Playing by Obama’s Rules
To observe Democrats this week, savaging one of their heroines, is to understand why the party is unready to rule. Consider: At the 1984 Democratic convention in San Francisco, an unknown member of Congress was vaulted into history by being chosen the first woman ever to run on a national party ticket. Geraldine Ferraro became a household name. And though the Mondale-Ferraro ticket went down to a 49-state defeat, "Gerry" became an icon to Democratic women.
This week, however, after being subjected for 48 hours to accusations of divisiveness by Barack Obama, and racism by his agents and auxiliaries in the media, Ferraro resigned from Clinton's campaign. What had she said to send the Obamaites into paroxysms of rage?
She stated an obvious truth: Had Barack not been a black male, he probably would not be the front-runner for the nomination.
Here are the words that sent her to the scaffold.
"If Obama was a white man he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up with the concept."
Note that Ferraro did not say race was the only reason Barack was succeeding. She simply said that being an African-American has been as indispensable to his success as her being a woman was to her success in 1984. Had my name been "Gerald" rather than Geraldine, I would not have been on the '84 ticket, Ferraro conceded.
In calling her comments racist, Barack's retinue is asserting that his race has nothing to do with his success, even implying that it is racist to suggest it. This is preposterous.
What Geraldine Ferraro said is palpably true, and everyone knows it.
Was the fact that Barack is black irrelevant to the party's decision to give a state senator the keynote address at the 2004 convention? Did Barack's being African-American have nothing to do with his running up 91 percent of the black vote in Mississippi on Tuesday?
Did Barack's being black have nothing to do with the decision of civil rights legend John Lewis to dump Hillary and endorse him, though Lewis talks of how his constituents do not want to lose this first great opportunity to have an African-American president?
Can political analysts explain why Barack will sweep Philly in the Pennsylvania primary, though Hillary has the backing of the African-American mayor and Gov. Ed Rendell, without referring to Barack's ethnic appeal to black voters?
What else explains why the mainstream media are going so ga-ga over Obama they are being satirized on Saturday Night Live?
Barack Obama has a chance of being the first black president. And holding out that special hope has been crucial to his candidacy. To deny this is self-delusion—or deceit. Nor is this unusual. John F. Kennedy would not have gotten 78 percent of the Catholic vote had he not been Catholic. Hillary would not have rolled up those margins among white women in New Hampshire had she not been a sister in trouble. Mitt Romney would not have swept Utah and flamed out in Dixie were he not a Mormon. Mike Huckabee would not have marched triumphantly through the Bible Belt were he not a Baptist preacher and evangelical Christian. All politics is tribal. The first campaign this writer ever covered was the New York mayoral race of 1961. Republicans stitched together the legendary ticket of Lefkowitz, Fino and Gilhooley, to touch three ethnic bases. Folks laughed. No one would have professed moral outrage had anyone suggested they were appealing to, or even pandering to, the Jewish, Italian and Irish voters of New York. People were more honest then. Obama's agents suggest that Ferraro deliberately injected race into the campaign. But this, too, is ridiculous. Her quote came in an interview with the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif., not Meet the Press.The attack on Ferraro comes out of a conscious strategy of the Obama campaign—to seek immunity from attack by smearing any and all attackers as having racist motives. When Bill Clinton dismissed Obama's claim to have been consistently antiwar as a "fairy tale," and twinned Obama's victory in South Carolina with Jesse Jackson's, his statements were described as tinged with racism.
Early this week, Harvard Professor Orlando Patterson's sensitive nostrils sniffed out racism in Hillary's Red Phone ad, as there were no blacks in it. Patterson said it reminded him of D.W. Griffith's pro-KKK Birth of a Nation, a 1915 film.
What Barack's allies seem to be demanding is immunity, a special exemption from political attack, because he is African-American. And those who go after him are to be brought up on charges of racism, as has Bill Clinton, Ed Rendell and now Geraldine Ferraro.
Hillary, hoping to appease Barack's constituency, is ceding the point. Will the Republican Party and the right do the same? Play by Obama rules, and you lose to Obama.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
It has long been a ploy of the corporate Jewish media in the U.S. which is anti-Christian and anti non-Jews to use the racism card oversensitively - in its domination of the media - so as to splinter America into camps or groups largely antagonistic toward, due to the spin in the media, the white Christian majority. There is no denying this unless one is to deny history. However precisely due to mainstream media domination one reading this perhaps for the first time would wonder if it was actual or not, or worse if I in simply telling the truth weren't also "anti-Semitic." That's a much worse thing to be of course thanks to the media spin for the past 50 years, than if one were anti-Christian or anti-European etc. This cosncious ploy or strategem in dominating the media and oversensitizing so-called racial matters becomes a powerful polemic favoring the Jewish camp or tribe, obviously, at the expense of non-Jews. Jews cannot argue that they have melted into the American pot or stew since they continue to identify themselves as a blood group in everything, including insisting on referring to themselves as 'Jewish Americans' in that order. While at the same time, when it suits them, 'preaching' cosmopolitanism and so-called universalism (for others.)
*Obama's preacher's remarks came to light now for the first time since he apparently denounced Israel and the U.S. as state sponsors of terrorism. Israel against the Palestinian people whose land they have stolen and want to continue stealing, and the U.S. for being a mean Empire with its troops in 140 countries around the world. And a nation recently which invaded and destroyed another nation Iraq like a Nazi Germany might have invaded Poland when it was not attacked first by said nation it invaded. If these travesties don't make us 'terrorists' what are we? WHAT ARE WE?
I recall one of the more self-serving economic arguments for the invasion of Iraq. I.e. "We must invade Iraq [or] oil will be over $100 per barrel." ... Actually at the time I translated that warning this way: "We must invade Iraq [so] oil will be over $100 per barrel." And in my own mind that of course was the Standard Oil argument for the war. Standard Oil [i.e. Exxon's] profits have never been higher than today and oil is over $100 per barrel. But they were just going along for the ride with the more powerful Jewish Lobby in the U.S. known as AIPAC which perceived Iraq as a threat to Israel's desire for complete hegemony in the Middle East. The Jewish Lobbies in behalf of Israel are worldwide. But that's the real reason Obama is in trouble suddenly [in] the U.S. MEDIA which SETS the nation's agenda, for what his preacher said putting Israel's and our policies honestly in the light.
Of course Obama has to play the game and respond in MEDIA speak to these attacks starting with Gerry Ferraro who served as point to get the ball rolling whether it was unwittingly or not. After which the Clintons prisoners of the mainstream MEDIA as well and who have to play the game can only sit back and see if it is helpful to their own ambitions for political power here in the U.S. or perhaps not. The Jewish MEDIA machine starting with the New York Times have endorsed Hillary since she is perceived as more dependable a lacky for Israel than Obama may prove to be. Although now Obama has denounced his own preacher - to win favor in the eyes of the Jewish Media Machine. That's who or what he has to appease if he is to remain a viable candidate for President.
Consider the following in the U.K. as well:
"Neo-Lefties, the Second Boot of the Jewish Lobby"
-by Bob Finch
http://www.israelshamir.net
The British Jewish lobby in Britain has been intimidating anyone in the country who criticizes, let alone condemns, the illegal state in Palestine and its racist warmongering policies. The same is true in America as it is in the rest of the western world. The greater the social status, media prominence, or political position, of those criticizing the Jewish apartheid state, the greater the Jewish intimidation perpetrated against them.
(continue reading at the above link)
before you do-?-Do you still actually deny this even to yourself?
_____
Mr. Miller,
Bob Barr's record is strong on immigration.
---
Regarding the original topic, Obama is getting hit hard for his ties to his church. McCain might not need to do anything.
Wow... take a look at this from the CofCC: Obama's Kenyan Jo-Lou tribe is "involved in a tribal war and advocates Islamic Sharia law in Kenya."
Wow Obama's wife, his relatives, his church... will he denounce them all?
Clyde Wilson,
My name is Robbie Burns.
Robbie Burns
810 Stonegate Dr.
P.O. Box 191
Burnside, Ky 42519
(606)561-3806
I used my name on forums and such until recently. The reason I stopped was because I noticed that virtually the entire world used only monikers. Therefore I began using "Brutus." I thought it was a "cool" moniker.
Now, Clyde, I believe you are aware that most people use only a made up moniker. It is simply the style of the Internet apparently.
Now let's get back to it.
Speaking of Sharia law, there is now a Sharia law court set up in Canada. I understand Canada is the first Western country to set up this court. Quebec, however, has already rejected it.
As near I can tell Canada is going fast.
I suggest anyone who does not already know about Sharia law and the implications of a Sharia law court inform themselves regarding this serious matter.
Mr. Haller,
I agree with what you say, or at least I'd temper it with I suspect Obama would be best.
However, Obama could be best mostly because he would cause Americans to look within at multiculturalism rather than without at scary Muslims. Or am I mistaken? If such is the case, then Obama can provide the same benefit simply by running a close campaign.
I know McCain is unstable and egotistical, but surely he isn't so that he'd nuke another major power.
---
Btw, I recall your being expelled for rudeness, but it's not my business. Clearly their expertise is valuable else we wouldn't all be though.
Ah, and when running a close campaign, maximal benefit would be derived by attacking him, as well as McCain, with everything we've got, pointing out the one's ties to anti-white and black nationalist groups and the other's long history as an open borders traitor.
Americans were manipulated into viewing the world as freedomism v. Islam, and now the true major conflict can be restored to them: globalism (especially via mass immigration and multiculturalism) v. Americans.
However, when opposing multiculturalism, I think it's important to remember the true end is interculturalism, that is once the American culture is wholly destroyed it is replaced with another more suited for global harmonising.
So, it might come to pass that multiculturalism is actually defended against absorption into the Borg... imagine that.
Thomas Miller @42: Yes, you're right on all points. It seems that maybe, at long last, both parties are finally entering the end game. A confrontation with Russia over Kosovo would hurt both parties, but would hurt the imperial Elepthants worse, and the race-pandering and race baiting and gender baiting is now backfiring on the Jackasses, and there are bound to be ever widening fissures to develop within that party over race and ideology long term. It cant be otherwise for a party of minorities who only joined together each for it's own selfish benefit, held together only by mutual hatred for whitey and distrust of each other. The Democrats are the Soviet Union of political parties, bound to break apart in the end as each constituent group fights with the next and breaks away when it becomes impossible for the rulers of the party to satisfy all the different interests.
Frank @ 52
Ok, I'm convinced Bob Barr is a better choice than Alan Keyes. I just wish he wasn't involved with the goofy Libertarian Party. Whatever its faults, the Constitution Party isn't nearly the joke the LP is.
"All politics is tribal." - Patrick J. Buchanan
Either Mr. Buchanan is having a change of heart wrt industry and its dependent workforce (see his article 'The Second Battle of NAFTA') or his political stance is incoherent.
Sen. McCain's expressed desire to remain militarily involved in Iraq for 100 years fits nicely with those who desire to conserve 20th century's status quo, i.e. neo-conservatives, and its doctrine of peace through perpetual conflict. Surely he will win the presidency; for, to fulfil its mission to save American lives, the military industrial complex would like nothing more than another 100 years. Likewise the proletariat, the Orcs of industrialism, would benefit from McCain securing their "freedom" for another 100 years.
Apparently Mr. Buchanan has stated he will not support McCain, and that he may not vote - A highly commendable civil act of defiance! Is he changing tribes?
Much as I like Pat I think he is wrong on this one. 1) Ferraro is --no way of saying it felicitously-- a sleaze (and may even be a racist) but more importantly 2) Pat has to decide as do all honorable men of the right whether reject the three stooges (Barak Hils and John) as Yahoos or as I fear he will do bite his lip and vote for Johnny). Book 4 of Gullivers Travels says it all. I hope Pat will re read it.
Heywood Hale, has got it right on the money.
If one takes the AIPAC factor out of the picture , one is bound to talk nonsense. This is what apparently happened with Pat Buchanan.
What a disappointment from a man I voted for whenever he was running for anything.
I am coming to a conclusion that an overdosis of the conservative ideology might possibly lead to an early senility (just remember what happened to Bill Buckley, who ended up by cheerfully handing the National Review over to the NeoCons).
I don't believe Pat can redeem himself in my eyes, after this (intentional in my mind), tactical sidesweep of his in favour of Clintons and McCain.
So goes down another of my heroes.
Oh well, as they say,good riddens to bad rubbish.
Somebody who can't recognize AIPAC stooges can't command my respect.
I will vote for Obama if he gets the nomination.
Never again for Pat Buchanan.
To those who want to have a better view of Rev.Wright imbroglio, I advise reading Tim Wise's thorough article on the subject:
http://www.counterpunch.org/wise03182008.html