Barack to Hillary: “Suck it.”
Posted
January 16, 2007 at
5:22 pm by
Prescott
After pointless months of shuffling his feet and telling the media, “Gee, shucks, I just don’t know,” Illinois Senator Barack Obama has finally thrown his hat into the presidential ring. OK, sure, it’s not exactly official as it’s more of an announcement that he’s going to announce, but barring some sort of huge negative backlash (highly unlikely, but hey, even Jesus’ followers wound up turning on him), he’s definitely in the running. The official fund raising starts right about… NOW, and Hillary Clinton just wrote on her to-do list, “RAISE $50 MILLION MORE FOR CAMPAIGN FUND. Also, buy milk.” As a resident of Illinois, I’m just THRILLED that we got a good 2 out of 6 years of service from our junior senator before he ran off to campaign for higher office. I mean, really, what more could the people from the Land of Lincoln ask for?
Can someone explain to me the appeal of Barack Obama to be President? I mean, I clearly understand Obama’s appeal as a person, and even as a politician, but President? I don’t get it. I almost feel like a large number of liberals subconsciously want to vote for him because it would be really “cool” to vote for a minority. That way they can say, “See? We *told* you we were super-duper progressive!” But voting for Obama solely because of the color of his skin is clearly misguided, for obvious reasons. So, Obama fans, tell me why I should vote for him? And try to do so without invoking Bush’s name, if that’s possible. We saw how successful Kerry’s platform of “I’m not Bush” worked out.
Tags: Barack-Obama, News-&-Politics, presidential-election |
11 Responses to “Barack to Hillary: “Suck it.””
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately in an effort to remove commercial messages, irrelevancies, excessive foul language, racist/sexist/hateful comments, spoofed/cloaked IPs and/or personal attacks and will be edited/deleted at our discretion. Thank you for your patience.
1. Mom101 said:
January 18, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
To imply that people are only voting for him on his color sounds…well, racist, frankly. Like it’s all you see of him.
While I’m yet undecided, what I see in him is an inspirational, charismatic, articulate, focused, self-made, brilliant, and ethical young man who’s dedicated his life to public service and to causes I support. There are so few politicians who live their values in this day, that it’s a breath of fresh air to find someone who really does seem to walk the walk.
The guy’s got a whole lot more going for him than “I’m not Bush,” that’s for sure.
2. Prescott said:
January 18, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
[quote comment="61131"]To imply that people are only voting for him on his color sounds…well, racist, frankly. Like it’s all you see of him.[/quote]
First of all, I didn’t make the sweeping statement that “people”, i.e., everyone, would vote for him only based on his race. And to try and use what I *did* say into a charge of racism is a real stretch, especially since what I *did* imply is that his skin color should be a non-issue. I hope no one twists you calling him “articulate” into accusing you of using a slur, so you don’t have to experience falsely being called a racist.
I happen to agree with most of your assessment of Senator Obama, except I think he’s got a lot of people duped that he “walks the walk”. He walks whatever path the DNC tells him to, and he has the voting record to prove it. Which is fine, if you agree 100% with the DNC’s platform, but that’s hardly what I would call a plan to “unite the country”.
3. Mom101 said:
January 18, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
“I almost feel like a large number of liberals subconsciously want to vote for him because it would be really “cool” to vote for a minority.”
Forgive me - when I saw you reading into the minds of a large number of liberals, it was me who was jumping to conclusions.
4. Prescott said:
January 18, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
Yes, it was you jumping to conclusions as to my mindset. How is what I said a racist statement? Discussion of other people’s race-based motivations is now racist? When I read/hear statements like, “It’s time the United States elects an African-American president,” I think, “Why?” I believe we should elect the most qualified person, regardless of race, sex, or religion, which is clearly the intent of what I was saying in my original post.
Whatever, enjoy your kool-aid.
5. Mom101 said:
January 18, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
Funny, I was just about to agree with everything you wrote until I got to the kool-aid snark.
I don’t think you are a racist. But I think that the presumption that the only reason people could be voting for him is because he’s black tiptoes around that territory, however inadvertent. It’s something I expect to hear from the likes of Rush Limbaugh because it’s a not so subtle way to make race a factor in the voting decision.
I’m sure you were doing it in the spirit of provocative discourse and nothing more malicious, but still, that’s what rubbed me the wrong way.
My overall feeling is that until we can have discussions about him as a candidate without discussing race–something I have yet to see anywhere–we have a long, long way to go. Perhaps this is what you were getting at in the first place?
6. Prescott said:
January 18, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
[quote comment="61158"]Funny, I was just about to agree with everything you wrote until I got to the kool-aid snark.[/quote]
My apologies, that’s how I tend to respond to sarcastic comments.
[quote]I don’t think you are a racist. But I think that the presumption that the only reason people could be voting for him is because he’s black tiptoes around that territory, however inadvertent.[/quote]
If I had said the only reason some people *won’t* vote for him is because he’s black, is that inadvertently racist of me? If not, then what’s the difference? If I rescind the adjective “large” from my statement, would that be better? Because I think to say that *nobody* would vote positively solely because of his race is disingenuous.
[quote]My overall feeling is that until we can have discussions about him as a candidate without discussing race–something I have yet to see anywhere–we have a long, long way to go. Perhaps this is what you were getting at in the first place?[/quote]
I thought it was rather clear that was what I was getting at in the post and follow-up comments, but I guess not. So I’ll state it very plainly — making Obama’s race the priority of one’s voting decision thought process, no matter for or against, is not a very smart way to choose the leader of the free world.
Thanks for the discourse.
7. Mom101 said:
January 19, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
I literally lay awake thinking about this last night - so thanks for a very compelling back and forth.
I don’t want my comment to be misconstrued so let me try to be clearer: There is a candidate on the table with obvious appeal (see my first comment) which is being overshadowed by the fact that he is black. It’s like saying to people, “defend your black candidate.” I wonder whether a white candidate in the same place would be under the same scrutiny. Maybe, maybe not.
I also think that when people say “it’s about time we have a black/Jew/New Yorker/flying monkey in the White House,” isn’t it implicit that that candidate must be a qualified one? I just can’t imagine too many people, let alone “a large group of liberals,” voting on race as a priority above all else. If that were the case, why wasn’t Sharpton the last nominee?
Particularly after this president, it’s very clear where voters–liberals–want their candidates to stand, what issues they want him to focus on, what sort of moral compass they expect from him, what sort of resume. The color issue, I should think, is not a priority but a welcome bonus.
Thanks for the forum Preston and the chance to formulate my thoughts better. Much appreciated.
8. Prescott said:
January 19, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
My crack about liberals obviously clouded my point which I think put us on different pages from the start, even though, in a roundabout way we agree on many points. I certainly wasn’t asking anyone to “defend your black candidate”. Ignoring those few sentences will reveal what I was really asking in the post, which you did answer in your first comment after calling me a racist.
To rephrase for anyone else wishing to comment, I was stating that I think Obama is certainly charming and appealing as a politician, but I don’t have the feeling that he has what it takes to be president (yet). Why do you think he does?
9. Kristy said:
January 22, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
It’s just because people like him and, dammit, we just want a winner.
10. Karen said:
March 30, 2007 @ 10:53 am
So I am a little late for this boat but not being one to miss out on a debate (argument) I have to through my litte life boat comment out there.
Barak Obama has a father who is African and a mother who is caucason.
When are we going to stop negating the life, family and history of one entire half of Sen. Obama’s life, and the lives of millions of other people in this country?? I agree with parts of what both of you said, and will admit that yes, I am going to vote for Sen Obama and I am going to do anything in my power to get everyone else to vote for him too. Not, however, because he is “black” but because he is the best politician I have ever seen since Jimmy Stewart played Mr. Smith. And I will also admit that dispite the fact that I am more or less a femanist I do not trust Hillary Clinton as far as I could throw her. She is just plain smarmy. So there you have it.
11. Prescott said:
March 30, 2007 @ 11:19 am
[quote comment="76611"]Not, however, because he is “black” but because he is the best politician I have ever seen since Jimmy Stewart played Mr. Smith.[/quote]
Karen, that’s like saying he’ll be the best president since Martin Sheen. Not to mention that the whole point of the movie was the fact that Mr. Smith *wasn’t* a politician, so you sort of lost me. Now if we can have the same ending as the movie, but this time with Harry Reid, we may be onto something…