Saturday, February 10, 2007

The "O"-Bama-gasm

OK, after much anticipation,liberal drooling and near-begging, this neophyte just announced, and now it's official. Barack Obama, the Illinois half-breed with satellite-dish ears is running for president.

In reality, this is a Main Stream Media created campaign. If Obama was a white man, he'd still be a nothing low-level senator from Illinois. Fact is:the MSM ,and much of liberalism, is so hungry for a black man they can get behind(to prove they don't see color,I guess) they grabbed this smooth talking junior senator with a level of speaking talent, but no real substance on the issues ("We can do better" is not a policy specific, OK? Got it?) and hyped him to the point of no return. It's not all his fault. Having 'done' politics, I can tell ya, ain't nothing stronger than a politician's ego. Having his stroked for so many consecutive months has driven all the blood from his brain, giving himself the impression he's a stud in whorehouse.

This, my friends, is Affirmative Action. The racial quota system in practice by the media. And displays for us all the pitfalls of 'Affirmative Action'. This man is absolutely NOT-qualified for the job of President. Two years in the Senate? Two lousy years with absolutely nothing to show for it 'cept a Presidential Exploratory Committee, a biography, and string of puff pieces? No solutions/policy statements/core beliefs outlined anywhere? ("We can do better" is NOT a solution. Got it?. OK.)But you see, none of this matters...
A smooth talker with a Harvard education and a law degree, growing up wealthy,spending his entire adult life in politics without ever having to hold a real job, or run a business, makes him a perfect Democrat for president. You know, the party of the 'common man'? Add black skin, and he's the perfect prop. If you don't vote for him, you must be racist. Can't you see the appeal?
And his life has been so full, in his forties, he even has a biography. Never in recent history has a few terms in the Illinois statehouse been seen as bonafide certification of a Statesman. The last time we had one of these, millions of Americans started killing each other in human waves to save a presidency and prevent democracy and self-determination.

And what is with the biography? Anybody who writes a biography in his forties is so self-absorbed to be a non-starter for for anybody with a thinking mind.

One of Obama's few strengths is the ability to tell both sides what they want to hear. He's knows the power of validation.Of, course, for this he is well positioned. Growing up rich and white, the son of an absent negro father, I'd say his life is both sides of two cliches. Instead of speaking Truth to Power, he speaks Feelgood without substance. "We can do better". 'Pablum for the Masses' should be his slogan.

Obama has spent much of his formative years living outside the United States. This gives him unique insights to the difficulty of growing up black in America. (It must have been his birth in the Jim Crow state of Hawaii that gives him this level of street cred.) Or maybe his wife told him, since she fears for his safety everyday, presumably by a white guy full of mindless racial hatred(aren't we all?).
"the realities are that... as a black man... Barack can get shot going to the gas station,">link

Has she ever heard of this guy?

My advice to Democrats with a fetish for empty black suits: We can do better.


kingdavid said...

Gino, quit trying to be so tactful, tell us what you really think of the guy.

Palm boy said...

Half-breed? Gino, are sure your not still drunk? I'm a white guy from a slave state, and I find that pretty offensive.

True, Obama doesn't have any real ideas, concepts or steadfast beliefs, but he's a democrat. Aside from wanting a bigger government and the willingness to negoiate with evil, they don't care what you think.

Gino said...

palm boy: it wasnt myself who made his parentage an issue, or a qualification.

little-cicero said...

I love your ability to cut through racial boundaries with your total disregard for social niceties! "Down with Political Correctness" should be your campaign slogan!

Brian said...

So...are you gonna vote for him or not?

Vanesa Littlecrow W. said...

Two words for Barrack: Insufficient experience.

The Law Fairy said...

"half-breed"? Jesus Christ, gino, he's not Mr. Spock. Oh, but right, of course it's the MEDIA who is racist here...

So, let me see if I follow your logic... we have a popular senator who was raised in Indonesia and Hawaii and became a professor of law at one of the nation's pre-eminent universities, has demonstrated through his time in the state legislature a remarkable ability to build consensus and transcend partisan bickering, is a rare Democrat who doesn't secretly (or in some cases, not-so-secretly) hate God and religion and therefore pays more than lip service to the church, and isn't so enmeshed in the disgustingness of politics that, if elected, he might actually have relatively few scandals to cope with. The only POSSIBLE reason we're even considering him is because of Affirmative Action. Why? Well, he's black (oh, excuse me, HALF black). CLEARLY this is Affirmative Action at work, because everyone knows that there's no such thing as an independently qualified black man.

Obviously we only like him because he's black -- qualifications like a Harvard J.D., a standing offer of tenure from the University of Chicago Law School, years as a successful state politician, and authorship of a best-selling book aren't NEARLY enough qualifications to be president. I scoff at these "qualifications." Who does he think he is? Doesn't he know you have to be part of a political dynasty to be president? I'd much rather have a former drug and alcohol abuser who almost flunked out of Yale, essentially dodged the draft by getting a plum homeland position thanks to his father's political influence, and who has accomplished nothing on his own without his family's influence. Yeah, someone like that is a WAY better president. How do I know? Well, he's white, so he MUST have gotten there without any unfair advantages!! Those poor white men get pushed back by Affirmative Action every damn time. If anything, his race means he's MORE qualified than a similarly situated black man. I mean, DUH. Don't people realize Affirmative Action has done more harm to modern life than slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, and the Ku Klux Klan combined??


You see, gino, people like you are the reason we *need* Affirmative Action.

Anyway, who would you rather see as the Democratic candidate? Hillary? Somehow I have a hard time believing that one. Unless of course Obama scares you because you think he's more likely to win. In which case, who ARE you rooting for? McCain (vomit)? Giuliani (giggle)?

Your words are just as bad as Joe Biden's except, um, a whole hell of a lot more racist and offensive.

PS -- I will give you credit for reducing the maturity of the debate to the level of making fun of the guy's ears. Nice to know it's not only women who are judged solely on appearance. At least, as long as we're talking about Democrats, anyway.

little-cicero said...

Law Fairy, I don't believe these qualifications make someone an effective commander-in-chief:

LF) "Obviously we only like him because he's black -- qualifications like a Harvard J.D.,"

LC) Jimmy Carter had intellectual prowess too- intellect is great for thinking jobs, but leadership is something completely different.

LF)"a standing offer of tenure from the University of Chicago Law School,"

LC)Oh yes, aren't professors great at organizing and delegating!? Once again, I can see myself as a university professor, but I would be a horrible governor.

LF)"years as a successful state politician,"

LC)The key word being "state" These positions deal with state issues alone, and are usually part-time jobs at that!

"and authorship of a best-selling book aren't NEARLY enough"

LC)There you have it. Best-seller authorship is a qualification. I'm officially supporting Mike Savage for President in '08! :P

The Law Fairy said...

LC, okay, then what are valid qualifications for the president?

The Constitution doesn't give us much guidance -- natural US citizen, at least 35 years old, resident for at least 20 (I think?) years. Apparently that's enough, legally speaking, and Barack certainly meets all these.

So in your world, I take it we don't want a president with intellect? Or a president with state experience (I guess you're not a federalist then)? Or a president with the thoughtfulness and insight to write a quality book?

As should be obvious to anyone utilizing basic logic, I'm not suggesting these things are *necessary* qualifications for the presidency. But they sure do point to intelligence (something I think SHOULD be a qualification, though apparently much of the current electorate disagrees with me there), patriotism and citizenship. I think these are pretty damn fine qualifications when it comes to a presidential candidate.

But, please, enlighten me. What would be better qualifications and why? How are these insufficient to make a good candidate, barring affirmative action? How are these qualifications at all inferior to the qualifications of every single president we've had up to this point (hint: they aren't, so you lose, but go ahead and try. It'll be fun to watch you tie yourself in intellectual knots)?

The Law Fairy said...

oops, meant to have quotes around "affirmative action." I do hope you're all thoughtful enough to recognize that voting for a black candidate does not equal affirmate action.

little-cicero said...

Oh my stars, you've stunned me with your brilliant use of the 35 year-old rule. Who knew!

We're not talking about whether he can be President, we're talking about whether he would be President if he was white. The job of President must be occupied by someone with EXECUTIVE experience. The quality with which you head your oil company will throw scrutiny your way if you are GW Bush. The strength and progress with which you lead your state government and dealt with other states as a governor will make Mitt Romney look good for President. Your specific leadership in Congress on a number of issues will make you look tantalizing if you're Newt Gingrich, and your failures will make you less attractive.

Our best Presidents have not been thinkers, they have been delegators who surrounded themselves with thinkers. Jefferson and Carter are prime examples of this. Reagon and Washington are examples of men who lacked personal in depth intelligence, but surrounded themselves with intelligence and delegated effectively.

Barrack has not proven himself in business or politics as a delegator, only as a delegate. He would do well in a Paul Wolfowitz position, not in a Ronald Reagon position.

The Law Fairy said...

lol, LC.

You lost any credibility when you suggested that people properly scrutinized GWB's "oil company" management.

Thanks for the laugh, and confirming you don't have a fucking clue about what qualifies a person for office.

Oh, and, in honor of this guy's birthday, check out the qualifications you've essentially dismissed as inadequate in a black man. Hmmm... lawyer, check. Experience in the Illinois legislature and a small bit of Congressional experience, check. Opposed to the subjugation of black people, check. There's some kind of irony (maybe several kinds) to be found in your racism.

Yup, someone with Obama's qualifications sure would make one sucky president. They'd never, say, erect a memorial in his honor or remember him as the greatest president ever.

little-cicero said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
little-cicero said...

I suggested nothing of the sort LF. All I suggested is that there was something to criticize. It wasn't criticized thoroughly, but at least there was something to hold him accountable for.

Forgive me if you're being sardonic, but you're starting to sound immature and anything but color-blind. I just gave a comprehensive listing of what is and is not a qualifying factor for the Presidency. Despite disagreements with his domestic policies, I believe that Colon Powell is more than qualified enough to be President.

You, a full grown presumably intelligent man, can do nothing more than accuse me of racism. Whether you're calling someone a racist or a bigot, can't you understand that such accusation is the lowest form of political argument? I don't mind that we disagree, I mind that you are wasting my time by compelling me to write without considering my thoughts any more than you would consider those of a Klansman.

Give me a break. I find you underwhelming

Gino said...

the obama for president buzz started about 3 minutes after he gave the keynote at the D convention, before he was ever even elected to a federal position.

why? becuase he was a well-spoken white-speaking black man with appeal to moderate white voters.

finally, democrats, the plantation owners of the black vote, had a black they actually liked.

it was great speech. but if a great speech qualifies you for president, i'm sure you were/would have been 100% behind reagan, if you were old enough.

The Law Fairy said...

LC, how many *men* do you know who use a very female-looking person with wings as their avatar? I certainly don't know any.

I never claimed to be color-blind. Being color-blind is irresponsible in a society still plagued with institutional racism.

You call your list "comprehensive"? Man, that's frightening. And I see from your profile, which I checked before making assumptions about, say, your sex, that you're old enough to vote. This is unfortunate.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand racism, which is unsurprising given our current political climate. I myself have admitted before to being a racist, because I'm not afraid of unpalatable truths. It's not a condemnation, it's a fact. It's what happens to people when they're raised in a racist society like ours. Not all racists are Klansmen, although this is a convenient fairy tale to keep us from making real progress, by denying that we're part of the problem by giving us a group of extremists to blame for it. Those of us who are responsible acknowledge our racism and do what we can to fight it.

If your list is so "comprehensive," then Mr. Powell is highly unqualified. He has not served as the head of an oil company. He has not been a governor. He has not been a "specific leader[] in Congress on a number of issues" (um, whatever this means). He HAS served as a "delegate" rather than a delegator -- one of your own precious GWB's appointees, in fact. He's one of those (shudder) smart thinkers that your president surrounds himself with. Why anyone would want a dumb president rather than a smart one is inconceivable to me....

I note also you've ignored my point about President Lincoln. Probably because you have no adequate rejoinder.

Don't worry, LC, there's no shame in conceding when you're so clearly wrong.

The Law Fairy said...

gino, that's an interesting twist on things. You may be right to some extent, insofar as you're correct that Democrats are racist. But that's not remarkable. All Americans are racist, including you and me.

The problem is that your point loses its punch when you think about how profoundly cynical and disingenuous it is. Namely, Republicans would not a million years put up a black person as their candidate, because when it comes to racism they're definitely the more guilty party. Can we point to the Democrats as racists? Sure, but what's the point? They are, but, again, not remarkably so. At least they actually pay more than lip service to equality, even if they do so extremely imperfectly and unevenly (because they're politicians, who fall a few notches below pond scum).

Republicans only yell "racism" on the occasion the other side demonstrates it, while ignoring the massive weight of racism weighing down their end of things. I think that's pretty much the definition of hypocrisy. Republicans don't get to yell "racist" until they clean up themselves.

And, to be clear, I know you're not a Republican, gino; what I don't know is why on earth you're taking their side on this one.

Gino said...

i think lincoln was a shitty president.
and, for your info, he didnt want to free the slaves. it was a political ploy to prevent foriegn nations from aiding the south by giving his war an air of moral legitimacy. high school history 101.

Gino said...

"Namely, Republicans would not a million years put up a black person as their candidate":
colin powell.
it was his for the asking, he turned it down.
right now, i believe condi could have it if she ran. if not, it would be damn close based on her war record

Gino said...

as per your question: all liberals suck, but i think the best choice, and most qualified by any measure you can think of for the democrats, is richardson.
he would beat anybody the GOP puts up.

Gino said...

if anybody needs to know:
i really do like law fairy.

The Law Fairy said...

lol, gino.

Why, do your readers have something against liking people who aren't lockstep conservatives?

As for Lincoln, your assertion is arguable. He was a proponent for freedom long before he ran for president. And, frankly, I'd rather have someone find it politically expedient to be on the side of the good, rather than consistently fall on the side of hate.

I will admit, you're the first conservative I've ever heard who said he didn't like Lincoln. Do you, like LC, think he was "unqualified," or just not a great president?

The Law Fairy said...

Okay, I just re-read your post, and I'm nervous now.

Never in recent history has a few terms in the Illinois statehouse been seen as bonafide certification of a Statesman. The last time we had one of these, millions of Americans started killing each other in human waves to save a presidency and prevent democracy and self-determination.

Please tell me you have never used the phrase "War of Northern Aggression." Please please please...

little-cicero said...

Law Fairy, I simply missed your point about Lincoln. To answer that question, Lincoln clearly did not have sufficient credentials, he got in because he had the right position on issues and the right socioeconomic history. You're right, he turned out to be a great President, but not by any means due to delegation- it was due to just the opposite. It was his stubbornness- it was simply the fact that he didn't yield to the south. As we see with his dealings with Generals (McClellan), Cabinet (Stanton) and Congress (Charging protesting Congressman for treason) he was not a good delegator. He would not have been a great president without his show of stubborness in the war (And no, I am not looking up my "rejoinder" on Wikipedia)

On the issue of race, I believe I'm somewhat in agreement with you. I know that color-blindness is a pipe dream, but I also believe that in the sense that we should NOT take race into account in hiring employees and politicians, such colorblindness as that is crucial to our republic. If you look at Reconstruction you'll find a great number of Black Congressmen elected all at once BECAUSE they were black- but as intelligent as these Phoenixes of the South were, they were ineffective and corrupt by and large. When you lean towards voting for someone because they're of a certain color or sex, you are undermining democracy.

Colon Powell was a general and top diplomat- that makes him a delegator. The specific examples of delegators are not restrictive- the qualifications I layed out were comprehensive in the most general sense: Delegating experience qualifies one for the Presidency.

As far as being a racist, I have called myself a racist as well, but only with the attachment of context and definition for my meaning. If racism is acknowledgement of race and subsequent prejudices associated with races, then of course I'm a racist. If racism is having rational and emotional thought dominated by opinions of races, I am not a racist.

P.S. Your last two comments make you look like an ass. Knowing that you are not an ass, I ask that you reconsider the way you present yourself.

Gino said...

LF, cruise my roll. there are some conservatives, but none lockstep. there are also libertarians and liberals. and the first one on this thread to call me out was a GOPer.

i posted that because you and i tend to get spirited, and for the record, i want those who dont know you to understand we are not enemies.

and yes: the war of northern agression is appropriate, and i do use it. often. and i'm not a southerner. my roots, in this country,are 100% land of lincoln.

The Law Fairy said...

Your last two comments make you look like an ass. Knowing that you are not an ass, I ask that you reconsider the way you present yourself.

Oh brother. Think what you want, LC. I'm not kowtowing to your impression of me, however bizarre and unjustified it is. I'm under no obligation to make myself look like anything to you. You think I look like an ass, fine. I'm in a shit mood today so, frankly, I don't give a fuck if you think I'm Satan. Satan, by the way, is a pretty smart guy and I'm feeling just ornery enough to take it as a compliment.

gino, gotcha on the spirited point, fair enough.

As for the war, that one gets a great big unhappy sigh.

Do you think we're at all justified in being in Iraq? How about our involvement in WWII? Hell, the Revolutionary War?

You honestly don't think that freedom is a cause worth fighting for, even if that fighting is arguably undemocratic? (It wasn't, by the way, since a minority of states wanted to keep owning other people as property).

Gino said...

if you believe freedom, somebody else's, is worth fighting for, then you must support the war in Iraq,right?
it has more legality than lincoln's war did.

the secession states where no longer states, but a separate union.

The Law Fairy said...

If the secession states constituted a legitimate separate government (chortle), then how on earth was Iraq more legitimate?

The south refused to accept the fact that slavery was slowly becoming illegal, and it caused a war that needlessly ended lives. On the flip side, this did have the effect of getting rid of slavery lots quicker than we probably would've done it on our own. The war was not one of northern agression; it was one of southern illegality, stubbornness, and idiocy. When the Constitution was first adopted, the south knew that its days of OWNING PEOPLE were numbered. It refused to accept even a slow dying out of evil, and it suffered the consequences.

The north's fight with them was a hundred times different from Iraq. We had an actual legitimate interest in what was going on in the south -- our own citizens were subjugating other persons who were, essentially, citizens or quasi-citizens (in the minds of those alive at the time). Conversely, we're in Iraq for oil. Bush pretended we were going there for WMDs, which were never found and are now widely believed to never have existed. Bush tries to hold up the charade by weakly using the ex post rationale of "freedom for the Iraqis," but anyone with a memory of more than five minutes knows he's full of shit. He was full of shit then, and he's full of shit now.

We're in Iraq for oil, which is even worse when you consider that our shameless raping of the earth's natural resources is going to hasten our demise. But, then, perhaps that's wholly appropriate to make way for a (hopefully) morally superior species. And by "morally superior species" I mean a species with a modicum of foresight, wisdom, and compassion.

(Did I make my comment sound as radical as yours?)

Gino said...

yes, but there are holes in your reasoning.
i'll start another post about the bad/illegitimate reasoning behind the WONA maybe this weekend.

kr said...

Late to the fray, but if anyone is still checking in:

LC, you are (here, in this string) ridiculous. I am not sure how well your points were supported in your head, but they were not well supported in your text, good grief. LF was coherent (and not ridiculous except when she declared that she was trying to be). And WHAT THE HELL is with thinking she is a man????? Icon aside (DUH), did you miss the whole hullaballoo at Andy's when she and Gino got themselves sorted out?? And every specifically-feminist thing she has ever posted (which is nearly everything she has ever posted)?? YAR! Yet again, someone shows intelligence and you assume they are a man! Give over! Come on!

And DON'T tell me this is another of your obscure jokes. It is not funny. Gino could have made it funny; he's better rounded. You have too much recent directly sexist history.

Condi totally has a chance. There are lots of GOP, I think, who want the opportunity to prove at the highest Executive level (as opposed to just repeatedly at the Cabinet level, or in the Judiciary--LF, I think you are overzealous writing the GOP off on this one) they are not sexist racist pigs. I am not GOP (dropped it at age 19, when I met the Young Republicans at my college--eeewwwww), but this is the sense I have from conservatives I know.

Condi scares the crap out of me, for reasons completely unrelated to politics or race or sex, and I have NO desire to see the race come down to Hillary (whom I don't trust) and Condi ... but it seems a reasonable possibility that it will. Brinksmanship between the parties on the -isms, with the GOP currently in the fore because their potential candidate is "black" and a woman. (I quote "black" because I am not sure what Condi's actual background is and I don't think it should matter too much. The argument between slave-descended and Africa-descended makes some sense, culturally and socially. The argument between "black" and "white" ... ???? Grr.)

I for one am totally willing to listen to Obama if he figures out what he wants to say--he does need to step up to the leadership plate, I agree with LC that far. I surely prefer a candidate with fewer sellouts under his/her belt--the fewer corporations to whom Obama is indebted/whose management he is buddy-buddy with, the better. Maybe he'll actually post some of his own ideas (is it possible??) instead of prechewed pap.

Experience actually matters less to me than compromised character and affiliations--I haven't seen those netting us any good candidates lately. Who truly wanted to vote for either Presidential candidate last time??? Yuck.

Definitely a wait-and-see. It's very early in the game.

Obama's ears: Bush has satellite dish ears, too, which are noted in all political cartoons, and Ross Perot certainly also suffered in the media for his. Ears grow larger as we age, more for men than women. Is this some instinctual male-agism thing? Secondly, while we live in a media age and looks do matter (yes, domestically and internationally), shouldn't they be one of the LAST things we worry about at this point? Deficit, war, environmental degradation ... probably an eensy bit more important than skin color or ear size, just right now. But maybe that's just me.

Gino said...

bush does not have satalite dish ears. he has dr spock ears.

but is nice to see, as per ears, that you do point out an inherant difference tween the sexes.
i cant be social-gender conditioning,or can it?

kr said...


I never said there aren't inherent differences.

Just that I think a lot of things society perceives/teaches as inherent x/y chromosome-determined differences aren't, or are way less (if you'll forgive the phrase ;) ) "black and white" than commonly held.

TTYL :).