MEGAN MCARDLE: “Even if you don’t like Barack Obama, I think you should be happy that the country has, with really very little fuss, nominated a black man with a very good shot at the presidency.”
Indeed.
Indeed not. I don’t like Colin Powell very much, but I’d be a lot happier with his nomination. Megan is simply being racist here - it doesn’t matter what Obama espouses, we should be happy because we nominated a black man. Should we be happy if the black man was Al Sharpton? Reverend Wright? Just because they are black?
I understand what Megan is trying to get at - that nominating any black man without rioting in the streets or the media is a sign of some kind of national maturity, or the true state of racism in the US - not very strong - but happiness is not a word I’d use to describe my feelings about an Obama nomination.
Conversely, should we be happy that we didn’t, once again, nominate a woman for President without any fuss?
UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers. If you are unfamiliar with Daily Pundit, please give a bit of thought to what I actually wrote, rather than breaking out the tar and feathers over your rigid preconceptions of what I must be like.
UPDATE: Misha has some thoughts. And so does Baldilocks.
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
My question, in response to Ms. McArdle, et.al., would be: Is it o.k. with you if we’re displeased with the candidate (and, highly likely, next POTUS) on the basis that, while it might be a positive thing to have a black nominee for President by a major political party, it is a perceptibly bad thing to have this particular black nominee?
And further, that it’s an especially bad thing to have a black nominee who is riding on such a huge wave of messianic support by both the MSM and his party, particularly since said nominee’s apparent affiliation is to a political party that clearly and consistently places its own needs, desires and priorities above those of our nation?
As I’ve observed before, it seems that the country has reached the point that it can (and should be able to) accept, and even embrace, a a black President - but not this particular black President.
I sincerely hope that I am wrong on this - but I strongly suspect that the next four years are going to be ugly…
Heh. And what if that now he is nominated he doesn’t get elected? Our ghetto brothers riot in the streets and burn down Korean grocery stores when their team WINS a basketball game..what will happen when their man loses the White House?
If I was a store owner near the projects I would damn sure buy some extra fire insurance..
I’m not sure what planet Megan is reporting from, but it isn’t the one I live on. First of all, the Democratic Party is not “the country”. Second, the Democrats have not nominated anyone yet. And third, any claim that the Democrats’ primary contest has proceeded with “really very little fuss” is just plain false. I cannot recall a primary season in which a party was more bitterly divided, and I’ve been alive for almost half a century. Is Megan using “fuss” as a euphemism for “riots”?
It reminds me of a time when I got in political correctness trouble for commenting favorably on a WSJ article about women in software breaking the “glass ceiling” to management which was very difficult for other engineering fields. I said I was proud that our field (this was at an IBM lab) was making progress in overcoming the glass ceiling. I got in trouble because recognizing progress in overcoming sexism was, apparently, sexist in itself.
Of course, the conundrum here is that if one can’t recognize progress, if progress can’t be identified and spoken about, then it effectively doesn’t happen.
Not that this is bad for the agents of thought control: if no progress can be recognized, then there is no progress; the Struggle can go on, and in fact must be intensified because there has, after all, been no progress. To the barricades, we Must Do More!
It’s a silly and pernicious argument, whether it’s used to complain about my “sexism” — or Megan’s “racism.”
I see. To say that we should be happy that Obama got nominated without fuss solely because he is black is not racist? How about we flip it: “I am happy that Obama didn’t get nominated without fuss because he is black.”
You’re usually smarter than this, Charlie. Sad to see you being so silly this morning. Have a cup of coffee or something.
Well there was ‘fuss’ so it blows her argument out of the water.
Beyond that note GUYK–and note him well.
Though there’s a good point. After the first ‘exit poll’ riot we will probably not have to deal with the MSM blathering about who they think will win all night.
The best way to avoid any charges of racism or sexism is to avoid casual interactions with those who would make such charges. At work or professionally there is no such thing as “casual” conversation. Every verbal (non-verbal too?) interaction should be conducted as if in a deposition. Who has such unfailing discipline? Not to avoid making a racist comment (easy for me- I truly don’t care about where you came from) but to not make any statement which could possibly, maybe be misconstrued…. Praise - is it condescending? Not praising - ignoring the efforts of a hardworking woman/ethnic man etc? You can see how this could be spun. So offer nothing - no pivot point to get exploited.
Barack Obama appears poised be the Democratic party’s nominee for president of the United States. That pretty much says all that should be said at this time.
“I understand what Megan is trying to get at - that nominating any black man without rioting in the streets or the mdia is a sign of some kind of national maturity, or the true state of racism in the US”
Well, I can guarantee you that in 1970 there is no possible way that ANY black man of any sort could have gotten elected President. So can’t you even make an acknowledgement of the incredible distance our nation has come in just two generations? It is rather impressive. Especially when you look around the entire WORLD, and ask yourself, how often has a racial minority in any culture, in any nation, been in the position of being one of two people to run for the leadership of that country? Let alone win it. The examples are rare, extraordinarily rare. The only one that comes to my mind is Fujimori of Peru (or was it Ecuador?)
I mean, come on: Let’s see a black man elected President of Mexico. (Or a white man for that matter.) Or a white man elected by any black-majority nation in Africa. A black man elected leader anywhere in Europe.
A white man in Japan.
This is extremely significant for our great United States of America. Yet another case where we are actually leading the world. The entire world has been embedded in racism, based in tribalism, for thousands of years. Once again our great nation is actually showing the WAY.
What’s really odd about Bill’s blog entry is that he talks only of “rioting on the streets or in the media”. The liberal reaction. He refuses to speak of the idea that a large number of white people might have simply refused to vote for a black man… something most blacks believed was the absolute TRUTH… and something that simply did not happen. That is also significant, and Bill can’t even see it.
So, our perceptions of ourselves and our country are going to change. Because there’s no official government apartheid of any sort, anywhere, the next five months will be quiet on the surface. But be assured, there will be a LOT of conversations, everywhere, about this election, that contain racial content within their words. (Not racism, and not racial invective… just content.) What I’m saying is that it will be widely and deeply discussed.
Back in early March I wrote:
Daily Pundit » Hungry for a Black President
Does that sound like I “can’t even see it,” you anonymous, drive-by dumbass?
Actually, Megan has is exactly backwards. Obama’s nomination proves that racism is alive and well (at least among Democrats). Racism, after all, means nothing more than making decisions about a person, based on race. Or perhaps we should use the less charged term “racialism”. Geraldine had is exactly right: As a white man, Obama would have gone nowhere.
Significant policies issues and character issues were glossed over and rational thought disregarded because the desire to elevate a black man to be president. The democrats have nominated an individual with some of the most “progressive” policy ideas - further left than mcgovern; an individual with more naive views of world problems than Carter or neville chamberlan.
As I said the other day, he got in because of the Chicago Machine. I had forgotten that Teddy had endorsed him. The Dems leadership think they have a puppet - I do have to wonder though and still, who will be riding whom.
Also, I assume most here read Stranger in a Strange Land. Heinlein’s description of ‘Joe Douglas’ and his wife came back to me during the Clinton era - and again for Obama. (To be fair, I also thought that about Ronnie and Nancy, initially, then changed my mind).
It is because he is inexperienced, and is charismatic that they needed to nominate him. They cannot pass what they need to pass with anyone else.
Hillary would have produced a reaction that would have left them almost as paralyzed as they are now with his shrubliness not running things
The dems have always been a racist party, and they are no less for having a black man clinch the nomination for the sole reason that he is black. Obama had no chance were he a white guy, therefore he was nominated because of racism.
Bill, the fun thing about arguing with you is that when you set up a straw man, you do it so deftly — not like the usual moonbat.
You say:
but then what Megan said was:
By the addition of the little subtlety of the word “solely”, you made what was not a racist statement into one.
Now, you may believe that he was nominated over the others because he was a black man. I could imagine that argument working. Personally, I think he was nominated largely because he’s a narcissistic personality who desperately hopes to prove he is a worthwhile person even though his parents abandoned him, and is quite willing to say anything to anyone in order to manipulate them into voting for him. This has proven successful in the past. He’s quite willing to use his african ancestry to help do so. By doing so, he may be appealing to a racist attitude on the part of some Democrats. But that’s not “solely”.
Neither of those is sufficient to conclude that because Megan feels some gratification that a black man actually could be nominated for the Presidency, something that was certainly unimaginable when I was a kid, she is therefore a racist.
And thanks, also: you’re right, I am too smart to fall for that one.
If the Dems were up to nominating someone solely because they were black, wouldn’t Jesse Jackson have been nominated?
The fun thing about arguing with you, Charlie, is that you’re not quite as dumb as the average moonbat, although you do succumb to obvious stupidity every once in a while - as you do here.
For your argument to make any sense, (it doesn’t, by the way) there would have to be some other reason than Obama’s blackness for us to be “happy.” But Megan gives us no other reason for happiness - it is solely because Obama is black that we are to be happy.
Go drink some more coffee. You’re not quite there yet. Come back when you’d recognize a straw man when one bit you in the ass. Your ass has remained untouched by my post - although the contents of your skull seem to be sustaining some damage.
Proving once and for all that you are utterly clueless about the nature of strawmen. Here, let me help:
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now let’s examine your little gem of a comment I just quoted:
1. Does it “superficially resemble my actual view?” Well, not so much, but it tries, by repeating, with emphasis (oh, my, so much more believable that way) my reference to the word “solely,” in a laughable attempt to tie together my criticism of Megan’s original analysis with your off-the-wall blabberwhackey about what the Dems might, or might not, have done.
2. Does such superficial resemblance make your strawman easier to refute than my actual position? I suppose - but as the definition of strawman points out, your strawman
So, to recap: You called my argument a strawman when it was not, and then, in supposed support of your position, posted a strawman of your own.
Beclowned yourself, Charlie. Better give it up. You aren’t doing very well today. As I said, you are usually smarter than this.
I guess this means that Oprah Winfrey didn’t have the correct gender to bring about such Happy.
The sad part is Oprah built her empire from the ground up, why all Obama had to do was suck up to The Man to get into the Chicago VIP room.
Megan, this is not at all a happy thing for America.
please give a bit of thought to what I actually wrote, rather than breaking out the tar and feathers over your rigid preconceptions of what I must be like.
Yes, people, at least read the comments in here to confirm those preconceptions first. Tar & feathers are getting expensive.
Jesse was considered unelectable, too much baggage. So, no, I don’t think that means anything. The point some of us are making is that Obama would not have done this well were he not black. That does not mean any black man, or woman, has a chance.
Actually, I believe almost every president of Mexico has been from the ruling Spanish class, which makes them pretty much white.
And if anyone thinks that if America elects a quasi-black man as president it will have the slightest effect on the received knowledge that all American whites are incorrigible racists, I have a shiny new bridge to sell you.
The answer to the question is posed is no.
If the Republicans had nominated Michael Steele, the previous Lt. Governor of MD, there would be no happiness. (On the strength of resumes, Steele has more experience - and given his time in office, he has much less baggage)
If they had nominated Powell, or better Condi, it still would not have been enough. (Puppets of the Evil Neocon conspiracy - which is what I am positing for BHO more or less, so eh.)
They love BHO because of the Image and the Hope/Change , but mostly he is the ‘correct’ AA candidate
Whatever happened to judging a man on the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. Heck, let’s toss in age or social background. There are some factors to seriously consider: what one believes, or what one has done, or what one wants to see happen, or would do if he had the power. These are all part of one’s character.
I see a lot of that glossed over. Coming from illinois, not much of that content has actually been looked at by the media or others. In fact, there’s much to me at least that according to the content of his character, he’s a lot like the rest of the democratic party. It didn’t matter if he was black or white in my view.
I by the way am an asian. No I don’t think all black people are out to trash stores and cause riots (they’re mostly like us. Just trying to get by). But when someone calls for change and wants to do the same old crap, I’ll call a spade a spade.
If I call a spade a spade, he calls me a kike.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Actually…no - it makes them Hispanic, while “white” is generally reckoned (even by the U.S. government - check out the EEO Voluntary Declaration forms that are government agency-approved) as Caucasian.
Look, folks, those of you who keep dancing around here with Bill over this obviously need to go back and read-for-meaning just what ol’ Megan stated and just what Bill stated in taking her to task for her statement. Keep the essentials clearly in mind:
1) Barack Hussein Obama, were he not black as well as a creature of the Dimocrap political “machine”, would be nowhere near the status of the Donks’ POTUS-elect. He doesn’t even possess the marginal level of background, experience or political “connectedness” held by ol’ Jimmuh Peanut when he was nominated. The Donk machine has anointed him as the Official Obamessiah because he is (in their view) a young, personable, somewhat-charismatic naif and black. He’s just about their ideal nominee; the only way he could be better would be if he was a female.
2) McArdle’s theme is clear, too: Despite what you think of the candidate as a capable candidate, you are supposed to be so gratified that he is able to be nominated without the country descending into insurrection and/or chaos just because he’s black. This is, detectibly, a racist attitude - otherwise, why bring up the matter of his racial makeup at all?
3) Finally, Bill’s theme seems obvious to me, as well: It is, in fact, a clearly racist attitude (although perhaps, in Megan’s case, an unconscious one*) to expect one to be pleased at the prospective nomination of a very bad candidate for POTUS, simply because he is black and the prospect of his nomination has not provoked social upheaval in our nation.
Personally, I could not care less what his genetic makeup happens to be - it’s his clearly-espoused political principles, coupled with his abysmal lack of useful political experience, that makes him unacceptable. He’s a crappy candidate, and, if elected, he’ll be a crappy President.
Bingo. Obviously I need to work on my writing skills, though. I thought my meaning was obvious.
Although maybe some folks need to work on their reading and thinking skills, too.
It was obvious, Bill - I was simply reiterating; some folks’ comments showed that their buttcheeks were obscuring their vision, so I tried to sharpen the focus just a bit.
My (implied) point precisely…
Precisely.
Your writing skills are fine.
I got about halfway through the comments, and could not resist commenting myself. I apologize if this point has already been made (in the half of the comments I haven’t yet read).
Where’s the leftist admiration for the minority victory of Bobby Jindal as the Governor of Louisiana. It would be difficult to fabricate such a rags-to-governorship story as that of Jindal, and I’d wager “all-in” that Indians are a minority in LA compared to African-Americans.
I intend no slight on African-Americans, more so on the corrupt, multicolor-skinned, officials of Louisiana’s government for the past several decades.
But there is no arguing that Jindal, as minority as minorities get, is cleaning up Louisiana. And he absolutely refused to allow his race to be part of the election.
It’s telling how often, Obama, the post-racial Presidential candidate, plays the race card, and how a successful Republican, governor refused to allow race to be an issue in his successful campaign.
So which party is supposed to be “post-racial”?