The Shotgun Blog
« Ex-lovers weren't paying attention | Main | Conservatism in a Hurry »
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Ferraro Was Right
While some might say that it takes one affirmative action candidate to know another, I don't see how there's any denying that Geraldine Ferraro was absolutely right when she said that Barack Hussein Obama is where he is today more or less entirely because of his race.
Let's get real for a minute here, folks. Do you really think that, if instead of Barack Hussein Obama, he was Barry Harold O'Brien he would even be a United States Senator, let alone a candidate for the Presidency?
Hell, do you think that - if he was a white Irish-American - Obama would have been the President of the Harvard Law Review? Who knows? I certainly don't. His sterling record of legal accomplishment doesn't exactly suggest that he was one of the nation's outstanding legal minds - surely a prerequisite for being the President of the Harvard Law Review most of the time, other factors notwithstanding.
It's a question worth asking, given how little Obama has actually accomplished. His career is mostly an extended list of places that he's been - it's very light on the things that he's actually done.
Indeed, read closely, Obama's entire career path seems to have been paved by his living his life surrounded by guilty white liberals who, like his supporters today, are enchanted by the idea of Obama as a refined black man. I'm free to note this on the grounds that I am not guilty, white, or liberal.
Leave aside his Red past. Leave aside the Moslem issue. Leave aside his radical liberalism. Leave aside his relative inexperience. The core question, which Ferraro was groping towards but couldn't quite ask is this: can America (and the world!) afford an affirmative action President?
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on March 12, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5510480018833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ferraro Was Right:
Comments
wtf ?
..."Indeed, read closely, Obama's entire career path seems to have been paved by his living his life surrounded by guilty white liberals who, like his supporters today, are enchanted by the idea of Obama as a refined black man. I'm free to note this on the grounds that I am not guilty, white, or liberal"...
And the sum of your career is what,snipping at those that actually do rather than just talk.Wow what a bizarre post.No wonder the WS failed.
Posted by: dirk | 2008-03-12 11:38:36 PM
Pray tell - what has Obama ever done, "dirk"?
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-03-12 11:45:25 PM
I agree with Dirk.
Besides, what has Hillary ever done, except for being married to a former president? (Her only "qualification" for the job, so it seems).
Apart from that, she, unlike Obama, has a bunch of scandals to her name, one that even includes a suspicious "suicide".
Posted by: Werner Patels | 2008-03-13 12:17:04 AM
Maybe a good starting point would be a brief comparative bio of all three of you, Adam. Google is sketchy and unflattering so I'd love to hear what you've done outside of the pundit/blog/student space. Just, you know, to get a fair calibration and all.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-13 12:36:04 AM
" Super Tuesday — Exposing the Real Racists in America
Obama gets at least 88 percent of the Black vote but nobody notices
Bill and Hillary Clinton have been the biggest advocates of Black interests and the Black agenda in recent American politics. Bill is evenly warmly referred to as the “first Black President” for his unrelenting support of the Black agenda.
Under the Clinton administration, the massive government-mandated racial discrimination against Whites (called euphemistically affirmative action) has become pervasive in both the public and private sector. Better-qualified Whites face racial discrimination in jobs, scholarships, union admittance, college admittance, promotions in academia, business and industry and the military, and in publicly bid contracts. Millions of Whites have been victims of Black criminality. More millions have been forced to abandon, with great financial difficulty, the public schools that their own taxes overwhelmingly pay for because of the horrid conditions caused by the racial realities in those schools. Millions of Whites have seen massive immigration transform their communities from the clean and safe places of American heritage to ghettos and barrios of dilapidation, trash and crime. The Clintons have been at the forefront of the policies that have so harmed White America.
But, everything the Clintons have done for the Black radicals counts for nothing among the Black voters.
The Atlanta Journal exit poll revealed that on Super Tuesday at least 88 percent of the Black voters pulled the lever for the Black candidate, Barack Obama. Owing to the fact that he is a relative newcomer, Barack Obama has accomplished little to advance the Black agenda, certainly nothing comparable to the Clintons. He surely did not get the Black vote because his policies were more in line with the Black community as they were practically identical on welfare, health care, and in what they call the mistreatment of Black criminals. Both Obama and Clinton allege that a racist criminal justice system exists in America. Both of them want to let hundreds of thousands of Black criminals out of jail.
So why did Blacks overwhelmingly vote for Obama? Did he offer a remarkably different program?
There is clearly one overriding factor in their choice of Obama. He is one of them! They were motivated by a racial loyalty. They voted for Obama because he is Black, period."
Posted by: DJ | 2008-03-13 12:39:07 AM
Werner, I didn't say that Hillary was particularly qualified, merely that the plain truth is that Obama is where he is because of his race. To be fair - Hillary's there because of her gender. You don't see many First Gentlemen trying to run for office, touting their 'experience."
Pattern - I'm not running for President. I'm merely your average guy with a blog. The only office I've ever run for is School Trustee. The only office I might run for in the relatively near future is local - Mayor, Council, the Legislature, whatever.
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-03-13 12:45:16 AM
DJ, ask the editors for contributor privillages if you want to run an article. It's called a "comment" field for a reason. ;)
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-13 12:48:20 AM
Maybe DJ didn't notice that race wasn't a major factor until Bill Clinton started pushing race buttons that all Southerners know instinctively in South Carolina. Before that, HRC actually had 40% of so of the black vote, especially black women. Immediately, Bubba's eructations moved that 40% down dramatically.
Blacks know when they are being condescended to and HRC/Bubba purposely injected race into the campaign. Up there in the frozen tundra, maybe that went by you. It doesn't down here.
The Clintons are consciously taking this campaign into the sewer, where they feel much more at home.
Posted by: davieinboca | 2008-03-13 2:08:57 AM
daveinboca,
"The Clintons are consciously taking this campaign into the sewer, where they feel much more at home."
That's because our MSM is convinced that only Republicans use dirty tricks. Had a Republican said what Ferraro said, this would be topic #1.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-13 6:47:38 AM
PR,
"Google is sketchy and unflattering so I'd love to hear what you've done outside of the pundit/blog/student space. Just, you know, to get a fair calibration and all."
First we have Steinem slagging McCain over the validity of his experience and now Ferraro over Obama's legitimacy.
Have you begun to notice the PATTERN, yet PR?
Who do these people support?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-13 6:52:59 AM
Ferraro made a politically incorrect statement, that's what makes the patronizing,politically correct phonies wail. She spoke the unspeakable truth,in honesty, we all know it.
Laugh if you will, but the Oprah endorsement of Obama was huge.
I'm hoping for a Republican White House not only because it will pee off the Liberal Left in Canada but because their ideology is what's needed in these tough times. Platitudes and store fronting will not do the job.
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-03-13 6:57:25 AM
It's true that Obama's recent reputation far exceeds his actual accomplishments. But so does Hillary Clinton's. Neither of these two has any governing experience; both are rookie senators. Bush, at least, was governor of Texas; Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas; John McCain, while never a governor, has been a senator since Obama was still in law school.
All ideological baggage aside, a vote for McCain is the most sensible, and would be so even if he were a Democrat, simply because of his experience. If either Clinton or Obama gets in, the Americans are going to have another Carter presidency. (And Carter, unlike Hillary, was at least a nice guy.)
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-03-13 7:41:36 AM
This is what happens when you give the Negroes the vote. They go and side with a candidate who inspires them.
DJ, Ezra ran for parliament in a neighborhood with a large concentration of Jewish people. Glenmore Landing Safeway stocks pretty much the entire Maniscewitz product line (regardless of who you pray to, you gotta try the Savory Garlic Matzo). Did he do that because he was Pulling An Obama too? Ya, no.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-13 8:51:21 AM
PR, why do you keep comparing bloggers on this site, and someone like Ezra, to someone who is running for the president of the United States?
While I agree both Obama and Hillary have about the same level of experience as most bloggers here, I would grant you none of them have the required experience to run the most powerful nation on earth.
Get a grip please.
Posted by: deepblue | 2008-03-13 9:01:33 AM
It's silly to question Adam's accomplishments because he pointed out Obama's lack of experience. Adam isn't running against him. Imagine a political debate where Wolf Blitzer asks a candidate about his foreign policy, and is immediately attacked over his stand on the Iraq war.
DJ is absolutely correct about the true racists. I know first hand that minorities are much more racist than the white majority. We expect, and generally accept it. The strange thing is that so many white men seem so anxious to stick it to Whitey. It almost seems that the white race is going through a "Rabbit cycle".
Posted by: dp | 2008-03-13 9:03:52 AM
Pattern Recognition wrote: "This is what happens when you give the Negroes the vote. They go and side with a candidate who inspires them."
Yeah, the nerve. How much better to vote for someone who arouses no enthusiasm at all. P.S. If the above remark was intended to be sarcastic, never mind.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-03-13 9:25:49 AM
Shane, I was being sarcastic there too, I was probably misquoting the grumpy guy in JFK played by the guy from that 70's newsroom show.
"PR, why do you keep comparing bloggers on this site, and someone like Ezra, to someone who is running for the president of the United States?"
I know a blog isn't the presidency, but over on the turbanhelmet thread we all cried out for uniform laws, and presumably uniform principles. If it's cheap of Obama to run on his blackness, then that tarnishes Ezra's campaign too, and since I don't see a problem with Ezra's campaign, I can't hypocritically see a problem with Obama's popularity among black voters. In spite of that, I still think his exit poll popularity has to do with his message as much as his melanin. (Aw man, I went all Jesse Jackson there. Happens.)
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-13 10:08:57 AM
Adam Yoshida classification:
Order: Troll
Family: Baiter
Genus: Race-baiter
Posted by: Voice of Reason | 2008-03-13 10:48:22 AM
Without prejudice let me say ....
Since there is so much racism running around everywhere especially in the USA nomination process all the time on every issue, it must be very important. I didn't think it was, but then what do I know.
Sooooo, I will declare right now that I am rooting for the white race. They have pretty much exceeded everything and anything any other race has accomplished. As I look around the planet I believe that the best and safest countries to live in and prosper are the white ones ... so I will go with the winners for now.
I will also support the white male candidate, since it is men who have done far more of the great things in history than women, white or otherwise.
Let's see how it plays out. If I am wrong and can become a politically correct racial sycophant like so many other white folks who are betting on other races to dominate or perhaps a sex change if Hillary pull it off.
Finally I so god damned sick of everyone playing the race and gender card that I can see why we will never have peace and harmony in our multi-convulti society.
Posted by: John West | 2008-03-13 10:51:48 AM
Voice of Reason, Adam's got contributor rights here. He's kind of "staff". Staff can't be trolls.
I think if this were Pokemon I'd get to keep your nickname and append it to mine now.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-13 10:56:38 AM
Having posting rights on an unedited groupblog doesn't mean that you escape troll status when you post obnoxious stuff to fish for an aggressive reactionl. He's just an admin sanctioned troll.
Posted by: Voice of Reason | 2008-03-13 11:00:05 AM
"Last night I saw the fire spreadin' to the palace door.
Silent majority weren't keeping quiet any more"
John West must be a CCR fan.
Posted by: dp | 2008-03-13 11:03:37 AM
DP,
I just an unsophisticated bumpkin so I have no idea what CCR is. Please tell me.
Posted by: John West | 2008-03-13 11:14:52 AM
JW:
Creedence Clearwater Revival.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-03-13 11:20:53 AM
You're kidding right?
Credence Clearwater Revival.
I'm glad you said what you did. It's about time to balance the scales again. So there were injustices in the past. The US, and especially Canada have been the bright spots on Earth when it comes to racial tolerance. The US obviously has deeper wounds to heal, but they are healing.
Posted by: dp | 2008-03-13 11:24:44 AM
Just to refresh some other memories, there were two points at which the question of Obama's race came up.
1) Bill Clinton's comment after Obama's win in South Carolina.
2) Geraldine Ferraro's comments.
What's the common thread between those those of Eliot Spitzer?
All three were working on Hillary's campaign.
Spitzer was also a super delegate. Glenn Beck last night claimed a super delegate's vote was worth 6,000 times more than the average voter.
Does anybody know if that's true? And, does the Republican party have a similar designation? Not that they would need it this year with McCain already in.
To me, the Democrat's system of proportional representation in their primaries, rather than first past the post takes all; their disenfranchising of voters in Florida and Michigan; and their theme of Historically Wronged leading candidates is curious.
I can hardly wait to listen to even more racist or sexist comments coming from the nomination losers' camp.
Of course, my theory of all racist and sexist comment coming from the Democrat side is open to scrutiny.
If anybody can point out any racist or sexist comments I may have missed coming from John McCain's camp, I'd like to hear them.
Over to you, Pattern Recognition.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-03-13 11:37:10 AM
Voice of Reason wrote: "Having posting rights on an unedited groupblog doesn't mean that you escape troll status when you post obnoxious stuff to fish for an aggressive reactionl. He's just an admin sanctioned troll."
Let me cut you down to size, Voice. First, with a puffed-up name like "Voice of Reason," people have you painted as an arrogant, self-righteous snark before you even open your mouth. Secondly, you don't think enough of your opinions to sign your real name to them (even your e-mail is fake), so why should we think anything of them? And third, you have not even attempted to debate the topic but have instead sneaked in through the back door, administered an e-wedgie, giggled like an idiot, and now expect people to clothe you in virtue--in short, you're the troll, not Adam. Now go play outside.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-03-13 1:15:51 PM
"Over to you, Pattern Recognition."
Hm? Sorry, I've been watching for Zeb to get back to me about my little dig about the historical Zebulon Pike being already dead two days before the commenter Zebulon Pike says the Historical Zebulon Pike burnt York/Toronto. It's over on the Conservative in a Hurry thing.
Anyway, you can make sone stuff up in my voice if you need to. Yada yada be nice, yada yada more flies with honey, yada yada I before E except after C and no double spaces after a period when using variable width fonts. Then an obscure reference to some Gladwell marketing book, and a sexually ambiguous sign-off like Hugs or Yer bud if I'm responding to a really mean taunt. Remember I never go expressly ideological, I mostly challenge extreme positions, so if you're doing fake-me, go after the guys who cite John Adams, Ancient Greece, Hitler or Ayn Rand more than their own writing. I forget the fancy name for it but I'll end with that thing you do where it's word vs almost-homonym, so say, "idealist, not an ideologue." That's pretty much it.
Oh yeah. Bonus points for a totally WTF-inciting sidebar about how we could solve this whole problem with a robot, some balsa wood, and six rolls of Wine Gums. All spell-checked, decently punctuated and—of course—profanity-free.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-13 1:20:47 PM
I'm starting to recognize a pattern.
Pattern Recognition's posts are off-topic.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-03-13 2:10:21 PM
PR still hasn't reported on the pattern of women who support Hillary making disparaging remarks about the life experiences of her opponents.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-13 2:15:05 PM
"I'm starting to recognize a pattern. Pattern Recognition's posts are off-topic."
Ignoring my 1:20 thing, my posts here have:
challenged he main article's assertions,
12:36:04 AM,
called for clarification,
8:51:21 AM, 10:08:57 AM
or [even I'm shocked] defended the author.
12:48:20 AM, 10:56:38 AM
Notice I'm not part of the sidebar about Creedence Clearwater Revival which _is_ a stretch off the topic?
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-13 2:26:35 PM
"PR still hasn't reported on the pattern of women who support Hillary making disparaging remarks about the life experiences of her opponents."
That's because I don't think she's going to win. No point in wasting time/attention on her.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-13 2:36:19 PM
"Hilary, ain't never been called a nigger..."
The Reverend Jeemiah Wright...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5BxM
Posted by: DJ | 2008-03-13 5:07:53 PM
"Before that, HRC actually had 40% of so of the black vote, especially black women. Immediately, Bubba's eructations moved that 40% down dramatically."
Where?
In Iowa, according to MSNBC Exit polls, Obama won 72% of the black vote. In Illinois, the O man won 98% 0f the black male vote and 91% of the black female vote.
Why are white people so stupid?
Posted by: DJ | 2008-03-13 5:26:50 PM
DJ,
"Why are white people so stupid?"
Remember your La Griffe.
Sigma, sigma, sigma!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-13 5:41:57 PM
Jeeze.............., were shall we begin? With the truth perhaps?
No, that would not be right, especially these days, here in the once great United States, where living the lie is so now.
Oh, what the hell.
Geraldine........., you are right, you told the truth. But the darling negro will make certain you pay for same. And Jeremiah Wright, please do tell, what is it like to create a "church" that, amongst other curiosities is racial-centric, embraces cutie pie Louis Farrakhan and has or had constant "parishioners" such as self-appointed demigod Oprah Winfrey or Potemkin village cum latter-day Elmer Gantry, none other than Barry (Barack) Hussein Obama singing "religious" songs in the chorus? You know, about 80 years ago, some guys over in the Weimar Republic chanted big doings in their "church" and the fawning myopic believers went along for the ride, led by a new "messiah" who promised hope and change.
So much for history......, herstory....., whatever!
Posted by: John Teeter | 2008-03-13 11:55:37 PM
I suppose every prior president, according to your logic Adam, owes his electoral success to his penis and pasty complexion.
Posted by: DC | 2008-03-14 12:27:44 AM
Given that every former president's opponents (that is to say those who LOST the election) also had penises and pasty complexions, DC, it is very likely there was more to their success than those two traits.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-03-14 10:55:02 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.