See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: If Obama Loses
Source:
Slate
URL Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2198397/
Published: Aug 23, 2008
Author: Jacob Weisguyberg
Post Date: 2008-08-25 18:42:13 by Tauzero
Keywords: None
Views: 450
Comments: 46
Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him. What with the Bush legacy of reckless war and economic mismanagement, 2008 is a year that favors the generic Democratic candidate over the generic Republican one. Yet Barack Obama, with every natural and structural advantage in the presidential race, is running only neck-and-neck against John McCain, a sub-par Republican nominee with a list of liabilities longer than a Joe Biden monologue. Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums, and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives? If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama's missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let's be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin. Much evidence points to racial prejudice as a factor that could be large enough to cost Obama the election. That warning is written all over last month's CBS/New York Times poll, which is worth examining in detail if you want a quick grasp of white America's curious sense of racial grievance. In the poll, 26 percent of whites say they have been victims of discrimination. Twenty-seven percent say too much has been made of the problems facing black people. Twenty-four percent say the country isn't ready to elect a black president. Five percent of white voters acknowledge that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate. Five percent surely understates the reality. In the Pennsylvania primary, one in six white voters told exit pollsters race was a factor in his or her decision. Seventy-five percent of those people voted for Clinton. You can do the math: 12 percent of the Pennsylvania primary electorate acknowledged that it didn't vote for Barack Obama in part because he is African-American. And that's what Democrats in a Northeastern(ish) state admit openly. The responses in Ohio and even New Jersey were dispiritingly similar. Such prejudice usually comes coded in distortions about Obama and his background. To the willfully ignorant, he is a secret Muslim married to a black-power radical. Or—thank you, Geraldine Ferraro—he only got where he is because of the special treatment accorded those lucky enough to be born with African blood. Some Jews assume Obama is insufficiently supportive of Israel in the way they assume other black politicians to be. To some white voters (14 percent in the CBS/New York Times poll), Obama is someone who, as president, would favor blacks over whites. Or he is an "elitist" who cannot understand ordinary (read: white) people because he isn't one of them. Or he is charged with playing the race card, or of accusing his opponents of racism, when he has strenuously avoided doing anything of the sort. We're just not comfortable with, you know, a Hawaiian. Then there's the overt stuff. In May, Pat Buchanan, who writes books about the European-Americans losing control of their country, ranted on MSNBC in defense of white West Virginians voting on the basis of racial solidarity. The No. 1 best-seller in America, Obama Nation by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., leeringly notes that Obama's white mother always preferred that her "mate" be "a man of color." John McCain has yet to get around to denouncing this vile book. Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race. Choosing John McCain, in particular, would herald the construction of a bridge to the 20th century—and not necessarily the last part of it, either. McCain represents a Cold War style of nationalism that doesn't get the shift from geopolitics to geoeconomics, the centrality of soft power in a multipolar world, or the transformative nature of digital technology. This is a matter of attitude as much as age. A lot of 71-year-olds are still learning and evolving. But in 2008, being flummoxed by that newfangled doodad, the personal computer, seems like a deal-breaker. At this hinge moment in human history, McCain's approach to our gravest problems is hawkish denial. I like and respect the man, but the maverick has become an ostrich: He wants to deal with the global energy crisis by drilling and our debt crisis by cutting taxes, and he responds to security challenges from Georgia to Iran with Bush-like belligerence and pique. You may or may not agree with Obama's policy prescriptions, but they are, by and large, serious attempts to deal with the biggest issues we face: a failing health care system, oil dependency, income stagnation, and climate change. To the rest of the world, a rejection of the promise he represents wouldn't just be an odd choice by the United States. It would be taken for what it would be: sign and symptom of a nation's historical decline.
Poster Comment: A preview of what the unanimous (re)medial spin will be, should Obama lose. Whites will be the (Mc)Cains who slew "yes we can." Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives... And he's got a bridge to sell me. ...In this event, [Jacob's] judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race. Irony, thy name is Jacob. Choosing John McCain, in particular, would herald the construction of a bridge to the 20th century—and not necessarily the last part of it, either. And there's the bridge.
If Obama Loses
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Saturday, Aug. 23, 2008, at 12:02 AM ET
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tauzero (#0)
Stop right there. What a pantload the zio-wingnut is running out out there. Next.
A nation of idiots, ruled by tyrants.
Bingo. The author has given us a glimpse into the future; if O loses it will be b/c of racism. Buy lead me friends, if it's dark, it's a legitimate target. It's been a long time coming.
And if he wins, America would only vote for a half-black man, an Ivy Leaguer, not a true stalwart. There's real costernation and fear as the weakness of Obama's candidacy is unavoidable now.
No. I shall not be voting for Obama because his platform is anathema. He could be green for all I care and I still won't vote Socialist. Ever. So...who is doing the race-baiting? Oh, that's right. "Diversity and Tolerance" left-wingers who, if you put them all in a room, wouldn't have a single functioning brain cell between them. There are other left-wingers who do have functioning brain cells, but this author appears not to be one of them.
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
It is easy to defeat this gibberish. When the only thing most Americans knew about Obama was that he was black, he lead McCain by as much as 14 points in the early polls. When the public learned that Obama was black and supported killing babies after they were born, arresting homeowners who used a gun to resist home invasions, wanted to tax them over 800 billion dollars to support Third World dictators and actually thinks increasing the supply of oil will not reduce the price.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
I wish that the 'candidates' would have to name their entire cabinet before the election. That might prove instructive.
A nation of idiots, ruled by tyrants.
What complete and utter bull$#it! I would vote for a black for president but not just any black and apparently the idiot who wrote this thinks that we should vote for the first black who ever runs.* Sometimes people who jump at the first thing they are offered live to regret it. *I believe that ambulance chasing, race baiting, poverty pimp Jesse Jackson did run one time but didn't get the nomination. Bet the guy who wrote this article wrote him in.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Now I know Obama is unfit for office. He can't even follow a simple 3 step program. To wit: 1. Tell everyone what they want to hear so they vote for you. 2. Get into office. 3. Stab your supporters in the back and backslide on all of your positions. Obama flipped # 2 and 3. He threw the anti-war and anti-police state supporters under the bus way too soon. Now that is costing him too many votes and he has to scare them back to his side somehow.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death." - Me. "If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.
Personally, I wish that the 'race' issue had not entered the discussion. It's just bogus, to me. If Bill Cosby and Oprah! were running, I'd vote for them in a heart-beat over the two mullets that are out there now.
A nation of idiots, ruled by tyrants.
Actually, Bush did partially, by naming Colin Powell as SoS to remove doubts and reassure the electorate that he was cool. And it worked.
Obama will lose becasue he is a semi-retard. It has nothing to do with his color, absolutely nothing. McCain is also a dunce, but fortunately for him Obama makes him look smart.
God is always good!
Jesus are you white.
They say they are for "diversity". What they really are for is slavery.
Although Powell screwed the pooch at the UN, he'll come off as the least criminal of this entire regime when it's all said and done.
A nation of idiots, ruled by tyrants.
Actually I am kind of red.
God is always good!
If people don't vote for Obama, it can't possibly be because the man is an empty suit with almost zero experience, not a single concrete policy proposal, and a collection of asinine ideas. Not at all. Nor could it be because he's just another DNC hack in the mold of Biden, Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Clinton, just with slicker packaging and marketting. The only reason not to vote for and embrace the new Messiah is racism. That's been the implied mantra of the whole Obama campaign from day one - "whites only don't vote Obama because of racism" and it's starting to wear very thin. But what else can you do when your candidate's color, and the fact that he isn't George W's heir, are your only issues?
I guess that precludes McCain coming out in blackface.
Active deception, instead of self-deception? :) It has nothing to do with his color, absolutely nothing. Jus' sayin', shit like that -- especially absolutes -- sounds like every other barking white seal. Darkie privately laughs at us, publicly calls us on it -- and rightly so, say I.
They say they are for "diversity". What they really are for is slavery.
I'd vote for anyone who'd show up in blackface and sing "Sonny Boy"
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!! Typical RAT HateSpeech...if you ain't part of the ObamaNation, you MUST be a RACIST...LOL!! Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Barry Hussein's an EX-CrackSmokin', EX-Muslim, still-Marxist RAT who lacks the credentials and experience and wisdom to lead this Nation out of Big Guv'ment funk we've allowed the RATS/RINOs to impose upon us...MUD
Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan and Back to the States, Your tagline puzzles me. The sentiments expressed in it are the exact opposite of what Abu Dubya of Arabya has done for the past 7 years. Not to mention the rest of the Republican Party. That tagline implies that you support either Baldwin or Barr in the election.
Jesus are you white. Are you calling him Jesus? Regardless of his whiteness, he's clearly stupid. You can call Obama anything but not 'semi-retard'.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
He's a Bushbot through and through. Always been, always be, until he finds another master - and McCain could be IT.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
There doesn't seem to be anything to Obama's campaign other than "vote for me, or else you're racist." But it isn't any more stupid than McCain's only real theme: "Vote for me, I'm a war hero who did 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton." Neither being black nor having been a POW qualifies anybody to be President.
I WAS leaning towards Barr until he started genuflecting in favor of Algore's Marxist Envirowhacko Plans to destroy our economy. Right now, I'm learning more about Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate, but I'm officially undecided and have contributed no many to any of the candidates...MUD
Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan and Back to the States, It's not stupidity, exactly. Just a lacuna that has the short-term effect of raising social status with other whites, but not nearly as much as being actively anti-white does.
They say they are for "diversity". What they really are for is slavery.
You think these parties, that hold no elective offices, but surface every four years to toss up a sacrificial lamb, really have a snowball's chance of winning anything. Correct me, but I don't think either the Libertarians or the Conservative party even hold councilman or mayoral offices anywhere in the US. If these parties aren't willing to do the hard work to create a politicial presence in the country, why would you trust them with the most powerful office in the world? Rhetorical anyway.
McCain was pretty much LAST in my list of preferred GOP Presidential candidates. Then again, there weren't any princes in that group (sorry, my Paulbot friends, I like Ron Paul but believe he was far too naive to do a credible job as Commander-in-Chief). So now we're stuck making yet another imperfect choice fer POTUS...we gotta play the cards we're dealt. An ObamaNation fer the next four years is simply unthinkable to me...MUD
Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan and Back to the States, What makes you think I trust ANY of these clowns with the White House? Still, I always vote and I will this November as well...MUD
Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan and Back to the States, Moot point - third parties are a protest vote, a sort of "none of the above" that's better than not voting at all. And I would trust almost anybody with the most powerful office in the world more than I'd trust Empty Suit or Mad Dog. It's disgraceful that in a country of 300 million, our "choices" amount to these two.
Not true. You also got Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKenney (sp?) and, I suspect, dozens more communists, socialists, LaRoucheists, Moonies...
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
I meant choices with a realistic chance of being elected. The system is rigged against third parties. A combination of complicated campaign finance rules that make it impossible to run unless you can hire an army of attorneys and accountants combined with media blackout makes third parties nothing more than a protest vote. And then we complain about the lack of representative Democracy in countries with multi- party parliaments.
What's naive is thinking that hole in the wall Arab countries pose a credible military threat to the United States. Actually, naive is too generous - gullible is more like it.
Someone noted here that the little 'parties' seem to re-emerge into reality every 4 years, right before the prez. election and nominate a prez. candidate. Then, once the election is over, they vanish again. It's been proven over and over again that this does not work. I don't know what would work other than criminalizing the 2 parties and any parties - by (correctly) defining them as organizations whose aim is to prevent people's representation and advance party objectives - mostly holding power and ripping the benefits of doing so. Would it work? I don't believe there was such case in the courts yet but maybe I'm wrong. How about a class action suit by the citizens of a state, seeking billions in damages from one of the parties, claiming that the senator they elected was absorbed into the party machine and made to act in ways contrary to the will of those who elected him? Or, it could go under RICO and turn criminal.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Well, there is one party in America working at the grassroots level and winning some offices, primarily in the NorthWest. Agree with the Greens or not, at least they are on the road to eventually being a political presence in the country.
Black, White, Male, Female; the sheeple gobble it all up. ;-)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Like it's tough to be a Socialist in this country nowadays. I loathe Socialism because, no matter what ANY lying, deceived, TOOL LIB-RATlican says | it is COMPLETELY ANTITHETICAL TO THE FOUNDING AND SUSTAINING OF our country. World Socialists S-U-C-K!
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
BULL SHIT! It'll be carve up the spoils day, and the darkies will push us off the road just as the nigra carpetbager did to Rhett and Scarlett in the film GONE WITH THE WIND, when he arrogantly said, "Humph, ya'll act like ya'll won da war!"
Oh, sure, now you show up! ;-)
They say they are for "diversity". What they really are for is slavery.
Obama makes all but those who are locked away "for their own good" look smart. Never would have thought it but Dumbya doesn't sound any dumber than Barry Hussein Obama. This was from a speech Obama gave in Amman, Jordan. The speech was 41 minutes and close to eight minutes of it--let's say seven to be charitable--is um's and uh's. And his sycophants call him brilliant and an "eloquent speaker"? LOL, oh my freakin' sides!!!
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Whats with the last name.........is this a joke, or for real?
Just scroll down a tiny bit.
They say they are for "diversity". What they really are for is slavery.
Guess you missed the point. The Greens are organizing and working as a REAL political party, placing candidates on the ballot, getting votes and WINNING elected offices. Unlike the pieintheskydelusionsofgrandeur of the Barr/Baldwin "candidacies". So you don't like socialism? Move to China.
No, you did. Are you a Benjamin Fulford fan btw? He's a Chicom ass licker too. ;-)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
I see you almost made the mistake of getting stuck to the tar baby troll. He fondly recalls the good old days when men were men and sheep were nervous; When women were chattel and blacks were slaves and that's how you can always tell a true Amerken! (but, you can't tell em much) He and other flat Earth Society members don't understand that America is a socialist country, no thanks to the patriots who turned a blind eye to the evils of their own "conservative" party, the Fabian socialists in the MIC who surrounded us with make believe Russian, Cuban, Vietnamese and Chinese bogies to extract trillions for unneeded missiles, boomers, space rays, phasers, etc.,. He probably still makes his family duck and cover under tables in case of a missile attack! The ideology of the Fabians can be encompassed in the famous quote, " Fabianism feeds on Capitalism, but excretes Communism ".__wiki
Yup always missing points in order to get called names by those without enough intellect to frame points but just say, chicom ass licker. Considering that the USG and ALL Americans have been the biggest asslickers of China, that's rich. The point was, the Chinese are the most ardent capitalists in the world today. That's the point you missed. They have no SS, no welfare, no unemployment benefits. We Americans on the other hand love to espouse some mythical individualism based more on Hollywood Westerns than any reality. But we ain't giving up our gooberbennies anytime. Chinese Ass Licker. That's Uncle Sam.
If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama's missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let's be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.
#2. To: Tauzero (#0)
Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.
#3. To: Tauzero (#0)
#4. To: lodwick (#1)
#5. To: Tauzero (#0)
Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.
#6. To: Jethro Tull, noone222, Rotara, lodwick, Tauzero, Pern (#2)
#7. To: Horse. the thread (#6)
#8. To: Tauzero (#0)
If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.
Lord Acton
#9. To: swarthyguy (#4)
There's real costernation and fear as the weakness of Obama's candidacy is unavoidable now.
#10. To: swarthyguy (#4)
#11. To: lodwick (#7)
'candidates' would have to name their entire cabinet before the election
#12. To: Tauzero (#0)
#13. To: RickyJ (#12)
#14. To: swarthyguy. all (#11)
#15. To: Tauzero (#13)
Jesus are you white.
#16. To: Tauzero (#0)
(Edited)
#17. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#16)
#18. To: RickyJ (#15)
#19. To: swarthyguy (#17)
I guess that precludes McCain coming out in blackface.
#20. To: Tauzero (#0)
"If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin. Much evidence points to racial prejudice as a factor that could be large enough to cost Obama the election."
Localities, and Individuals as Prescribed in the U.S. Constitution!!
#21. To: Mudboy Slim (#20)
Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan and Back to the States, Localities, and Individuals as Prescribed in the U.S. Constitution!!
#22. To: Tauzero (#13)
To: RickyJ (#12)
#23. To: swarthyguy (#21)
#24. To: Mudboy Slim (#20)
#25. To: swarthyguy (#21)
Localities, and Individuals as Prescribed in the U.S. Constitution!!
#26. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#22)
Regardless of his whiteness, he's clearly stupid.
#27. To: Mudboy Slim (#25)
#28. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#24)
Localities, and Individuals as Prescribed in the U.S. Constitution!!
#29. To: swarthyguy (#27)
"...why would you trust them with the most powerful office in the world?"
Localities, and Individuals as Prescribed in the U.S. Constitution!!
#30. To: swarthyguy (#27)
If these parties aren't willing to do the hard work to create a politicial presence in the country, why would you trust them with the most powerful office in the world?
#31. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#30)
#32. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#31)
(Edited)
#33. To: Mudboy Slim (#28)
(Edited)
I like Ron Paul but believe he was far too naive to do a credible job as Commander-in-Chief
#34. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#32)
#35. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#34)
I don't know what would work
#36. To: Horse (#6)
#37. To: swarthyguy (#35)
Agree with the Greens or not, at least they are on the road to eventually being a political presence in the country.
#38. To: Tauzero (#0)
Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives.
#39. To: HOUNDDAWG (#38)
#40. To: RickyJ (#12)
Obama will lose becasue he is a semi-retard. It has nothing to do with his color, absolutely nothing. McCain is also a dunce, but fortunately for him Obama makes him look smart.
Lord Acton
#41. To: Tauzero (#0)
Jacob Weisguyberg
#42. To: rowdee (#41)
#43. To: Rotara (#37)
#44. To: swarthyguy (#43)
Guess you missed the point.
#45. To: swarthyguy (#43)
#46. To: Rotara (#44)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest