Was Ferraro right?

[amhersthungboi]

Well, when you use phrases like "Cult of Obama", "low brow closet Republican", and "ego-maniac", it is. All three are ad hominem attacks.

And what would you call a 1/2 term jr. senator with an embarrassing attendance record who, while too busy to represent his state in the senate, thinks he's ready to be president? Seems pretty ego driven to me.

I would argue Obama's appeal qualifies as cultish based on Weberian sociology's analysis of cult of personality.

 

[mindseye]

And what would you call a 1/2 term jr. senator with an embarrassing attendance record who, while too busy to represent his state in the senate, thinks he's ready to be president? Seems pretty ego driven to me.

Well, you've mixed several factors in one accusation: length of experience, attendance, and ego. That certainly sounds like a smear job, but:

• length of experience: Abraham Lincoln served one term (two years) in the House of Representatives before becoming president; neither Clinton nor Reagan had ever held federal office before their elections. Furthermore, the Twenty-Second Amendment actually limits the amount of prior experience a presidential candidate may have, which suggests that finding a candidate with years of experience isn't a national priority.
• attendance: According to govtrack.us, Barack Obama has missed 18% of votes since taking office. That's exactly 2% more embarrassing than John McCain's attendance record over the past eleven years. I'd prefer it if he were more attentive to his day job, but his attendance record in the Senate won't be a factor in the November elections.
• Ego: I suspect ego is one of the factors that drives anyone to subject themselves to the sort of exhausting schedule, exorbitant fund-raising, and media scrutiny that a major party presidential campaign entails. But your original slur was "maniac", not "driven" as you later back-pedaled, and you've failed to show that Obama's ego is so over the top as to qualify as a mania.

 

[playainda336]

...removed.

 

[xLx]

thanks for a very fine response!

i think you're right when you say people are projecting this 'black' identity onto a guy who's not particularly eager to exploit it, certainly that's the impression i'm getting - whatever some might say i don't feel Obama is marketing himself as a black candidate, and that's to his credit. i must say he doesn't seem like the best qualified in terms of attendance, voting, strong stance on issues etc, but i don't doubt for a minute that he's a highly intelligent and sincere individual, and whether his reform agenda is well-developed or not, the things he's done in his life suggest he's a good man. i personally don't sense any cynicism in his demeanour, which is rare because i'm a relentless pessimist!


that said, it's not like he can help it if people vote for him for the wrong reasons, namely because of his ethnicity. perhaps though this is a little bit tied to this nebulous, highly charismatic appeal that he's capitalising on - i keep hearing people talking about Kennedy, and 'the spirit of the 60s'...!?! - i for one would prefer it if he toned down the glamour a little now and focused hard on the key issues. that might compensate, in some people's minds, for his lack of high level political experience, and would definitely help refute the accusation i hear a bit in the UK that he's just a sound-bite politician.


ah what the hell am i talking about, he's basically won already hasn't he?



do the US-based members feel people over there will tend to vote for the candidate or for the party, come November?

Hi xLx,

There is no need to qualify or apologize for your position. It's probably the most accurate assessment of O'bama's PERSONAL identity that many Americans ARE overlooking. Even Obama admits to struggling with his identity as a young person in his autobiography. However, I think we are uncharitable to overlook that his POLITICAL identity is still in-line with the descendants of slaves in the mainland US.

1. As a Harvard Law School graduate, he pursued Constitutional Law and Civil Rights whereas the majority of HLS graduates pursued corporate law. Women and Black Americans have benefited most from Civil Rights advances. Barak has learned to "sympathize" and "empathize" with Black America even though that may not necessarily be his own formative experience and cultural legacy.
2. He married Michelle, who is a descendant of slaves. For his family's sake, (his wife and his 2 daughters), he has to take up the political interests of Black Americans (within moderation).

The fundamental reason why the Election of 2008 is taking on such a weighty significance is that America is fundamentally grappling with its 20th history and 20th century legacy of Civil Rights for both Blacks and Women (and other disenfranchised groups). Many Americans are projecting their own identity/issues into the politics.

• 90% of Black Americans in predominantly Black areas (i.e. The South and large urban areas) are voting, in part, because Obama is the first Black candidate to have a real chance @ the White House (and who has credibility with the White vote).
• Well-educated Liberal voters are uniting behind him because he helps to heal a deep psychological wound, believing that Obama will symbolically heal the historic evils of discrimination.
• Young Americans are behind Barak because they are tired of American dynasties within the presidency.
• The rest of Obama's supporters are behind him because a vote for him is a vote against Washington-style politics in particular. That's why so many people in smaller, Western states have voted for him.

I do believe that there is an element of truth to what Geraldine Ferraro said, but her language was rather sloppy in describing the phenomenon. Yes, Barak is benefiting from identity politics. It's more accurate to say that Barak is also benefiting from people PROJECTING onto Obama because
his persona represents an ideal rather than concrete aspects of candidacy. Indeed, there is something rather arrogant about running for president with < 1 term in Senate adn a poor attendance record. Obama is riding the wave of his 2002 vote against the Iraq War and his 2004 speech for unity. Obama knows that if he were to wait another 4 or 8 years, he would be another "known" political entity.

The only thing Obama is really benefiting from is not having much of a track record or political history. He's taking advantage of his freshness and his mystique before the "Obama" novelty wears off!

 

[gjorg]

Thank you XlX.
Obamas political history is a joke!
The mystique is going FAST!

 

[playainda336]

Yes. Of course. Because being a State Senator for 10 years and a US Senator for two is not a political history at all. :biggrin1:

 

[gjorg]

Yes. Of course. Because being a State Senator for 10 years and a US Senator for two is not a political history at all. :biggrin1:

State Senate is a joke!
As a US Senator his record is far less than stellar!
Just being a Senator wont make you a good one.

 

[mindseye]

State Senate is a joke!

<snark>
Rrrawrrr! Lincoln was such a lame president! State Senate sucks!
</snark>

<tasteless snark>
Eight years in the Illinois State Senate is more governmental experience than five years in the Hanoi Hilton.
</tasteless snark>

 

[amhersthungboi]

<snark>
<tasteless snark>
Eight years in the Illinois State Senate is more governmental experience than five years in the Hanoi Hilton.
</tasteless snark>

Because, naturally, that is all the experience John McCain has ... you know, aside from being Navy liason to the Senate from 1977 to 1981, in the House 1982-1986, and then in Senate since 1986, and, for a period during that tenure, chaired the Commerce Committee.

Now if we forget ALL that, yes, you are right, 8 years in the Illinois State Senate is more experience than the Hanoi Hilton.

 

[mindseye]

Now if we forget ALL that, yes, you are right, 8 years in the Illinois State Senate is more experience than the Hanoi Hilton.

...says the guy who started in this thread bemoaning Obama's "1/2 term" status. Picking and choosing which parts of someone's record to "count" and which ones not to count leads exactly to this sort of sniping.

Apart from a couple of your years being off, I won't quibble with the record you cited, except to point out that if you're going to call Obama's attendance record in the US Senate "embarrassing", you should at least acknowledge McCain's role in the Keating Five in that record.

 

[amhersthungboi]

...says the guy who started in this thread bemoaning Obama's "1/2 term" status. Picking and choosing which parts of someone's record to "count" and which ones not to count leads exactly to this sort of sniping.

Apart from a couple of your years being off, I won't quibble with the record you cited, except to point out that if you're going to call Obama's attendance record in the US Senate "embarrassing", you should at least acknowledge McCain's role in the Keating Five in that record.

So, let's see, Obama is running to head the federal executive. He has little federal experience (1/2 term in the senate) and no executive experience. State senate is neither federal, nor executive.

McCain's attendance has been mentioned elsewhere, but you are right, his attendance has been lackluster (though still better than Obama's). I wonder, though, if he would have been re-elected with a dismal first term attendance record?

 

[Supersized]

He'd be even further in the poles that he already is. That's where he'd be. Being black has always put me at a serious disadvantage. I've never gotten any of this preferential treatment blacks supposedly get. That is a stereotype form the NEW racism. The majority of people that benifit from affirmative action are white females not black people. That is another NEW racism myth I wanted to dispell.

 

[b.c.]

Here's the REAL question for ya:

Would Senator John McCain have gotten as far as he has if he was black??



"As it gets closer to "crunch" time, expect the racists (on both sides of the line) to "come out". The ones who know they are, the closet racists, and the "I'm not a racist but" crowd."

 

[mindseye]

Here's the REAL question for ya:

Would Senator John McCain have gotten as far as he has if he was black??

If John McCain were black, it's possible he'd be president already. The smear attack on him in 2000 that he had a black baby would have been completely ineffective, and he might have gone on to win more primaries.

Then again, if John McCain were black, it's possible he'd be dead already. His father and grandfather would not have been recruited into the US Navy (let alone be promoted to admirals), and he'd have been much more likely to have been serving in the front line infantry during Vietnam.

Any possible outcome is idle speculation and hypothesizing, which means that in fact, no, that is not the "real question".

 

[b.c.]

If John McCain were black, it's possible he'd be president already. The smear attack on him in 2000 that he had a black baby would have been completely ineffective, and he might have gone on to win more primaries.

Then again, if John McCain were black, it's possible he'd be dead already. His father and grandfather would not have been recruited into the US Navy (let alone be promoted to admirals), and he'd have been much more likely to have been serving in the front line infantry during Vietnam.

Any possible outcome is idle speculation and hypothesizing, which means that in fact, no, that is not the "real question".

But indeed, it is. Because you are absolutely correct - it is idle speculation and hypothesizing exactly as the original question is and therefore of equal merit.

For one, the question makes certain assumptions that the candidate has benefitted from his "blackness" while giving the candidate no credit for qualities other than this. Is it not equally idle speculation to presume that the candidate's charisma, appeal to an audience (qualities we allow the likes of Ronald Reagan) have little role in his success?

Or is it the presumption that black voters vote for black candidates, not because they actually think he or she is the better choice (heaven forbid), but because he's black, while white voters, conversely, do not?

Is is not idle speculation to wonder whether or not, given these qualities, he would have had an easier path to travel if he were NOT black (as suggested by Supersized)?

How about other "idle" speculations? If Robert Kennedy wasn't a Kennedy, if George W Bush was not the son of a president....

if "if" was a skiff...all equally "idle", are they not?

Yngjock20 hit the nail right on the head in what he called "functioning racism". (I call it the "I'm not a racist but" category). To allude to a candidate's success because he of a certain race without giving equal consideration to how that factor might have indeed hurt him is pretty slanted speculation in my book...idle or otherwise.

 

[playainda336]

My mother calls that "institutionalized racism".

 

[SpeedoMike]

What if Barrack Obama were a white 42 year old junior senator from Chicago? Everything the same just a color difference! Where would he be in this race?

Only if his name was Kennedy! :smokin:

 

[gjorg]

Why are some of you even thinking Mccain? He acts like a zombie now. Is this really the best the Republicans can come up with?
Our next president will be a Democrat, we just have to wait till some more dust settles and sort things out.

 

[playainda336]

I think it's fair to say that McCain is a last resort for all parties.