Would it be bad for me to support Obama because he seems non-awful and having a Black President would be good for race relations (itself an important goal)?
Or is my premise wrong, and having him wouldn’t be good for race relations?
Or is it just wrong?
You don’t have to answer. This is an open thread.
On Obama, let me endorse the Poor Man Institute’s position, though I hope that the poor man is wrong.
Can we put a finger on someone who is not currently running for President that a majority of ObWi could vote for (not counting front page posters and regular commenters)? Or, if that’s too much, a majority of ObWi could live with if the opposition party (beit D or R) won?
No one springs immediately to mind. Patrick Fitzgerald, perhaps? –
I really hate to say it but I suspect that, in the short term, electing Obama would be bad for race relations. Think of the unrelenting attacks directed at Bill Clinton starting before he was inaugerated and multiply by 10. That’s what would happen. There would be more people pasting “Not My President” bumper stickers on their cars, and very many more really meaning it. I think Obama in the white house would do for race relations in the US what busing did for race relations in Boston.
Would it be bad for me to support Obama because he seems non-awful and having a Black President would be good for race relations (itself an important goal)?
doesn’t sound bad to me. but i was fired from my ethicist job for stealing lunches from the breakroom fridge.
would President Clinton II be good for ‘gender relations’ ? or is Hillary worse than “non-awful” ?
my list looks like this:
Obama
Edwards
Clinton
[all the other Dems, by BMI]
Three things.
1. One of the best things about the fact that Obama is running is that the fact that he is black doesn’t really have much to do with it.
2. If you like Obama, vote for him. Leave the fact that he’s black out of it.
3. Obama is highly likely never to be President, solely because he’s black.
Welcome to America.
Thanks –
I think we’ll discover if the Poor Man has a point come the primaries. I don’t think he is, but that’s when we’ll figure out whether or not white people feel uncomfortable voting for a black one for President.
I think it more likely that white voters will be more comfortable voting for Barack Obama as the number 2 person on the ticket than the number 1, because they’ll tell themselves that they’re doing it because he’s not experienced enough to be President, and if that happens, and he’s an incumbent VP in 2016, he’ll likely win overall.
To answer your question, though–no, it would not be a bad thing to support Obama for that reason. It’s a better reason than most people have for supporting their candidates.
I really like Obama and believe he’d be a good president. And I’d like to believe that this country could elect a black president. When I first heard about Colin Powell’s wife’s being worried that he’d be assasinated should he be nominated, I almost couldn’t believe it. I was a lot younger then, and hadn’t really discovered the internet. I do think it would mean something if Obama won.
Looking at my comment above, I felt I should make sure everyone understands how sad that assessment makes me. It is long past time that candidates for president should be judged by the contents of their mind and heart not the color of their skin.
Given even half a change, I think Obama would do a very good job as president.
I really hate to say it but I suspect that, in the short term, electing Obama would be bad for race relations.
That’s possible, but it’s going to happen eventually. Racists aren’t shut up by people asking them politely to do so–they’re shut up when people get in their face and throw their crap back at them.
Can we put a finger on someone who is not currently running for President that a majority of ObWi could vote for
Russ Feingold
Seb: I think he’d be good for race relations. I also think he’d be a good President.
I think he would get racist attacks, but I feel pretty confident that he’d know how to deal with them in a way that made people like him more, and the attackers less. I think, for that reason, that he would work to make racism more marginalized and unacceptable than it is, which would be an unmitigated good.
Personally, I also think he’d be a good President. And I do not mean to slight race relations when I say: that matters more to me. We so badly need a very good President round about now.
“Can we put a finger on someone who is not currently running for President that a majority of ObWi could vote for (not counting front page posters and regular commenters)?”
George Washington? (Of course, he was a slave owner.)
Lincoln? Libertarians might peel off.
Teddy Roosevelt? Too imperialist for us on the left.
I nominate the slab from 2001. Everyone can project their own ideas onto it.
“I think Obama in the white house would do for race relations in the US what busing did for race relations in Boston.”
Since dark-skinned folk have put up with pale presidents for two centuries, proably we can get through that, even assuming your projection is correct, which I’m fairly dubious about.
I think he’d be good for race relations, assuming the post-Bush situation can be dealt with by competence and not divine intervention – but I think he’d be great as an example for young people of all backgrounds.
For what it’s worth, “what busing did for race relations in Boston” was to shock an awful lot of people, with the result that the next time a similar situation arose — integrating public housing — everyone made very, very, very sure to do it right. Short-term ugly, but I think long-term progress.
I do not think that Obama would have anything like the same short-term-ugly effect. I do think he would draw some racists out of the woodwork, but I suspect in a way that would produce results more like what Oklahoma City did for the militia movement, only (I hope) without the dead people.
I think that it is to Obama’s advantage that he is black. The MSM talking heads and pundits are so afraid of being perceived as racist that he doesn’t get anywhere near the trivialization that Edwards is subjected to or the hint, hint, wink, wink sneering that HRC gets. CNN and ABC actually defended him against Fox, for example.
Sure the racists will come crawling out of the woodwork, but I think Americans are ready to elect a black President.
You’re talking about the slab, right, rilkefan?
(I’m actually, as I declared some months ago, for Obama; then Edwards; probably then Richardson; if Clinton is the nominee, I will work for her, but I won’t help to get her the nomination, not that my “help” is apt to be swinging too many precincts. If Gore gets in, I’d support him, but only if Obama couldn’t get the nomination. These opinions are subject to change, of course.)
Richard Clarke? Wesley Clark? Kathleen Sibelius?
“You’re talking about the slab”
?
I meant mostly that it would be good for young Americans to grow up with an African-American president as a normal situation.
It seems to me that people with strong preferences among the leading Democratic candidates are probably engaging in wishful thinking.
I’ve been working on my tan, and I’m eligible. I wonder…
That monolith was too interventionist for my tastes, Gary. Giving one tribe of man-apes antelope bone weaponry to use against the tribe across the creek just smacks too much of our old habit of arming dubious characters to fight our wars by proxy.
I nominate the slab from 2001.
I’m sorry, I’ve already given money to the PAC of the Inanimate Carbon Rod, which has the valuable experience of having won Worker of the Week.
Oh, that slab. I don’t think of it as a slab given its dimensions.
I don’t get the whole “some people will never vote for a black guy, therefore Obama can’t win” thing.
Aren’t the people who will never vote for a black guy basically the same people who will never vote for any Democrat?
Tom: possibly a subset; probably not identical.
“Would it be bad for me to support Obama because he seems non-awful and having a Black President would be good for race relations (itself an important goal)?”
I think it would also be good for relations with the Muslims who haven’t yet resolved to strap C4 around themselves.
You could hardly ask for a better candidate to begin undoing the grievous damage the Bush administration has done to our global reputation.
Maybe nothing would come of it. But I can’t help thinking a guy with his name, and his background, is going to find the Muslim world far more receptive than, say, Fred Thompson would.
Tom: possibly a subset; probably not identical.
Certainly not identical.
If you’re opinion of Obama is that he’s “non-awful”, I don’t think you should support him beyond voting for him against somebody worse. I think support should be reserved for those you, well, want to support. I think it’s reasonable to consider the effects of a particular candidate on race relations in picking who you choose but I can’t see it as such a big deal as to convert somebody mediocre into somebody good. There’s far too much more a President needs to do.
Personally, I love Obama for his ability to unify. But Edwards is great for his willingness to stick his head out on important things that seem bold politically even though they’re widely supported, like universal health care. We have a nice choice on the Dem side.
Re Feingold – I love him, most liberals love him, but I thought he was pretty unpopular with conservatives. He might get a majority on ObWi because liberals seem to be in the majority here, but that’s not what I interpreted the question being about. I thought the idea was more about somebody who could get either crossover support or at least broad respect from the other side. Does Feingold actually get that?
I think Muslim’s would find Obama to be an apostate, who rejected Islam. That is a stoning death, at least in Afghanistan.
So he may better understand Islam, but I am not sure it would help our relations.
The fact is, nobody can answer. The proper answer would be, X% chance it would be a disaster, Y% chance it would be great.
I don’t think it is difficult to imagine that there would be a pretty good chance that it would … almost deliver us on the subject of race in general. If Obama became president, governed wisely — it could be huge. There would be really no corner that blacks wouldn’t be able to go. And while there would always be clannish stirrings, I think there’s a decent chance that we would more or less put race behind us as a festering national concern.
Okay, assuming for the sake of argument that there are some voters who would vote for a Democrat but never for a black guy, the question then is: Which states would Obama be unable to win in a general election that another Democrat could win?
I gotta say, though, I’m still a bit skeptical about the view that committed anti-black voters aren’t also committed anti-Democrats. But maybe I have an insufficiently complex understanding of how racism works.
The US is regarded by many countries as being as racist society. I think this is wildly unfair for a host of reasons. Still, our electing a black president would certainly make a lot of overseas critics reevaluate their received narratives about us. We have a LONG ways to go in making our traditional allies believe that we’re not a nation of lunatics, btw.
jrudkis: I think you’re being a bit sweeping in your characterization of “Muslims” as favoring stoning people to death for changing religions, especially Obama who was never actually a Muslim in the first place.
There are way too many people in the world who call themselves Muslims and think their religion demands murder and terrorism. I don’t mean to turn a blind eye to that. But I think we’re better off with a higher standard of discourse that acknowledges the existence of many quiet, ordinary, non-evil Muslims.
I think there are a lot of lower middle class white voters and union voters who will vote democratic, but not for blacks. There is a lot of hostility in that community to affirmative action and still concern about having their neighborhoods “turn,” impacting home values. Essentially the same people who are anti-immigration, but vote democratic for other reasons, such as support for unions.
It is the part of the society that feels it pays the price for correcting past injustice, while the upper middle class have little to be concerned about.
Tom, I did say in Afghanstan, because that is where we had the incident a couple years ago where the guy was convicted of apostacy. I recognize that the majority of muslims would not favor stoning him any more than the majority of christians favor stoning gays. But I also think that most devout people of any religion find it difficult to understand someone who was born into their religion and rejected it in favor of another.
In Islam, you are born to your father’s religion, and you can not convert. While Obama’s father was apparently not especially devout, I don’t think that gives him a pass, since he was exposed to the “truth.”
Which states would Obama be unable to win in a general election that another Democrat could win?
West Virginia. Possibly Missouri.
Virginia is trending more and more Democratic, and has a shot at going Democratic for the first time since LBJ. But because it’s still such a slim chance, I have a hard time imagining it happening with a Clinton/Obama or an Obama/anyone ticket.
But, hey — maybe the national mood will be so Democratic that any of the top three could carry my state.
In Islam, you are born to your father’s religion, and you can not convert. While Obama’s father was apparently not especially devout, I don’t think that gives him a pass, since he was exposed to the “truth.”
“Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will…”
And, of course, never in the long history of the human species has a son gone against his father’s or the establishment’s wishes.
Lots of sons go against their father’s wishes, and society. But they are often not seen favorably by the traditional society that they reject.
True enough.
“Lots of sons go against their father’s wishes, and society. But they are often not seen favorably by the traditional society that they reject.”
I’m not sure how you’d pin down the ‘traditional society’ that was supposedly rejected. Hawaiian? Indonesian? White? Black? Christian? Muslim?
“If you’re opinion of Obama is that he’s “non-awful”, I don’t think you should support him beyond voting for him against somebody worse. I think support should be reserved for those you, well, want to support. I think it’s reasonable to consider the effects of a particular candidate on race relations in picking who you choose but I can’t see it as such a big deal as to convert somebody mediocre into somebody good. There’s far too much more a President needs to do.”
Sure, but I’m not enthused about any of the current contenders, so “non-awful” is near the top of the heap. 🙂
Gotta agree with you, Sebastian. What if “non-awful” is As Good As It Gets?
I’d feel a lot better about throwing in for Obama if he wasn’t trying to out-God the entire GOP slate. Boy, do I hate the influence of religion on politics. Right now, my preferred candidate of the declared candidates is Edwards, for reasons noted above by Curt.
Boy, do I hate the influence of religion on politics.
I think your hate is a tad overbroad. Do you hate anti-gay bigotry, hypocritical efforts to restrict women’s sexual autonomy, and campaigns to teach kids pseudoscience in schools? If so, I agree with you. But show me where Obama has supported any of those things, or where his Christianity has otherwise caused him to support any bad policies.
If you just hate any use of religious language in politics, I think you’re wrong. Religion helps a lot of people to find meaning in life, and to be happier and more ethical. I don’t want a political culture in which something so closely tied to many people’s understanding of what life is about can’t be discussed openly.
“I don’t want a political culture in which something so closely tied to many people’s understanding of what life is about can’t be discussed openly.”
I long for the day when we can say the same thing about a major candidate’s atheism.
I long for the day when we can say the same thing about a major candidate’s atheism.
hear hear.
Religion helps a lot of people to find meaning in life, and to be happier and more ethical.
so does marijuana.
On race relations, it will certainly be a factor and it is already in this thread (well, that was kind of the topic).
I have to think twice even now about stating: I think Obama is too young and inexperienced to be a good president.
Will people accept that at face value? Or will they interpret it as a cover for racism, possibly even unconscious racism just because it comes from a white Republican?
In my case, I can point to my support of Michael Steele and the fact that I never really turned against him at all, rather I turned against the party. Others I think will walk on eggshells just to avoid the possible charges of racism.
Will people accept that at face value?
i did.
OCSteve: I think that when you have established your good faith, as you have here, people will accept it. It’s mostly an issue among strangers, unless of course the person doing the talking really is (or might reasonably be taken to be) a racist, or what s/he says is a lot more suggestive of racism than the example you gave, or the people s/he is talking to are jerks.
I tend to regard this as the unfortunate price we all have to pay for the fact that blacks have very good reason to suspect the existence of racist motives. And since for so long the onus was placed on blacks to avoid impinging in the slightest teensy degree on white fears, I don’t feel very much like complaining about this. Trying to make sure that what I say not only isn’t racist, but isn’t easy to misconstrue as racist, seems more like an opportunity to understand what that level of verbal self-monitoring had to be like; and the stakes are a lot lower for me than they were for, say, Emmett Till.
It’s also a constant reminder that what our forbears did affects us, and what we do will affect our descendants, and so we had better do things right. Or so it seems to me, since taking it as a sort of civics lesson beats any of the alternative ways of regarding it, as far as I’m concerned.
OCSteve, I echo the previous commenst.
I think that the issues you raise are legitimate to look at and dissect, apart from any racial undertones. So you don’t need to put out other arguments for us to know you are not racist.
And those two issues are worth discussing.
Age may or may not be important. Experience is, but then one has to look at what type of experience is important. Obviously the current President had little to no successful experience, adn I am including the Goevernorship in that.
But then you include the “good President” qualifier so I guess we shouldn’t use him.
I am still undecided about Obama. Yes his experience is limited form a professional point of view, but from a life experience point of view, he has had many rich experiences.
Probably the most experienced of the Dem candidates, in fact of all candidates on either side is Richardson and I am looking closely at him.
On Obama’s side is an obvious desire to understand and learn about the world. He has made major efforts to make sure he doesn’t live in an echo chamber. And I trust him to make sure that he has real honest-to-goodness qualified people around him. Plus, and I think this is terribly important in the current state of our nation, he has tremendous oratorical skills that seem to address everyone, without demonizing those who don’t agree with him.
To address the race relations issue, I think, if he were nominated, and even more so if he were elected, what racism currently exists (and which much of the country is in denial about) will come to the fore, and may be able to be addressed more effectively.
All I know is that, contra incertus, they better not make Obama the vice president. Because then Chris Rock will kill the president.
Hilzoy: I think that when you have established your good faith, as you have here, people will accept it.
Very true, and I should have mentioned that I would not personally consider it an issue commenting here. If however I decided to comment on say Greenwald’s site (now that would be a strange day) I would have no such credentials.
and what we do will affect our descendants, and so we had better do things right.
Boy are they hosed…
“Sure, but I’m not enthused about any of the current contenders, so “non-awful” is near the top of the heap. :)”
LOL.
Seriously, in that case, I think you’d be happier focusing on a race where you actually *liked* some of the candidates. Although I can see how a “sane conservative” might have a hard time finding any politician to support in the current environment. In that case supporting a candidate like whose presidency might have high symbolic value makes a lot of sense. There’s an added advantage in that Obama is more likely to shake up politics than any of the other major candidates (by defusing both anti-black and anti-religious memes) and that’s a good thing for somebody profoundly disappointed with the current state of politics.
All I know is that, contra incertus, they better not make Obama the vice president. Because then Chris Rock will kill the president.
I was wondering if someone would take the bait. I’m a little sad it took so long. 🙂
I’ve actually used a lot more mj than religion, over the course of my life, and I have to say that while I personally prefer the former, I’d say that: a) both can be used well or badly; and b) the latter has a vastly larger potential for both good and evil than the former.
I agree with this:
And I agree with this:
I see no contradiction whatever. I don’t think religion is evil; I do see it used for evil in various ways, quite a bit, but also for good — no matter that I’m an atheist. (And it’s hardly a requirement to believe in God to be religiously inclined in some manner; ask any Buddhist, or even any Reform Jew, or Unitarian.)
One shouldn’t confuse all things religious together into one amphorous, homogenous, lump.
If Obama says something regarding religion you don’t like: fine, object to it. Ditto if you think he’s being insincere. Objecting to any and all references to religion? That’s moving into the territory of just being cranky and intolerant.
“I have to think twice even now about stating: I think Obama is too young and inexperienced to be a good president.”
I don’t think there’s any reason to assume there’s anything racist about that.
I do think it’s entirely wrong, though. He’s spent eight years being a leader in the State Senate. I suspect you’ve not read about his accomplishments there, and I urge you to do so. (I don’t imagine you’ll find anything positive in his years as an organizer, but some of us take a lot away from that — as I said, I wouldn’t really expect someone approaching rightwards to really get that, though.)
Obama was born on August 4, 1961, and will be 47 on Election Day and Inaugeration Day; how is that too young? JFK was 43 when he took office. Theodore Roosevelt was 42. Bill Clinton, 46. Ulysses S. Grant, 46. (And several undistinguished presidents were also younger than Obama, but I’m not confident throwing Fillmore and Garfield and the like out there will help my case. ;-))
David Cameron, current leader of the British Conservative Party is 40. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, Just turned 46.
Obama is the first presidential candidate younger than me that I support. But that’s because I’m aging, not because we’ve suddenly started lowering the age of Presidents. I’m not sure exactly how old you are, OCSteve, but if Obama looks young to you, that’s — no offense intended, guy — more about me and you getting older, rather than that he’s in danger of not making the age 35 requirement.
“if he wasn’t trying to out-God the entire GOP slate”
Same here. E.g., when he began his campaign with “All honor and glory to God” full stop I winced.
I have been a bit disconcerted by finding myself older than my mayor for the first time, but it’ll be a while still before I’m older than the president, even if Obama is elected.
Gary,
I don’t disagree with your point, but “And several undistinguished presidents were also younger than Obama, but I’m not confident throwing Fillmore and Garfield and the like out there will help my case” is not correct. Fillmore was 48 when he was elected VP, so you may as well complain about Nixon (who was far younger in 1952) as Fillmore. Both Fillmore and Garfield did not become President until they were 49, and both had far longer elective careers in Washington than Obama will have by 2008.
“…is not correct”
You’re correct; I meant to say “were under 50,” not “younger than Obama.”
“…and both had far longer elective careers in Washington than Obama will have by 2008.”
How long was Lincoln’s elective career in Washington before becoming President, again?
“How long was Lincoln’s elective career in Washington before becoming President”
So you’re saying that Lincoln was a generic guy useful in making this comparison?
“So you’re saying that Lincoln was a generic guy useful in making this comparison?”
No, I’m saying that Lincoln was a guy useful in making this comparison. He wasn’t a god; he was just another flawed guy.
If experience in Washington is the primary criterion we should use, let’s nominate Robert Byrd. Or try Ted Kennedy again.
Since it’s a “mostly open thread”: Libby Sentenced to 30 Months in Prison, Fined $250K.
By that logic, I can plan for Rilkekind’s first published piano concerto in a few years since Mozart, another flawed guy, managed the trick.
It’s a criterion – if anybody is using it as their _primary_ or really only one, then maybe you have a point, but I still don’t think Lincoln’s example is useful.
“‘Evidence in this case overwhelmingly indicated Mr. Libby’s culpability,’ U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said moments before he handed out the sentence.”
Damn liberal judges. If only that damn liberal President… er, George W. Bush hadn’t appointed him. In 2001.
“If Obama says something regarding religion you don’t like: fine, object to it. Ditto if you think he’s being insincere. Objecting to any and all references to religion? That’s moving into the territory of just being cranky and intolerant.”
I don’t mean to exaggerate this into some sort of epochal conflict; the last thing I want to do is to set off a flame war, or be disrespectful to someone’s faith, or anything of the sort. Moreover, this certainly isn’t the sort of thing that would tilt me against a candidate, at least not on its own (I have plenty of reasons to dislike John Ashcroft, but his religion is neither here nor there). All that said…
The problem is that so much religious language seems very universal. For example, from the Sojourner forum, comes this from Senator Clinton: “I’ve had a grounding in faith that gave me the courage and the strength to do what I thought was right, regardless of what the world thought” (this statement is largely representative of any of the candidates at the forum). Now, unpack this a little. What does this say, by implication, about people who don’t have a grounding in faith? That we will refuse to take unpopular opinions, even at the cost of doing wrong? Now, if you asked Senator Clinton, she would almost certainly sincerely deny that she meant any such thing; that she never intended to slur the irreligious. But in fact her language implicitly blesses those who do believe such things (about 53% of Americans would refuse to vote for an atheist President). Until religious language loses its implicit claims to be the only way to be a good person or what have you, then I’ll continue to be uncomfortable with it. Even though I can’t find a candidate who shuns it entirely (see the poll #s above), the more it’s kept out of the campaign, the happier I’ll be, because I see it as an attempt, however unconscious, to exclude me and mine from the political process, and indeed any definition of virtue.
“It’s a criterion – if anybody is using it as their _primary_ or really only one, then maybe you have a point, but I still don’t think Lincoln’s example is useful.”
Why? Because people shouldn’t have voted for Lincoln, given how little Washington experience he had? (One 2-year House term, if anyone doesn’t know.)
Or because Lincoln is some special god-like figure, and in fact is so god-like that we can’t reasonably compare mere human beings to him?
How about just making the case that it’s crucial to have some specific set of Washington experience with a minimum amount of time required, to be President, if that’s your belief? Or if that isn’t the suggestion being made, than what is?
I’m entirely comfortable with what Obama did in eight years in office, being a leader, myself, on top of his past life; the extra years in Washington are just gravy. I don’t hold the notion, myself, that, say, Fred Thompson’s Experience, or Newt Gingrich’s, or, for that matter, Joe Biden’s, makes him more qualified. YMMV.
“Why? Because people shouldn’t have voted for Lincoln, given how little Washington experience he had?”
You’ve got an anecdote here, not data.
“How about just making the case that it’s crucial to have some specific set of Washington experience with a minimum amount of time required, to be President, if that’s your belief?”
Straw. Read what I wrote.
Fred Thompson’s Experience
now there’s a band i’d try to avoid seeing.
You can always count on me in such matters, I.
Rilkefan wrote: Straw.”
I wrote: “Or if that isn’t the suggestion being made, than what is?”
Rilkefan wrote: “Read what I wrote.”
I did. You “still don’t think Lincoln’s example is useful.”
This may not be as comprehensive an outline of your thinking as you consider it to be. At least, it’s possible you may over-estimate how much it communicates to someone unfamiliar with your thinking. Thus my query.
Weird how contradictory conventional wisdoms can be.
It used to be that Senators were considered to be bad candidates because they had too much Washingtn experience. Now Obama, a Senator, is dismissed as having too little!
Oh well. In my opinionn, in terms of whhat thhey would do as President, all of thhe Democrats (except Bidenn) are acceptable. They all believe inn the rule of law. They would all appoint responsible, competent people to government offices. They would all nominnate someone mainstream to thhe Supreme Court. They thhink global warming is a problem. None of thhem will attack Iran.
So thhe diifferennce that matters is which one would be easist to elect.
There’s lots of poll data on this annd thhe consistannt result is: not HRC.
So, against thhat back grouund, I pick Obama because he is electable, because poll data shows that hhe appeals to new voters and independents, because his background, experiences, name and color will help heal our relationships with other countries, and because I think it wouuld be very cool to have a black President.
Also I want to witness the wingnut reaction to a President named “Obama.” Hee hee.
how is that too young?
Actually, I was simply using it as an example of something completely race neutral that I might say where others might look for hidden racism because of who I am.
But on the specifics: Age is less important to me than experience. Seven years in the Illinois State Senate and one term in the US Senate, much of which has been campaigning, is to me not great experience to run the country. Not even close. A couple of terms as a Governor is much preferable IMO.
Gary, I’m making two points – first, that you’re presenting the experience issue in a uselessly b&w way which “Look at Lincoln!” therefore doesn’t help, and second, that anyone with your straw view could quite reasonably say “That was 150 years ago and the situation isn’t comparable”, or “Lincoln was an extraordinary person and doesn’t prove the rule”, or “an anecdote isn’t data”.
A couple of terms as a Governor is much preferable IMO.
I think Bush’s record has pretty well torpedo’d the conventional wisdom that being a Governor made one a better-qualififed candidate for President. Senators might considered just as qualified now.
“I think Bush’s record has pretty well torpedo’d the conventional wisdom that being a Governor made one a better-qualififed candidate for President.”
The counter-argument was that Texas has a weak governership – and OCS did say “couple of terms”.
I can imagine I would agree that Clinton’s lack of Washington experience hurt him at first if I remembered things more clearly. [I mean, beyond Broder and it being his town.]
Except that what I wrote was:
Subsequent to that, and further discussion, Dantheman wrote:
And I responded:
This is not, it turns out, “presenting the experience issue in a uselessly b&w way,” and neither is it a single anecdote.
“Subsequent to that, and further discussion”
I can’t do anything about causality, sorry. And note that age is not experience. And the stuff I labeled as “straw” clearly was.
The leading Democrats and faith – consider the source, but oy.
another oy: watch this, from today Senate hearings. Leahy looks like he wants to send Schlozman to his room without supper.
My point having been mostly hashed out in my absence, I’ll just say, for the most part, “What Dan Miller said above.” Here’s the thing: If there’s something this “God” person wants for the United States — and there’s lots of different candidates claiming he wants all sorts of things — he’s welcome to haul his divine ass down to the polling place on election day and cast his ballot just like everyone else. Otherwise, I ain’t interested.
Libby Sentenced to 30 Months in Prison, Fined $250K
Count me out of that thread when it appears. Not. Gonna. Do. It.
Is that anything like my comment at 12:55 PM? 🙂
Not. Gonna. Do. It.
There’s always that other site, OCS.
For OCS: Bill Kristol blasts Bush over Libby.
wow, Kristol really is a slimy little turd.
Katharine Q. Seelye is liveblogging the Republican debate (which, like all the debates so far, I can’t see, not having cable tv).
At one point:
Could we have the talking points about perjury, and underlying crimes, as they were in 1999, again, please?
here’s a little dialog Kristol had back in the day. in his four exchanges, see if you can find where he mentions Clinton’s “underlying crime”.
“Could we have the talking points about perjury, and underlying crimes, as they were in 1999, again, please?”
Apparently not.
Belated, I know, but: I appreciate the positive aspects of atheism and marijuana, and I agree that it would be good if those topics were as acceptable as (mainstream) religion in politicians’ speeches.
Dan Miller and Phil:
Until religious language loses its implicit claims to be the only way to be a good person or what have you, then I’ll continue to be uncomfortable with it.
I, too, find these implicit claims frustrating. For whatever it’s worth, I’m a religious person and I don’t think people have to be religious to be good.
It’s also worth noting that, whatever it might be thought to imply, nothing in Dan Miller’s HRC quote actually says that religion is necessary for goodness. She just says that religion helped her to be a better person, which may well be true.
I think Democrats are generally less likely than Republicans to believe that religion is necessary for goodness. Even though HRC, Obama, and Edwards all say they are believers (and I don’t question Obama’s or Edwards’ sincerity), they surely all have people they know and like who are atheist, agnostic, or just nominally religious – after all, they move in Democratic political circles. It would be hard for them to really truly believe that such people, as a category, lack goodness.
One last thing: IIRC, Obama was either agnostic or nominally religious when he was young. He only became a serious Christian at some point after he got out of law school. So it was an adult decision that he made, not a prejudice he was steeped in as a kid. His own personal experience presumably taught him that it wasn’t necessary to be religious in order to be a good person.
“in his four exchanges, see if you can find where he mentions Clinton’s ‘underlying crime’.”
He did say this:
In that case, the accused’s perjury and “stonewalling (or rather lying)” has “precluded or impeded” justice and this “perjury and obstruction of justice” is a “serious threat[s] to the constitutional order.”
In the other accused’s perjury, the stonewalling (or rather lying) has precluded or impeded justice and this perjury and obstruction of justice by a presidential aide: not so much any kinda threat to the constitutional order. At all.
It’s interesting to see Kristol so firmly on record that a president can’t be censured by Congress: the only choices are impeachment, or no criticism at all.
But last time, defenders of the defendant said “you’re unjustly prosecuting a guy because he shaded the truth about extra-marital sex, which isn’t a crime! There was no underlying crime!”
And the Republicans explained “it wasn’t the sex! It was the perjury! The lack of an underlying crime doesn’t matter! Perjury is just that terrible, and must be prosecuted, even though perjury is rarely prosecuted in civil suits!”
Now: underlying crimes are what matter! It’s not perjury without an underlying crime, and that was never proved! Perjury otherwise isn’t important enough anyone should be punished, and in fact the whole trial never should have happened!
Ah, well, we wouldn’t want any foolish consistency here.
In the post I just put up, I see your Slate and raise you. (I didn’t see that you all were collecting Kristol-isms until I was almost done.)
There’s always that other site, OCS.
True Ugh – but I daren’t go there without the time to invest in a 3-4 day long debate, which I don’t have right now.
I don’t get the whole “some people will never vote for a black guy, therefore Obama can’t win” thing.
Aren’t the people who will never vote for a black guy basically the same people who will never vote for any Democrat?
I think the issue is less that some number of folks will simply not vote for a black man, and more that the institutional forces whose support is needed to secure the nomination are very, very risk-averse.
After thinking about this, I’d like to retract my earlier statement. Obama’s been able to raise money, which is one of the key markers for potential electoral success. Maybe race is not the barrier it once was.
Personally, I think Obama’s a great candidate. I second John Miller’s comments about experience, and Gary’s about age. I also like Obama’s ability to hold pretty consistently to (IMO) positive center-liberal goals and values, but still be able to engage conservatives. He’s a guy who could make basic, pragmatic American liberalism mainstream again.
He also doesn’t take crap, which I think will be an absolutely essential attribute of any Democratic president for at least the next 20 years.
When Kennedy ran in ’60, many folks said he could never be elected because he was a Catholic. He defused that by presenting his Catholicism as a significant, but not defining, part of his character and persona.
Perhaps Obama can do the same with race in ’08. Maybe he’s the guy who make the fact of his race a non-issue. If so, that would be the single greatest contribution to race relations that I could imagine.
It would be great if we’ve come far enough for that to be possible.
Thanks –
CNN’s reporting that “several thousand” Turkish troops have crossed into Iraq, chasing Kurdish rebels.
And as if cleek’s news were not enough fun to brighten up your day, The Oil Drum is forecasting a liquified natural gas terminal and an oil terminal are likely to be out of production for several weeks due to Cyclone Gonu hitting Oman (and on its way to Iran). Say hello to $4/gallon gas.
Reading through the comments on the link I provided, it looks like around 720,000 barrels of oil per day pass through the terminal which has been shut down. Less than 1% of world supply, but given how tight the markets are, this is a Bad Thing.
It looks like one worry from Gonu is passing, as Weather Underground indicates that the cyclone dissipated quickly over the Gulf of Oman and struck Iran already, rather than going into the Strait of Hormuz and preventing Persian Gulf tankers from sailing for several days.