Two reasons:
1) From Obama’s point of view: There is no guarantee that it will unite the Democratic party, since those who were willing to support Clinton in the top slot might not do so with her in the second chair. There is a likelihood, however, that her presence could galvanize the GOP against her, which is exactly what Obama doesn’t want since McCain remains a candidate with soft support in the GOP. And it is problematic for Obama to sell himself as an agent of change when he’s got the symbol of Washington insider status quo as his running mate.
2) From Clinton’s point of view: According to the “West Wing” scenario, the young, vibrant, ethnic candidate chooses a Washington insider with close ties to a previous administration (and has one daughter) as his running mate who then dies on the eve of election. Why risk it?
PAD
• 
Well, I’m not American, so perhaps I can talk for the rest of the world a little.
The climate in almost all countries is of extreme happiness. Obama is loved by the rest of the world as few American politicians ever were. Hillary Clinton is seen with sympathy by most foreigners too (except perhaps in countries that are very anti-feminist, like Islamic ones).
Even John McCain is liked, or at worst, tolerated. Bush is so utterly hated in the rest of the world that the current candidates gain a lot of sympathy simply by not virtue of not being Bush, and despite McCain trying to appeal to Bush supporters, he isn’t seen as particularly Bush-like by most.
So, whoever wins the Presidency will have a huge amount of worldwide sympathy in the first months in office.
“Obama is loved by the rest of the world as few American politicians ever were.”
Umm.. I’d class that as a bit of an overstatement. He does, undoubtedly, score in the ‘anyone but Bush’ column, but that’s about as far as it goes. If Obama wins, he’ll probably get a few months to convince the world things have changed.
McCain loses points for being of the same party as Bush, and the general expectation is that if he wins it’ll be “Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss”.
Cheers.
Presumably Obama represents more to people around the world than just not being Bush. He is the son of an immigrant, from Africa. He has an african name. That probably is significant to people in 3rd world countries.
Why is it that so many otherwise intelligent people want a Democrat in the White House who is no better qualified for the post than George W Bush was?
On the other hand, Bush DID have one and a half terms as Governor of Texas (though as Molly Ivins continually tried warning people that post isn’t all that strong).
We’ve ALL seen (though some apparently ignored it) how PITIFUL Obama’s selection of friends and associates has been. Reverend Wright, his “spiritual advisor” and “mentor” OF 20 YEARS, turned out (after all) to be someone that Obama “didn’t know”. Tony Rezko at one time was a friend with whom Obama had a wonderful business relationship–well, until Rezko’s shadier dealings came out and he too turned into someone that Obama “didn’t know”. And then there’s Michelle. Ah, Michelle. The woman who, until 2008, wasn’t “proud of” her country (and what exactly made her FINALLY “proud of her country”?–her husband’s political good fortunes).
I’m confounded. Obama is the ultimate opportunist. This is a man who did EXACTLY what Hillary swore she WOULDN’T do in her first run for the Senate (and it really amazes me that many who have been so vile and venomous towards Hillary were among the loudest advocates to get her to run for President in 2004). Obama voted “present” hundreds of times in the Illinois Senate rather than take a principled stance. Obama has gone so far as to claim that on some issues he “accidentally” pressed the wrong button and he really meant to vote the other way. (Yeah, that makes me feel really safe knowing that HE might be in charge of THE button.) This is a man who, not so long ago, flat out stated he wouldn’t hesitate to bomb Pakistan (our erstwhile ally in the “war on terror”) in order to find Osama but that was just ignored by his fans–Hillary’s threat against Iran (which DID have preconditions) became “progressive” evidence of her saber-rattling and being too “dangerous”. Yeah. One candidate threatens an ally because he doesn’t think it’s doing enough and another candidate threatens an enemy if it attacks another country but only one of them is regarded as too bellicose.
As to those who’d like Edwards on the ticket, sorry, he didn’t give Kerry any help in 2004, and his late endorsement of Obama (conveniently timed to deflect the media from Obama’s massive loss in West Virginia; just imagine if Edwards had endorsed Hillary the day after Obama’s win in North Carolina–the media would’ve called it for exactly what it was) was a SELL-OUT. Obama’s health insurance plan should be called for exactly what it is–health insurance for children only (and I would like Obama to explain how he plans to do this without imposing the same type of mandates he accuses Hillary of wanting for ALL citizens).
I LOATHE Obama. I intend to vote for a third-party Presidential candidate this year and Democrats down-ticket. If McCain wins, the best way to keep him in check is with a strong Democratic Congress (instead of the rather namby-pamby one we’ve got now), but there’s been nothing about Obama that shows ME that he’s a real leader. I don’t want a Democrat who openly offers admiration for Ronald Reagan ON ANY MATTER. (Don’t forget: Obama admitted that he admires the Reagan foreign policy, in addition to Reagan’s personality. Yet Obama’s cult followers had no problem bringing up Hillary’s pre-college stance as a “Goldwater Girl” as somehow being proof that she’s not a real Democrat.)
If Obama becomes President, get ready for constant WORMs (“What Obama Really Meant”) playing out from his Press Secretary.
It usually takes intelligence to recognize intelligence. If stupidity could recognize intelligence, it would simply abstain from behavior that qualified it as stupidity.
Obama didn’t hire people to spread whisper-campaigns and coach him on acting stupid so a moderate performance debating Al Gore would resemble something like competence. He hijacked his party’s nomination from its inevitable candidate when even blacks were leaning toward Hillary 2-to-1 going into the almost all-white Iowa. He hammered her on her war-vote until she realized the advice she received to take every opportunity to change the subject was dead-wrong (she started her winning streak after she realized the vote to give Bush discretion to invade was what actually forced Saddam to allow weapon inspectors back in Iraq, she said so, and Obama backed off the issue). And when Hillary tried to take her 18 million supporters hostage for the vice presidency, Obama hired Caroline Kennedy to pick his vp, he wished her luck, and she took it and liked it.
What other eligible candidate has demonstrated that much wisdom?
JosephW: Why is it that so many otherwise intelligent people want a Democrat in the White House who is no better qualified for the post than George W Bush was?
Luigi Novi: How is Obama “no better qualified” than Bush? Bush is an anti-intellectual who lacks any intellectual curiosity, doesn’t like to read, bases appointment and foreign policy decisions on his personal religious ideas and cronyism, never made it a point to be informed on important matters, is completely out of touch with working Americans, and profoundly ignorant. Obama wrote two books. That’s about as many as Bush has read, if that.
JosephW: We’ve ALL seen (though some apparently ignored it) how PITIFUL Obama’s selection of friends and associates has been. Reverend Wright, his “spiritual advisor” and “mentor” OF 20 YEARS, turned out (after all) to be someone that Obama “didn’t know”.
Luigi Novi: That one of his close friends turned out to be an anti-American racist–something that Obama never knew until Wright starting speaking publicly when Obama became a Presidential contender–reflects only upon Wright. It hardly reflects upon Obama.
JosephW: Tony Rezko at one time was a friend with whom Obama had a wonderful business relationship–well, until Rezko’s shadier dealings came out and he too turned into someone that Obama “didn’t know”.
Luigi Novi: Of course he “didn’t know” him. People involved in unethical or criminal behavior generally tend to keep such dealings secret. Because of this, their friends are understandably as ignorant of such dealings as the authorities and the media, at least until they come out, unless the politician in question was complicit in them, for which there is no evidence in this case. There was perhaps one real estate deal that Obama was involved in that Obama felt could’ve created the appearance of impropriety, and he responded to this by saying, “I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it.” Interestingly, days after the January 2008 debate, a photo of Rezko posing with Bill and Hillary Clinton surfaced. When asked about the photo Hillary Clinton commented “I probably have taken hundreds of thousands of pictures. I wouldn’t know him if he walked in the door.” (See Rezko’s Wikipedia page for the sources supporting this, which include the Sun Times and Fox News.) Should we accept this answer, or condemn Hillary as well? And what about George W. Bush’s associates? Or Bill Clinton’s? How far back should we go? Presidents and senators are powerful people, and rub elbows with powerful people, many of whom are discovered eventually to have said or done dubious things. If you really want to promote the idea that two former associations call into question Obama’s entire ability to select friends and associates, and should disqualify one for the Presidency, you might as well disqualify every President we’ve ever had.
JosephW: And then there’s Michelle. Ah, Michelle. The woman who, until 2008, wasn’t “proud of” her country (and what exactly made her FINALLY “proud of her country”?–her husband’s political good fortunes).
Luigi Novi: Her comments were probably the expression of greater pride, not a prior absence of it, as this is the normal shorthand in which people speak every day, and which is not scrutinized by the media when it is uttered by someone who isn’t running for office or closely associated with one who is. Even Laura Bush said this when she defended Michelle Obama, stating that she was sympathetic as the wife of a public figure subject to such scrutiny. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/09/laura-bush-defends-michel_n_106019.html)
JosephW: I’m confounded. Obama is the ultimate opportunist. This is a man who did EXACTLY what Hillary swore she WOULDN’T do in her first run for the Senate (and it really amazes me that many who have been so vile and venomous towards Hillary were among the loudest advocates to get her to run for President in 2004). Obama voted “present” hundreds of times in the Illinois Senate rather than take a principled stance.
Luigi Novi: What does this have to do with opportunism? How has Obama displayed any opportunism that is disproportionate for someone running for high office? Has he stated that he was a Yankee fan when running for the NY Senate? Has he stated that he was doding Sniper fire when traveling overseas? Evoked the assassination of a beloved Senator? Campaigned negatively? Used whisper campaigning to push the notion that another candidate is a Muslim?
JosephW: Obama has gone so far as to claim that on some issues he “accidentally” pressed the wrong button and he really meant to vote the other way. (Yeah, that makes me feel really safe knowing that HE might be in charge of THE button.) This is a man who, not so long ago, flat out stated he wouldn’t hesitate to bomb Pakistan (our erstwhile ally in the “war on terror”) in order to find Osama but that was just ignored by his fans–Hillary’s threat against Iran (which DID have preconditions) became “progressive” evidence of her saber-rattling and being too “dangerous”.
Luigi Novi: Where and when was this reported? Can you provide reference for this?
JosephW: Don’t forget: Obama admitted that he admires the Reagan foreign policy, in addition to Reagan’s personality.
Luigi Novi: I assume you’re referring to the Obama statement (YouTube “Obama prefers Ronald Reagan over Bill Clinton”), and subsequent clarification (Google “Barack Obama, Reagan foreign policy”) in which he praised George H.W. Bush for the way he approaching the Persian Gulf War with a large coalition and carefully defined objectives, and stated, “The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush’s father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan..” Right? In these statements, he is is not praising the aspects of Reagan’s foreign policy (or his “personality”) that are today criticized, like the secret assassinations and backing of anti-Communist dictatorships, but for the aspects of his policy that are thought to be correct, namely, not waging war illegally or unilaterally without the backing of evidence or a wide coalition of allies, things which Reagan shared with other Presidents that Obama mentioned, like Kennedy and George Bush Senior. Your uncontextualized comment about him “praising Reagan’s foreign policy” (and your fabrication about his “personality”) comes off as an attempt to imply the former, rather than the latter. Or were you referring to some other comment of Obama’s?
JosephW: Yet Obama’s cult followers had no problem bringing up Hillary’s pre-college stance as a “Goldwater Girl” as somehow being proof that she’s not a real Democrat.
Luigi Novi: I’ve been following the election closely, and haven’t heard this. Again, where was this?
JosephW: I LOATHE Obama.
Luigi Novi: You loathe a fictional version of Obama, one you’ve created from straw.
This is a man who, not so long ago, flat out stated he wouldn’t hesitate to bomb Pakistan (our erstwhile ally in the “war on terror”) in order to find Osama
Where and when was this reported? Can you provide reference for this?
I think he’s referring to this quote:
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.
There’s no direct threat to bomb Pakistan, though he is clearly threatening to do something and it’s reasonable to assume that something is military in nature. Personally, I have no problem with that. Hillary quickly jumped on the statement; “Last summer, he basically threatened to bomb Pakistan, which I don’t think was a particularly wise position to take.” Obama replied that he never said “bomb” only “strike”.
pretty thing gruel, if you ask me.
As for the hitting the wrong buttons–http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obamavotes24jan24,1,7079399.story
So he accidentally hit the wrong button in a vote–not exactly the same as sending ICBMs to Iceland. Yes, if Bush or Quayle or McCain did it some critics would use it as proof of stupidity or senility. That doesn’t make it any more valid an argument.
JosephW–if Obama is as stupid as you seem to think he is there will be plenty of time for it to manifest itself during the campaign. I think McCain will not want to make that the centerpiece of his efforts though. Like the recent attacks by Kos on McCain’s teeth (not the smartest idea, since it will only remind people about how they got knocked out in the first place) these penny ante moves tend to backfire. Win on the issues or not at all.
No it won’t, because real teeth yellow too. Whether or not McCain lost his teeth in the service of our country isn’t relevant as to whether his photoshopper — assembling an unnatural montage — should have gone as far as cutting the color contrast between his teeth and his hair.
A substantial portion of political leadership is performance. If his teeth are fake, it only means he has less of an excuse to avoid teeth whitening.
People are free to put as much importance to the color of a candidate’s teeth in a photo as they wish. Far be it for me to dictate what people should look for in a president. I suppose the white shiny teeth acolytes have already suffered enough in watching John Edwards go down in flames (although they can at least commiserate with the equally disappointed fans of soft fluffy hair).
I note that even a good portion of the comments that Mr. Kos got from his fans were of the “this is a stupid post, take it down” variety. I suspect strongly that Obama–a much smarter man–will be about as likely to joke about McCain’s teeth as he will be to laugh at his inability to raise his arms above shoulder level.
Computers — and the people who operate them — are like genies in that they don’t give you what you want, they give you what you ask for.
With the McCain banner in question, it’s obvious he asked for, or approved the request for a portrait of him, with a background of red, white, and blue. And that’s what’s displayed — where the remaining yellowed element is his teeth.
I can’t remember an election where the campaign who had their šhìŧ together didn’t win. McCain is not on top of his campaign. On the night Obama won the nomination, McCain’s speech included the word change 33 times. He thinks he’s avoiding John Kerry’s mistake of backing off of a position — in Kerry’s case, the position of the hero candidate — when what he’s really demonstrating is that he’s so inauthentic, he doesn’t know there’s even such a thing as authenticity.
If there’s a there there, there are only disadvantages in McCain obscuring them. If there’s no there there, McCain is vulnerable to death by a thousand paper cuts. Including his own website banner bleached of yellow elements except for his teeth. That’s what he gets for facing a campaign that has its šhìŧ together after he sold his soul.
Another “outsider” question:
Who gives a flying fruit bat about a candidiate’s teeth, hair or whether she’s wearing trousers? Why the obsession with the superficial? Surely this is detracting (or obscuring) the issues?
Candidates without substance have always been, and always will be, vulnerable to death-by- a-thousand- paper-cuts. Not just here, but I’m guessing where you live to. It’s a basic principle of marketing and branding.
Megan–to the vast majority of sane voters, it doesn’t. At all.
There is a lot of lazy reporting, if you want to call it that. Easier to talk about a candidate’s clothes or hairline or whatever than talk about the issues. Math is hard!
Of course, the dangers of candidates having websites is that mistakes can be seen by millions. Whether it’s McCain’s yellow teeth or the anti-semetic blogs that infested Obama’s blog until they were removed, the internet can certainly be a double edged sword.
(I don’t know what the campaigns are thinking, letting anyone post blogs without sufficiant oversite. ticking time bomb. Not only do they have to worry about their own crazier elements posting stupid things, they need to worry about opponents posting things deliberately designed to bring them bad publicity. Dumb, very dumb. You can’t police every comment but allowing unmoderated blogs is going to cause a brouhaha before it’s all said and done.)
If even your account is that making McCain’s teeth the sole yellow element of his banner is a mistake, what’s your problem with Kos for making the same observation? What is your problem with the basic observation of reality as it unfolds?
Bill Mulligan: JosephW–if Obama is as stupid as you seem to think…
Luigi Novi: Joseph never indicated that he though Obama was stupid. The closest he came is when he said that Obama was no more qualified than Bush, which requires a bit of a selective interpretation.
Luigi Novi,
Many excellent points as usual. Let me just say 1.)That many, including Bob Woodward, feel the perception of Bush as anti-intellectual and uninvolved is incorrect. And he dis write one book while running for President, called “A Charge To Keep”. I hadly think he is the buffoon you and others constantly portray him as.
2.)Regarding Wright, I find it extremely hard to believe that he did not know a man he not only knew for 20 years but considers his “mentor” had these feelings. The “God Ðámņ America” rant did not take place only in some public forum once Obama became a Presidential contender. Rather, it took place at his Church years ago. Living in Philadelphia for years, I can say these kinds of anti-American diatribes are part of many black churches every Sunday. I find it incredibly difficult – and increasingly impossible – to believe that this year was the first time Obama has heard him make these comments. Which would makes Obama increasingly without credibility in my eyes. because if he’s lying, that says a lot more about him than Wright.
3.)You aresaying Michelle Obama likely made her infamous comment as “probably being the expression of greater pride”. First, how do you know this? Second, why didn’t she just say something “I have never been AS PROUD of my country as I am now”. I do feel her comments were a slip of her true feelings, where she sees America as more a souce of shame than pride. You are, of course, feel to interpret it differently. But that’s my opinion – and I do feel someone who feels that way should not set foot in the White House.
Joseph never indicated that he though Obama was stupid. The closest he came is when he said that Obama was no more qualified than Bush, which requires a bit of a selective interpretation.
I thought that insinuating that Obama might accidentally press the wrong button and launch WWIII was indicative of a low opinion on the man’s smarts. JosephW, was I out of line?
Personally, I think he’s pretty sharp. Prone to some rhetorical gaffes but that comes with the territory–I doubt that most of us would look all that great if every word out of our mouths was transcribed exactly as written.
Peter J. Poole –
People outside the US tend to see Obama as “one of us” (due to his ethnic backgroud and life story) that managed to come so close to the Presidency of the world’s most powerful country. It’s a fairy tale. It’s an unparalleled success story.
In this too he is the anti-Bush, because Bush represents the “insider”, the stereotype of the oblivious and arrogant American, like no one else ever did before.
1) “Who gives a flying fruit bat about a candidiate’s teeth, hair or whether she’s wearing trousers? Why the obsession with the superficial? Surely this is detracting (or obscuring) the issues?”
There’s a whole industry that deals in appearances — advertising execs, photographers, art directors, graphic designers. The assumption is that appearance has an effect on choices people make. That asssumption seems true.
This does not excuse journalists or pundits that focus on that superficial aspect instead of the issues. Their job is to see beyond the superficial, just as it is the job of the graphic designer and/or photographer to make sure that John’s McCain’s teeth look good on a poster and it is the job of someone to go over the graphic designer’s work to make sure he didn’t forget anything (unless somebody made a conscious choice to keep the teeth yellow).
2) Jerome, it seems to me that Obama was willing to overlook the views expressed by Wright because these views were quite common in the black society he was trying to be part of, and he did not wish to disassociate himself from that society.
I find this explanation understandable. After all, many Americans are critical of American society but don’t want to stop being part of it.
Although it still reflects badly on Obama that he — who presents himself as a leader and a man of change — did not have the leadership to speak out against these negative views in his society.
3) It seems to me that Michelle Obama is guilty of foolish exageration, of senseless immoderate speech, but not of any kind of serious hostiility toward the US. Being extremely critical toward one’s country, and expressing it in absurdly exaggerated terms is not uncommon. Some people who tend toward excessive criticism of their country are in fact against their country, others are not. It is hard to tell the difference, but I doubt Michelle Obama belongs to the first group.
It looks like we can take Ted Strickland off the potential list– from ABC:
Asked on NPR’s “All Things Considered” if he is auditioning to be Obama’s running mate, Strickland said, “Absolutely not. If drafted I will not run, nominated I will not accept and if elected I will not serve.
So, I don’t know how more crystal clear I can be.”
Too bad, it’s kind of nice to see a politician who tells you exactly what he thinks.
“There’s a whole industry that deals in appearances — advertising execs, photographers, art directors, graphic designers. The assumption is that appearance has an effect on choices people make. That assumption seems true.”
From my observations here, we tend to vote/decide more on the issues, policy platforms and past performances.
Megan: “From my observations here, we tend to vote/decide more on the issues, policy platforms and past performances.”
So do we, but appearance has an affect. If one candidate looks good during a debate while the other is sweating profusely, that has a small but noticeable affect on people.
They do the debates thing here too. However here, unless you live in the incumbent PM’s seat/ electorate, or the incumbent Opposition Leader’s seat/electorate, you aren’t voting for that person. You are voting for the representative for your own seat/electorate. Don’t know if I explained that too well
“So do we, but appearance has an affect. If one candidate looks good during a debate while the other is sweating profusely, that has a small but noticeable affect on people.”
The whole advertising is based on that small margin.
We all like to think we make our choices based on rational reasons. But we don’t. I understand (but don’t have first hand knowledge) that research has shown that advertising does not have as much effect as they would like us to believe. But companies and politicians still spend millions to get that small effect that adverting buys.
“From my observations here, we tend to vote/decide more on the issues, policy platforms and past performances.”
I doubt Australians are less subject to this kind of manipulation that Americans or anybody else for that matter. all though the kind of manipulation may vary.
The question is, are your journalists less affected by it and more focused on the issues?
“They do the debates thing here too. However here, unless you live in the incumbent PM’s seat/ electorate, or the incumbent Opposition Leader’s seat/electorate, you aren’t voting for that person. You are voting for the representative for your own seat/electorate.”
Presumably the individual representatives use advertising to win their local seats. Although if their advertising budget is smaller, its effect might be less than the American presidential campaign. More baby kissing less photoshoped pictures of the candidate kissing the most beautiful baby money can buy.
Do you find that your choice of local representative is affected by who is going to be his party leader and potential prime minister? Are there situations where you might dislike your representative but vote for him in order to strengthen the prime ministerial candidate?
“We all like to think we make our choices based on rational reasons. But we don’t. I understand (but don’t have first hand knowledge) that research has shown that advertising does not have as much effect as they would like us to believe. But companies and politicians still spend millions to get that small effect that adverting buys.”
Awhile back there was a study where groups of people were shown a video of a car crashing into a wall. Then they were asked how fast the car looked like it was going. The average answer was that the car looked like it was going 30 miles an hour.
Then they showed other groups the same video of a car crashing into a wall, but they added noises of brakes squealing and a louder crash for the impact. Again they asked how fast the car *looked* like it was going. The average answer was that the car looked like it was going 40 miles per hour.
Both videos looked exactly the same, but people thought they looked different because of the sound. The moral is that people often don’t know why they feel a certain way about something. That’s why focus groups that are done the wrong way are totally useless, the people filling out the questionnaires are guessing why they don’t like something. Did they actually think the dialog in the movie was boring, or would different music change their opinion entirely?
You’ll get some who are “rusted on” Liberal Party voters, some who are “rusted on” ALP. They won’t change their vote. They will vote the party ticket .
My choice is not based on who the PM might be, it is based on the platform and policies announced the parties. Plus their “track record”.
“The question is, are your journalists less affected by it and more focused on the issues?”
I think so.
“Are there situations where you might dislike your representative but vote for him in order to strengthen the prime ministerial candidate?”
No.
I’m sorry. Despite watching a large amount of Australian TV during my childhood in the 80s I am not familiar with the phrase “rusted on”.
In your system there are (at least) three variables that might affect the vote:
The image, record, platform of the specific local representative.
The image, record, platform of the party to which he or she belongs
and the image, record, platform of the prime ministerial candidate who is leading the party.
The weight given to each one of these considerations depends on how much independence the individual representative and the prime minister have in relation to the party apparatus. It also depends on your own preferences. You might not care at all who the the prime minister and your representative are, except that they belong to the party you support. Or not. In the 90’s Blair’s personality, I think, was a factor in the rise of Labor to power.
Whatever the case may be, you can be sure that there are advertisers and other experts working on each one of these variables in order to influence the choices you make. Even in dictatorships the leaders work on their image. I’m sure Stalin’s teeth were always white in his posters (or else).
The American system has pretty much the same variables, I think. Except that in the American system the greater separation between the executive and legislative branches and the fact that the power of the executive is vested in a person, puts more weight on the personality of the president.
Regarding Wright, I find it extremely hard to believe that he did not know a man he not only knew for 20 years but considers his “mentor” had these feelings.
I thought I knew my father pretty well. When I first met my wife Hillary back in ’97, I brought her to my parents’ house (where I was also living at the time – fiscal problems) so they could meet. We had a wonderful time watching a football game, as Hillary and my father traded observations on the Seahawks’ quarterback (neither was impressed). I was a bit concerned, as it hadn’t occurred to me to mention that she was black until she was almost there, but everything went swimmingly. He even made it a point to mention later how glad he was that I had found an actual good woman (as opposed to the one that had left me, causing in part the fiscal crisis).
He passed on in 2000, after Hillary and I had learned she was pregnant, and the day before she got the first ultrasounds of our daughter. I was tapped to give a eulogy at his funeral, and it was generally agreed that I had nailed his sense of humor (as the hearse left my brother’s house, where he had died, the driver got lost, and wound up on a clearly marked dead end road. I noted that Dad would have laughed his ášš off at that.)
It wasn’t until last week, talking with my niece, that I learned that Dad had been hiding a strong prejudice against blacks when he met Hillary, and that it was my love for her that even caused him to begin to re-evaluate. He’d managed to raise me my entire life, and provide extra support when I needed it as an adult, without ever letting me know about this side of his personality.
I think our relationship was a little closer than “mentor/student”…
I’m sorry. Despite watching a large amount of Australian TV during my childhood in the 80s I am not familiar with the phrase “rusted on”.
A nut that has become rusted onto a bolt is nearly impossible to turn. It stays stubbornly in place, no matter what force you bring to bear (excluding Liquid Wrench and the like). Ref. David Brin’s “ostrich Republicans”. (www.davidbring.blogspot.com)
“A nut that has become rusted onto a bolt is nearly impossible to turn.”
Ha! Thanks for the explanation. It’s funny how an expression can seem completely obvious once you hear the explanation.
Jonathan–the difference between Wright and your father is that Wright has apparently been very open about his prejudices.
And one other, major difference. You believed him to be a man who would not allow himself to be swayed by petty bigotries. In the end you were right; whatever it was that kept him from living up to that expectation, he was able to overcome it. Maybe you can take credit for that. I know having my kids expecting me to be a better person than I am would be all the incentive I’d need to actually try to become better.
I’m not sure that Wright really gets it or has the strength of character to try. At any rate, Obama has pretty much cut all ties with the guy, I don’t know what more he can be expected to do.
please write another book on the new frontier. i think these are the best you have ever written & i think these are the best out of all the star trek books. thanks, jimmy.
I think that it’s giving the American public too much credit to say that, as a whole, we vote on the issues. Many of us do, or at least on the goals and policies of a party; but I think it’s fair to say that a sizeable portion of the electorate is willfully clueless on the issues. Who’s more “likeable” seems to be a significant factor in some people’s choices. Without Bush’s “gee, I’d drink a beer with that guy” factor, and Al Gore’s lack of charisma at the time, the 2000 vote may not have been as tight as it was.
One difference here is that the parties don’t have to use advertising to get us to go out and vote, we have to do that anyway.
“At any rate, Obama has pretty much cut all ties with the guy, I don’t know what more he can be expected to do.”
Obama did all the right things, and well: the speech about racism, denouncing Wright and leaving the church. His problem was that he was reacting, that he was a step behind the events. It made him look less sincere.
He wasn’t entirely reactive, Micha. Wright was supposed to be involved with the campaign, but months before there was any controversy Obama reduced his role, then asked him to disengage from the campaign entirely. Obama tried to head this off before there were any problems.
true, but that does make him seem less than sincere when he claims that wright’sbigotry took him by surprise.
The pattern seems to be deny, defend, denounce. this Jim johnson fellow got the same treatment. Who vets the vetters?
But I don’t think Obama is particularly unique in this regard. Politicians are always having to throw old cronies under the bus. It’s been that way since at least Henry V, though our modern cronies lack the charm of Falstaff.
Before a sexual drive kicks in, and after it wanes, we seem to all have a natural inclination to be fággÿ.
It also doesn’t seem to be a coincidence the female heirs were made acquainted with your father’s prejudice before even the males of the generation preceding them. With absolutely no chance of you carrying an inter-ethnic baby, you gave him fewer causes for him to make his intolerance known. For his male heirs it may have been enough to honor the taboo against acknowledging there was even such a thing as racism.
“Before a sexual drive kicks in, and after it wanes, we seem to all have a natural inclination to be fággÿ.”
That has got to be the dumbest statement I’ve ever seen.
Yeah, if you’re embarrassed by the individual’s inherent need for non-sexual affection, sure, why wouldn’t that seem stupid to you?
Kudos for the Shakespeare reference Bill.
Obama’s problem is his connection with Wright, which goes back too long for him to have avoided it during this campaign.
I think there is a more negative and a more forgiving way to look at all this.
The negative way is that Obama, probably for political reasons, sat in a church in which very divisive and hateful rhetoric was used, and showed no sign of opposing it. He then showed poor political judgement by not distancing himself sufficiently from Wright. And when he did finally act it was in the usual cynical political way, denying and making excuses.
The positive way is that as a young man Obama, who was struggling with his racial identity, found a home in this black church. So he was understandably reluctant to leave it even when he encountered rhetoric he did not agree with himself. His reluctance to condemn Wright, even when it would have been politically wise, shows he was acting out of sincere emotions and not cynically. But when he did speak out he did it clearly and with more eloquence and wisdom than we usually see in today’s politics.
I think both of these descriptions have truth to them. The question is how to balance Obama’s flaws with his good qualities and decide which has more weight. It is better to do this than go to the extremes of idealizing a politicial completely or looking at everything in politics in a cynical jaded way.
There’s also a third extreme negative version of looking at Obama that sees him as actually hiding his true self, which is closer to Wright — an extreme unpatriotic radical. But I don’t think there is much truth in this. It’s too much of like a conspiracy theory outlook. I’d like to think that the ideals Obama presents are what he actually believes in. The questions are: how good are the ideals, and does he have the ability to live up to them. If he can than his handling of Wright is less important, i think.
Of course I have been wrong in the past, so what do I know.
Bill: “true, but that does make him seem less than sincere when he claims that wright’sbigotry took him by surprise.”
I feel he’s sincere. As far as I can tell, taping the sermons at Wright’s church was a regular thing. Yet there’s only one tape of him saying “God dámņ America.” We’ve all seen it 100 times, but the people in the audience apparently only heard it once.
There were other bad statements from him in the pulpit, but they add up to less than two minutes out of decades worth of sermons. We’re all judging the man by the tiniest fraction of his career. So basically, every couple of years he said 10 seconds of something over the line.
I fully believe that someone can listen to half an hour of stirring, emotional rhetoric, hear one thing he doesn’t agree with, then forget about it as he gets swept up in the next half hour of sermon. Or maybe he talks about it with his wife on the way home, but forgets about it over the next two years before another objectionable comment comes out.
I’m sure plenty of people will look at the relationship with Wright as a problem. Me, I can think of people I care about who I don’t give up on even though they occasionally do or say something I strongly disagree with, even on the level of the Reverend Wright stuff. I don’t throw away years of relationship for an ignorant comment every year or two and I don’t respect Obama any less for doing the same.
The whole Wright imbroglio has been magnified mostly by the entirely unrealistic expectations some of Obama’s followers have had, the idea that he was some kind of new species of politician, the like of which we have never seen. Um, no. He’s a talented politician from Chicago. Not the first nor the last. Anyone getting a tingle when they see him on TV should get that looked at. I used to get a stabbing pain in my eye whenever I drank hot cocoa but it turned out just to be the result of not taking the spoon out of the cup. I trust I make myself clear.
I don’t throw away years of relationship for an ignorant comment every year or two and I don’t respect Obama any less for doing the same.
But Jason…Obama DID throw away his relationship with Wright.
the idea that he was some kind of new species of politician, the like of which we have never seen
You mean, one who can speak for more than two sentences without stumbling or sounding incoherent?
We can’t cheer for that? 😉
You mean, one who can speak for more than two sentences without stumbling or sounding incoherent?
Oh come on–most of them have been silver tongued devils! If that’s all it took we’d be lead by lawyers, preachers and/or snake oil salesmen…hey…
NBC’s Tim Russert dead at 58
Washington bureau chief, ‘Meet the Press’ moderator collapsed on job.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25145431/?GT1=43001
NBC’s Tim Russert dead at 58
Washington bureau chief, ‘Meet the Press’ moderator collapsed on job.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25145431/?GT1=43001
NBC’s Tim Russert dead at 58
Washington bureau chief, ‘Meet the Press’ moderator collapsed on job.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25145431/?GT1=43001
That’s a shocking loss. Never saw it coming. Russert was one of the good ones.
There are a lot of things about Russert I didn’t entirely care for, but I’ve got to agree with Bill: a shocking, shocking loss. Wow.
TWL