Dubya. Many black people have a perfect right to sing "Nobody knows the trouble I've seen," but Barack Obama does not.
Stop pretending that he has had a tough row to hoe. If Barack Obama were white, he would not be the nominee. In fact, his Senate career would probably be limited to a single term.
By the way... Dick Nixon stayed married to the same woman throughout his adult life. George W. Bush has been married a long time. Did fidelity make them good presidents? Does Obama have so few virtues that we must praise the fact that he has never see the interior of a divorce court? Are Democrats now arguing that divorced people must not be president? Are progressives suddenly that intolerant?
15 comments:
Joseph- McCain's history with the Mob has been protected. Probably too many people with skeletons in his closet to sacrifice McCain.
But- the point is, they have had kid gloves on McCain's shady history and Cindy's made dad.
Kind of like what they did with Bush and his clan.
Let's face it, McCain & Obama are both far from honorable men-but I know of no politician who has been nominated in my lifetime that I could speak of in an admirable light. I wish it weren't true.
Personally, I never understood how you liked Kerry as much as you did. For me, he was a pretty lame choice that was an obvious part of the democratic problem for years, but he was better than Bush.
I can say one thing for Obama- he has gotten more people involved that have never voted in their lifetime. And that has been a problem in our nation for decades.
Democracy only works if people are actively participating in the process.
As an earlier commenter said- I do not want to see another 4 years of Bush like politics and live in America --it is a sinking ship and we cannot afford to go down with them running the show. It will only change with people who have not handed their soul over to oil companies and fundamentalists. The Bush crooks deserve to be locked up-and maybe now, justice will finally be served....if McCain is not elected - that is.
ps- I don't really care if you publish this -do as you wish. take care and stay healthy -- check back with you in 2009.
Give that man a cigar!
Let's face it, McCain & Obama are both far from honorable men-but I know of no politician who has been nominated in my lifetime that I could speak of in an admirable light.
I think Al Gore is honorable. So is Hillary Clinton.
Minor correction: Uh-bama did not rent an office to write his first memoir. He was given an office as part of his sinecure at U of I Law School.
How many rookie lawyers get cushy teaching jobs at top law schools?
Checked to see if you posted my comment and saw that someone replied to the statementa: "I don't find any of the nominees honorable"-so I suppose I will clarify.
I have had many contentions with both Clintons in the years as they served as our President and my Senator... the compromises made suited them -certainly not me. I believe in compromise as the neccesity of politics, but there were many times they both inserted their ego in the center of issues and undid their work in one fell swoop.
As for Hillary, she built up a great deal of animosity amongst even those in her own party with this character flaw.
So- you as a voter may not have noticed that, but those who she had to work with in Washington did. There are other issues I could raise in her regards, but you probably didn't have her as a Senator, nor did you hear personal accounts. Mind you, I did hear some good as well, so I simply leave it at that and besides...she wasn't nominated.
As for Al Gore- I could say the same thing about Jimmy Carter in his regard. While seeking office, it was easy to find the faults and flaws, but once out of the shackles of campaign finance high rollers---he got back to what he had a passion for in this country and spoke with his heart. There were many machinations behind the scenes in Florida that affected his approach to politics and the democratic party after the election- people who turned against him...people whose loyalty was to the Clintons...people who should be thrown out of the democratic party and politics ...hell throw them in jail....people like McAuliffe changed the face of our country for the deeds they did to Gore. Gore had to learn the hard way that deals he made and people he relied upon were not honorable and not working in the interest of this country or him.
I do respect him now. I admire that he found a way to affect this world after the betrayal that was put upon him.
ps- I am a woman, so Hillary's sex has nothing to do with it. Funny how I felt I needed to assert that ;-) but the road has been rough on all of us this year.....I don't think it's going to get much easier anytime soon. Take Care......
Hi Joe, this is 'b' here from England. Hoping you recover speedily from your medical emergency with as few long-lasting effects, and as little financial expense, as possible! Best wishes from 'b'.
Political extremists always have a label to slap onto anyone who disagrees.
The Right call you a commie if you disagree with them.
Conspiracy buffs will call you a CIA agent or a sheeple if you dare to disagree with their brilliant theories.
And the Obama crowd will call you, your family, and everyone you ever loved a racist.
For these people, disagreement is a thought crime to be immediately punished by ad hominem attacks. They are are a cancer on the nation.
Obama was given an office at (some consider it to be the infamous) University of Chicago, not UI. Obama had come to the attention of "Michael W. McConnell, a conservative constitutional scholar then at Chicago whom President Bush would later make a federal judge." McConnell mentioned him to UC Professor Douglas G. Baird who was in charge of the law school's appointments committee. Baird, the Bush conservative, considered Obama to be "brilliant". So it seems that Obama from the get-go impressed conservatives far more than he did liberals/progressives.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/us/politics/18memoirs.html?pagewanted=print
If the powers within the Democratic Party were displeased with the Clintons and the direction they were taking the country and the Party (quite frankly, Bill was too much to the right for my tastes with respect to trade and consolidation of the media), why would these same people select a candidate who is not only to the right of Hillary, but seemingly intent on exercising centralized control on the Party ala McAuliffe? And, even if the displeasure with the Clintons is justified, why reject proposals by Hillary that are in the best interest of the country (setting up a HOLC-type solution for foreclosures, for example)?
While Hillary pressed for assistance to homeowners and not just Wall Street, Obama (unfortunately, my senator) pressed for the elimination of the provision in the bailout bill that would have modified bankruptcy law to provide help to homeowners. Rather than stand up and make a case for this provision (show some leadership), he seemed to do the expedient thing and rolled over for the Republicans.
Obama has gotten more people involved in politics this election cycle, but not necessarily in a good way. Democracy only works if people who actively participate in the process respect the will of others, something that some of Obama's supporters were (and continue to be) unable or unwilling to do. Obama, ever the expedient one, chooses to ignore even the most outrageous behavior of his supporters.
old dem
AP:
Attorneys believe Rezko is talking to prosecutors
(Begins): "Convicted political fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko has been quietly visiting Chicago's federal courthouse, setting off speculation that he may be spilling secrets to prosecutors in return for a lenient sentence.
"Prosecutors investigating Gov. Rod Blagojevich's administration would plainly like to hear what Rezko knows, and there is plenty of incentive to talk."
THAT is a long a** list!
"And why didn't he publish anything while he held that position at the Harvard Law Review?"
I asked at the office and all the ivy leaguers agreed: because presidents are too busy with administrative and management duties. They rarely publish. In fact, they thought it was a stupid question by uninformed non-ivy leaguers. ha!
Citizen K - as I understand it Obama was the only Law Review president that did NOT publish. Let me check on that. Getting word from the "ivy leaguers" in your office may not be the most reliable testimony.
Okay, one article, unsigned, not while president. If I am reading this article correctly, he only wrote one article in three years?
The Obama campaign swiftly confirmed Obama's authorship of the fetal rights article Thursday after a source told Politico he'd written it. The campaign also provided a statement on Harvard Law Review letterhead confirming that the unsigned piece was Obama's - the only record of the anonymous authors is kept in the office of the Review president - and that records showed it was the only piece he'd written for the Review.
Then again, what do I know? Not much.
"Obama has gotten more people involved in politics this election cycle, but not necessarily in a good way. Democracy only works if people who actively participate in the process respect the will of others, something that some of Obama's supporters were (and continue to be) unable or unwilling to do."
Yes. It also only works if it inspires people to become involved in politics at all levels. The Obama movement is just that: It is all about Obama and nothing else. Witness the fact that many of his voters in the primary didn't bother to vote on any of the other races, they left the downticket blank. If Obama loses, they won't vote again. It's not an involvement in democracy; it's membership in a cult.
bluelyon, you know more than you think. citizen k's "ivy leaguers" are undoubtedly all Obama supporters and thus not reliable sources on any subject. Every other president of the review published two-three articles during their tenure. Furthermore, the issue that Obama was president for is among the least-cited HLR issues of the past three decades.
Post a Comment