Letters to the Editor
-
@jebldmm
I will more than happily take Obama's 'lack of experience' over Hillary Clinton's 'imaginary experience'.
-
Listening on KMOX
in St. Louis tonight, they were talking about the new head to head polls between Clinton-McCain, Obama-McCain.
What's amazing to me is that McCain nearly SPLITS the black vote with Clinton in Missouri and California.
Painting Obama into a black corner may help her in PA, but if those numbers hold up in the GE or get worse; if large numbers of blacks swing to McCain, she has no chance of winning in November.
-
Also heard...
Was Bill Clinton's negatives among DEMOCRATS is now equal to his positives. Incredible.
-
@jebldmm So what is leadership, then?
But he needs to learn how to lead, not just inspire
That's a good question, how would you define leadership then? What is involved beyond mere inspiration?
-
Good post
I know that War Room is not really intended for long posts, but I really appreciated this one.
This little sh**storm has gotten a lot of shallow attention, and rather little effort to be seen en total. These dots needed to be connected, and these points teased out.
Thank you, Mr. Koppelman, for doing so.
-
@ Uncle Fester, you said, as your thesis I take it:
And it's not the little ribbons and buttons like law degrees that matter, its the experience that you collect on the way, and how that experience is internalized and deployed.
Are you sure you want to go there? :D
-
Excellent Critical Thinking by Alex Koppelman
Regarding the ridiculous spin surrounding Geraldine Ferraro's comments:
Again the spin came from the Obama campaign and many in the press ran with it - excellent critical thinking by Alex Koppelman. Too often the press has been covering these issues in too much of a superficial reactive way.
I am beginning to wish there were more objective academics involved in reviewing, and analyzing these issues.
Just like the Clintons, Geraldine Ferrero is indeed, not racist, she has spent 40 years doing work for minorities. Funny how easily quotes can be twisted and taken out of the context - the truth and testament of a lifetime. She is extremely outraged that she is being accused of being racist. I was proud of her for trying to clear up the accusations and speak truth against spin, on many of the major networks.
Race has played a significant role in this race, in many ways. That is the reality. It is not racist to note that Barack Obama has benefited greatly from various race related issues and dynamics.
How is it that many in the press - pay no attention to context - but just jump to conclusions about what someone has said means? These people have committed their lives to civil rights and helping minorities, and their quotes are taken out of context, labeled, spun - without even looking at the truth.
People do lifetimes of work - it is all dismissed - in an instant. And outsiders insist they know what was really meant? This is all spinning.
Academics are much better trained at being objective, and understanding cause and effect relationships.
Most academics with advanced studies in Psychology, Sociology, or Anthropology who were being objective, might tell you that while they don't exactly agree with Ferraro, Barack's race and gender, have played a significant role.
Because of the way the race has played out - there is a good chance even that he might not be the front-runner ahead of Hillary Clinton, if he were exactly the same, but white.
His whole campaign has been quite hypocritical: they play the race card to their advantage when they want - then they accuse others of being racist just for mentioning anything that has to do with race.
Is is possible to point out the dynamics of race without being called a racist?
Is is possible to point out the dynamics of sexism without being called a sexist?
(I think the former is actually more difficult than the latter.)
Is is possible to talk about reality, and real dynamics affecting this campaign, without being accused of something?
Do Americans even want to truly think any more?
I am beginning to wonder.
-
Do I really want to go there
Did I really understand the implications of what I wrote? Oh No! Where do I think judgement comes from? Does it arise, ab initio, from a vacuous space? Does it spring like Athena from the forehead of Zeus, fully armored?
I would call that a softball pitch and I'm looking for you to hit it out of the park. I'm expecting the badass Tejas Smith, not the coy questioning Smith, or Sacharrine Smith the faux Obama alcolyte (when you disappeared for a bit I was afraid that all that sweetness had rotted your veins).
Do you still think the constitution doesn't matter? That we don't need an advocate for it? We may have already crossed the Rubicon. It's only a republic if we can keep it.
-
How about running something?
Senate Committees. State Governments. Businesses. Most American Presidents were leaders in the military, Governors, respected Senators. This guy has 3 years in the Senate. When he started forming his campaign committee he had barely had time to find out where the executive washroom was. I want a President who knows the ins and outs of Washington. I want somebody who can draw on years of experience fighting political battles to tell when they are being fed crap and what is the right thing to do in a crisis. I think that Obama could have been a great President, but if he wins right now I doubt very much that he will manage more than mediocrity. He has run on charisma, not competence. I have no doubt that he could do better, but he doesn't want to take the time to learn how. I believe in taking the time to learn how. WE need somebody competent right now. We need somebody who can understand economics, international relations, and government finance and grasp concepts instantly, not somebody who is smart and will learn in time.
-
Here's why I think Ferraro's comment is ridiculous.
Ferraro says Obama is lucky. This implies that Obama has some intangible advantage that Hillary Clinton does not have; and that's why Obama is ahead.
But it ignores the fact that Hillary Clinton has a natural appeal to another large Democratic voting bloc and has the additional "luck" of being married to a popular former President.
So at the very least their identity appeal is a wash; but I think with the addition of name recognition Mrs. Clinton has the advantage.
Where this gets ugly is, historically, being a black man in America has been anything but lucky.
Does Obama benefit from overwhelming black support, yes. But again the key word is OVERWHELMING. He would still be winning in elected delegates and just barely winning the popular vote if the black vote were split evenly between the two candidates.
The additional black votes are really overkill.
Few of the states so far are majority black Democrats, so to say he is winning because of his appeal to black voters is disingenious. The largest southern states, Virginia and Georgia, Obama did well across all demographics.
I imagine Virginia scared the hell out of someone because what seems to be happening is there is an attempt to use Obama's strength with the black community to drive a wedge between Obama and white voters. Many believe this was tried after SC and failed.
I hope that Democrats of all races and genders see this for what it is and reject it out of hand.