PDA

View Full Version : Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary's "Archie Bunker" strategy for Pa.


jAZ
03-12-2008, 04:12 PM
http://www.attytood.com/2008/03/geraldine_ferraro_and_hillarys.html

Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary's "Archie Bunker" strategy for Pa.

Davey glanced up and down the bar then leaned forward confidentially. "Let me tell you something about this neighborhood. It's like an Archie Bunker neighborhood here. Really conservative."
His voice dropped to a conspiratorial whisper.

"If Archie were real and he lived here," said Davey, "he'd be the mayor."

-- Associated Press, July 14, 1984, in a story about Geraldine Ferraro's congressional district in Queens, N.Y. (via Nexis.)

You've probably hearing for months now that the 2008 election is really all about the legacy of some old white guy who was popular a generation ago. The Republicans want that guy to be Ronald Reagan. The Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic Party wants their 20th Century icon to be Archie Bunker.

And so now the Clinton campaign has found it's true voice in the person of Archie Bunker's former Queens congresswoman, Geraldine Ferraro. You couldn't make this up if you tried. It's just too perfect.

In case you've been vacationing in Spitzerland for the last couple of days or still obsessing over the what happened on "The Wire," the woman who as Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984 became the first -- and to this date only -- woman on a major party national ticket has been making a different kind of political news this week.

First she said this:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
She later came back with:

"Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"
How's that, indeed?! Ferraro is a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's campaign -- her remarks came in a newspaper interview before she delivered a lecture in Torrance, Calif. You could say her comments were spontaneous -- I doubt they were planned. But unlike some other raw political remarks, I don't think you can really say she put her foot in her mouth, either.

Intentionally or not, "Archie Bunker's congresswoman" was relaying the exact message that the Clinton campaign really wants out there, not in Torrence, Calif., or back in Queens but right here in Pennsylvania, in the mostly white rowhouse "river wards" of Philadelphia and a lot of working class burgs, from Scranton all the way down to the former steel towns of the Mon Valley.

Why do you think Clinton has distanced herself from the remark, but not so much really? And why do you think Geraldine Ferraro herself has been neither rejected nor denounced by the Clinton campaign?

Think of it this way. It was easy for Obama to reject and denounce an out-there hatemonger like Louis Farrakhan, and it should have been easy for John McCain to fully reject and denounce anti-Catholic whack job John Hagee (why he hasn't is mindboggling). But the Clinton campaign can't reject and denounce Geraldine Ferraro, because it would be rejecting and denouncing itself.

A sculptor brought in to mold a Hillary Clinton voter would have crafted Geraldine Ferraro from scratch. She's 72 years old now. White. Female. Ethnic. Catholic. Emotionally vested in the idea that a woman should become president in her lifetime. Hailing from the community that was once the face of white middle-class America. Got where she was with the enthusiastic backing of New York big labor. Has views on the role of race in American politics that aren't exactly ready for prime time, but well, hey, once they get out there you can't really put the genie back in the bottle, now can you?

Pennsylvania is chock full of voters like this, many of them Democrats. You can -- and should -- argue whether "Archie Bunker" is a valid stereotype of Pennsylvania voters in 2008. Bloomberg News has already been out with its take on Obama's "Archie Bunker" problem. It noted how Obama's poor showing with blue collar and Appalachian whites in Ohio and stuggled to find supporters in a white ethnic neighborhood in his hometown of Chicago:

An informal survey of employees at a local bank, gym, library, and neighborhood restaurant turned up no Obama supporters. Some residents said they were concerned that he might not take into account the concerns of whites.

``If Obama gets in, it's going to be a black thing and it's going to be all blacks for blacks,'' said Victoria Mikulski, a 63-year-old clerk in Edison Park. ``Everything's got to be equal.''


In Ohio, NBC News reported on Election Night that 20 percent of voters said in an exit poll that race was a factor in their vote, and that 80 percent of these had supported Clinton.

So exactly how many blue-collar whites in Pennsylvania still hold views on race and politics that are similar to a fictional TV character from the 1970s? Certainly not all of them, and hopefully not most of them, but most likely some of them -- and in the end that's not exactly what matters anyway.

What matters is that the Clinton campaign is convinced that Archie Bunker is voting in Pennsylvania in April 22, and they clearly will not struggle hard to repudiate any idea -- no matter how loathesome -- that can squeeze out a few extra voters in that regard.

That's why it hangs out there the idea -- expressed this time by Clinton herself -- that Obama is not a Muslim "as far as I know." Or that losses in places like South Carolina don't matter because Jesse Jackson won there -- and check out what Geraldine Ferarro said about Jesse Jackson in 1988, so you see there's a history here. Or the paternalistic idea that Obama -- a fellow senator with Clinton and McCain -- is somehow "not ready" to be commander-in-chief, with not-so-vague overtones of affirmative action that is so unpopular in Bunker-land.

If Hillary Clinton is serious about becoming a true president for all Americans -- she would reject, denounce, repudiate, whatever the kids are calling it these days -- the support of Geraldine Ferarro. But that's not she's all about, not this springtime in Pennsylvania. She's all about winning.

And with Archie Bunker's congresswoman by her side, she thinks she can do exactly that.

HolmeZz
03-12-2008, 04:17 PM
I would love to believe it wasn't some big strategy, but Hillary's response was weak.

HonestChieffan
03-12-2008, 04:19 PM
Obamamaniacs again select the quote and ignore the context. She is correct. But now no one can mention he is black.

jettio
03-12-2008, 04:20 PM
I am getting tired of this call by one campaign to repudiate their supporters.

Axelrod would do his campaign a favor by pointing out that what Ferraro said was stupid.

Axelrod should point out that stupid things are a hallmark of the Clinton's dysfunctional campaign.

He should close by saying that Hillary is not in the solutions business as she claims, she is instead in the excuses business. Because all she has is excuses for everyhting that has to do with why she is losing an election where the rules were spelled out for everybody.

Instead of calling for Ferraro to step down, Axelrod should emphasize that Ferraro epitomizes the campaign.

Emmanuel Cleaver has been loyal to Hillary, but Ferarro is going to make it even harder for Cleaver to justify to his constitutency why he is sticking with a race baiting excuse making campaign.

noa
03-12-2008, 04:22 PM
Obamamaniacs again select the quote and ignore the context. She is correct. But now no one can mention he is black.

How is she correct? Do you have the divine power to know what exactly would happen in an alternate universe where Obama is white or a woman?
Its a statement that has no possibility of being correct.
By the way, she isn't just mentioning that he's black. She's saying that he only got where he is because he's black. Big difference.

jettio
03-12-2008, 04:24 PM
Obamamaniacs again select the quote and ignore the context. She is correct. But now no one can mention he is black.

You should change your username to vailpass, jr.

Obama is where he is because he gets people to go and vote for him.

dirk digler
03-12-2008, 04:24 PM
Ferraro has just officially resigned from the Clinton campaign

beer bacon
03-12-2008, 04:25 PM
How is she correct? Do you have the divine power to know what exactly would happen in an alternate universe where Obama is white or a woman?
Its a statement that has no possibility of being correct.
By the way, she isn't just mentioning that he's black. She's saying that he only got where he is because he's black. Big difference.

She is obviously correct. The last time this country elected a non-black President was four years ago. This bigoted country didn't elect a non-black President in 2005, 2006, or 2007.

Carlota69
03-12-2008, 04:27 PM
Ferraro has just officially resigned from the Clinton campaign

Good.

dirk digler
03-12-2008, 04:28 PM
Good.

Her resignation letter was stupid though

[March 12, 2008
Breaking: Ferraro steps down
Posted: 05:05 PM ET
(CNN) – Geraldine Ferraro has stepped down from her role as a member of Hillary Clinton's finance committee.

In a letter to Clinton obtained by CNN's Suzanne Malveaux, Ferraro said she is stepping down so, "I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign."

Full letter:

Dear Hillary –

I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.

The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you.

I won't let that happen.

Thank you for everything you have done and continue to do to make this a better world for my children and grandchildren.

You have my deep admiration and respect.

Gerry

HolmeZz
03-12-2008, 04:28 PM
It's a wonder we haven't elected more black presidents given how politically advantageous it is. Particularly with the middle name Hussein.

THE MAN HAS EVERYTHING GOING FOR HIM

Carlota69
03-12-2008, 04:28 PM
How is she correct? Do you have the divine power to know what exactly would happen in an alternate universe where Obama is white or a woman?
Its a statement that has no possibility of being correct.
By the way, she isn't just mentioning that he's black. She's saying that he only got where he is because he's black. Big difference.

And don't forget well-spoken:)

jAZ
03-12-2008, 04:39 PM
Obamamaniacs again select the quote and ignore the context. She is correct. But now no one can mention he is black.

Whether you feel it's true or not is not the issue.

I posted this in the other thread...

My guess is that Ferarro isn't going off message here at all. I think this was thought out ahead of time. She plays the gender/race card. The media reports it widely. Obama's camp responds, she the follows up with the "repressed white person" card.

Which plays into Hillary's current voting base in rural PA and the southern states like MS and NC coming up. It's dog whistle time.

Fuggin stupid if she's trying to win a general election, but I guess it's what they think that it takes to hang in in the primary. According to MS exit polls, she won 75% of the white vote. This is just part of that strategy.

The point being made is that this isn't some off-message, unflattering comments made by GF. It's (IMO) a calculated dustup intended to get the media talking about a story that will resonate with the group of white Dem, Indy and Dem-leaning Rep voters who have felt at one time or another that some black man got a job just because he was black.

The media has decided to debate the true/false and outrageous/appropriate nature of the statements. But they and ultimately most people are missing the fact that they are all being deliberately manipulated by the Clinton campaign.

Carlota69
03-12-2008, 04:43 PM
It's a wonder we haven't elected more black presidents given how politically advantageous it is. Particularly with the middle name Hussein.

THE MAN HAS EVERYTHING GOING FOR HIM

ROFLROFL

jAZ
03-12-2008, 04:45 PM
You should change your username to vailpass, jr.

Obama is where he is because he gets people to go and vote for him.

The Clinton campaign tried just before SC to make Obama out to be "the black candidate" by comparing him to Jesse Jackson.

That comparison is exactly what destroys the arguement that he's only where he is because he's black. Jesse Jackson didn't make it here and he was black too. Hillary and Obama are both where they are DESPITE being female and black respectively.

They are only where they are because they are excellent at what it takes to get to this point. Obama is comes across as exceptionally intelligent, inspiring, analytical and trustworthy. Clinton is simliarly talented.

They are where they are because of their abilities and in spite of the political burden of being female or black.

jAZ
03-12-2008, 04:48 PM
Her resignation letter was stupid though...

"I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign."
She's going to talk about this for 6 weeks or more BECAUSE Hillary wants her to. Seperating from the campaign gives Hillary cover and frees GF to keep it up.

dirk digler
03-12-2008, 04:57 PM
She's going to talk about this for 6 weeks or more BECAUSE Hillary wants her to. Seperating from the campaign gives Hillary cover and frees GF to keep it up.

Could be but I think Ferraro is going to disappear and she will always be linked to the Clinton campaign regardless.

dirk digler
03-12-2008, 04:58 PM
It's a wonder we haven't elected more black presidents given how politically advantageous it is. Particularly with the middle name Hussein.

THE MAN HAS EVERYTHING GOING FOR HIM

Yep Obama stated this today and he nailed it.

Obama was asked if he believes that Ferraro’s comments are racist.
“I’m always hesitant to throw around words like racist,’’ he said. “I don’t think she intended them in that way. I’ve noted that today she was suggesting that somehow we have made that claim and in fact argued it repeatedly we’ve said that anybody who criticizes me is making racial comments, racially offensive comments.
"I would defy anybody to look through the record over the last year and a half or the last year and couple months and find one instance in which I have said some criticism is racially based,'' he said. "That is not something that I’ve done,.
"Here’s what I do believe,'' Obama said. "I think that her comments were ridiculous. I think they were wrong-headed. I think they’re not borne out of our history or by the facts. The notion that it is a great advantage for me to be an African American named Barack Obama in pursuit of the presidency, I think, is not a view that is commonly shared by the general public.
“If you pulled out a handbook of how to weigh your assets and liabilities in a presidential race,’’ he said, “I don’t think my name or my skin color would be in the asset column.

jAZ
03-12-2008, 05:20 PM
Could be but I think Ferraro is going to disappear and she will always be linked to the Clinton campaign regardless.
She's an analyst for Fox News, IIRC. And in that case, there's no way she's is going away and there's no way that they are going to drop this story. And I don't think she wants to drop it.

mikey23545
03-12-2008, 05:30 PM
Obama is where he is because he gets people to go and vote for him.

Whether he has any qualifications or not.

HolmeZz
03-12-2008, 05:31 PM
Whether he has any qualifications or not.

So how many times did you vote for W?

HonestChieffan
03-12-2008, 05:34 PM
Whether he has any qualifications or not.

You cannot say that. Stop it.

jettio
03-12-2008, 06:33 PM
Whether he has any qualifications or not.

He has a lot better record of achievement than you and anybody for who you have voted for any office in the last 15 years.

Unless you voted for Katherine Harris for US Senate.

jAZ
03-12-2008, 11:34 PM
If there was ever any doubt that this was all a calculated Rovian stunt rolled out by the Clinton campaign to drive a wedge between whites and Obama...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/183170.php

03.12.08 -- 11:46PM // link | recommend (1)

For Reason Before She Was Against It?
Not sure quite what it means. But TPM Reader JB dug up this passage from a December 2006 article in the Times about what then seemed the likely prospect that a women and a black man would be competitive candidates in the 2008 Democratic primaries ...

“All evidence is that a white female has an advantage over a black male — for reasons of our cultural heritage,” said the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, the civil rights leader who ran for president in 1984 and 1988. Still, he said, for African-American and female candidates, “It’s easier — emphatically so.”

Ms. Ferraro offered a similar sentiment. “I think it’s more realistic for a woman than it is for an African-American,” said Ms. Ferraro. “There is a certain amount of racism that exists in the United States — whether it’s conscious or not it’s true.”

“Women are 51 percent of the population,” she added.

--Josh Marshall

HolmeZz
03-12-2008, 11:52 PM
If there was ever any doubt that this was all a calculated Rovian stunt rolled out by the Clinton campaign to drive a wedge between whites and Obama...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/183170.php

03.12.08 -- 11:46PM // link | recommend (1)

For Reason Before She Was Against It?
Not sure quite what it means. But TPM Reader JB dug up this passage from a December 2006 article in the Times about what then seemed the likely prospect that a women and a black man would be competitive candidates in the 2008 Democratic primaries ...

“All evidence is that a white female has an advantage over a black male — for reasons of our cultural heritage,” said the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, the civil rights leader who ran for president in 1984 and 1988. Still, he said, for African-American and female candidates, “It’s easier — emphatically so.”

Ms. Ferraro offered a similar sentiment. “I think it’s more realistic for a woman than it is for an African-American,” said Ms. Ferraro. “There is a certain amount of racism that exists in the United States — whether it’s conscious or not it’s true.”

“Women are 51 percent of the population,” she added.

--Josh Marshall

Hopefully the media calls her out on that.

jAZ
03-13-2008, 12:04 AM
Hopefully the media calls her out on that.
She deserves to be shredded in the media over this crap.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 10:22 AM
The Clinton campaign tried just before SC to make Obama out to be "the black candidate" by comparing him to Jesse Jackson.

That comparison is exactly what destroys the arguement that he's only where he is because he's black. Jesse Jackson didn't make it here and he was black too. Hillary and Obama are both where they are DESPITE being female and black respectively.

They are only where they are because they are excellent at what it takes to get to this point. Obama is comes across as exceptionally intelligent, inspiring, analytical and trustworthy. Clinton is simliarly talented.

They are where they are because of their abilities and in spite of the political burden of being female or black.

When was the last time a white guy, two years removed from his state's senate, was his party's nominee for President?

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 10:25 AM
When was the last time a white guy, two years removed from his state's senate, was his party's nominee for President?

FDR had six years of combined experience as state senator and governor before running for President.

Teddy had a combined 2 and 1/2 years of experience in elected office before he ran.

Woodrow Wilson had just over two years.

Nixon had 14 years of experience and Coolidge had 26.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 10:26 AM
Yep Obama stated this today and he nailed it.

Obama was asked if he believes that Ferraro’s comments are racist.
“I’m always hesitant to throw around words like racist,’’ he said. “I don’t think she intended them in that way. I’ve noted that today she was suggesting that somehow we have made that claim and in fact argued it repeatedly we’ve said that anybody who criticizes me is making racial comments, racially offensive comments.
"I would defy anybody to look through the record over the last year and a half or the last year and couple months and find one instance in which I have said some criticism is racially based,'' he said. "That is not something that I’ve done,.
"Here’s what I do believe,'' Obama said. "I think that her comments were ridiculous. I think they were wrong-headed. I think they’re not borne out of our history or by the facts. The notion that it is a great advantage for me to be an African American named Barack Obama in pursuit of the presidency, I think, is not a view that is commonly shared by the general public.
“If you pulled out a handbook of how to weigh your assets and liabilities in a presidential race,’’ he said, “I don’t think my name or my skin color would be in the asset column.

Hillary didn't say what Ferraro said either, but that doesn't stop people like jAZ (and plenty of others) from associating Ferraro's comments with Hillary. Obama has had plenty of his his own Ferraro's calling the Clinton operation racist and/or race baiters.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 10:28 AM
FDR had six years of combined experience as state senator and governor before running for President.

Teddy had a combined 2 and 1/2 years of experience in elected office before he ran.

Woodrow Wilson had just over two years.

Nixon had 14 years of experience and Coolidge had 26.

In other words, it's been quite a while (more than a lifetime for most of us) since anyone has even come close to what is happening for Obama, and even going back that far it remains unprecedented.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 10:32 AM
In other words, it's been quite a while (more than a lifetime for most of us) since anyone has even come close to what is happening for Obama, and even going back that far it remains unprecedented.

No, not really. Some of our best Presidents during our most modern, troubling times, did not have a great deal of experience as elected officials. Indeed, traditionally a lot of time in Washington, especially as a congressman, is seen as a detriment.

People like people that portray themselves as Washington Outsiders. Claiming that a great of congressional experience is a net gain for candidates for the Presidency is a departure from political logic.

Cochise
03-13-2008, 10:36 AM
The state senator thing amuses me. That's pretty small time. These are the people that voters read their name on ballots time and again and never remember who they are. They are people's elected representatives whom upwards of 90% of them can't name. In some states they make less than I do, I think most of them probably have other jobs. It would seem like being promoted from part-time checker at the grocery to CEO of the chain.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 10:37 AM
The state senator thing amuses me. That's pretty small time. These are the people that voters read their name on ballots time and again and never remember who they are. They are people's elected representatives whom they can't name. In some states they make less than I do, I think most of them probably have second jobs. It would seem like being promoted from part-time checker at the grocery to CEO of the chain.

Stop belittling FDR you commie.

Cochise
03-13-2008, 10:40 AM
Stop belittling FDR you commie.

I wasn't, I was belittling our current candidate whose resume is state senator, plus two years in national office the entire period of which has been spent campaigning for president.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 10:47 AM
I wasn't, I was belittling our current candidate whose resume is state senator, plus two years in national office the entire period of which has been spent campaigning for president.

No you are making that political "experience" as an elected official is vital for candidates for the Presidency, when history has shown it isn't true. Some of our greatest Presidents have very little of such experience, and some of our worst had much.

I do not want to say that you specifically would be making the opposite argument if Obama was the experience candidate and McCain was the charismatic outsider, but the narrative coming from the republican party would be whatever they think best portrays their candidate in a positive light.

Cochise
03-13-2008, 10:55 AM
No you are making that political "experience" as an elected official is vital for candidates for the Presidency


Yes, I would agree that at least SOME political experience outside of local politics ought to be something we should expect from a presidential candidate.

FDR was a governor, so I don't see how I was belittling him. That's an executive government position, being governor of a large state might be the closest thing there is to being president outside of it. I don't see how voting on how much money to give the state highway department to fill potholes compares.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 11:06 AM
Yes, I would agree that at least SOME political experience outside of local politics ought to be something we should expect from a presidential candidate.

FDR was a governor, so I don't see how I was belittling him. That's an executive government position, being governor of a large state might be the closest thing there is to being president outside of it. I don't see how voting on how much money to give the state highway department to fill potholes compares.

I think voters often do prefer a former governor over a congressman for President. Bush Jr. showed that experience as governor doesn't guarantee success. That doesn't change the fact that FDR had a mere six years of experience in elected office prior to becoming President.

Lincoln had, I believe, two years of experience as a member of the House of Representatives prior to being elected President. Was that also too long ago to serve as a viable example of experience not being the premier qualification for a Presidential candidate?

Cochise
03-13-2008, 11:14 AM
I think voters often do prefer a former governor over a congressman for President. Bush Jr. showed that experience as governor doesn't guarantee success. That doesn't change the fact that FDR had a mere six years of experience in elected office prior to becoming President.

I find your logic curious. One president who did have a good deal of qualifying experience you don't approve of, so this time we should pick the opposite. Because one qualified candidate failed, in your view, we should not pick qualified candidates any longer.

Even in your examples - FDR was the governor of New York. Teddy Roosevelt was not elected, he only assumed the presidency when McKinley was assassinated. So it seems like you have to go back 150 years to find a candidate as inexperienced - and Lincoln was at least active in national politics before that time and had been in the House, right?

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 11:24 AM
I find your logic curious. One president who did have a good deal of qualifying experience you don't approve of, so this time we should pick the opposite. Because one qualified candidate failed, in your view, we should not pick qualified candidates any longer.

Even in your examples - FDR was the governor of New York. Teddy Roosevelt was not elected, he only assumed the presidency when McKinley was assassinated. So it seems like you have to go back 150 years to find a candidate as inexperienced - and Lincoln was at least active in national politics before that time and had been in the House, right?

My argument is that a great deal of experience as elected official != good President. None of that is contradicted by what you posted above.

I am not saying that the opposite is true either. You can't point at two candidates and accurately say, 'Well Candidate #2 had 10 more years in the Senate. He is clearly going to be a better President."

Guys like Nixon and Wilson spent a ton of time in elected office before being elected President. That didn't serve them well either.

Cochise
03-13-2008, 11:34 AM
My argument is that a great deal of experience as elected official != good President.

Well, anyone would agree with that. I was saying that you seem to feel that since one president with good qualifications didn't turn out well, there's no relationship whatever between qualifications and results so we should not worry if someone has no qualifications.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 11:35 AM
Well, anyone would agree with that. I was saying that you seem to feel that since one president with good qualifications didn't turn out well, there's no relationship whatever between qualifications and results so we should not worry if someone has no qualifications.

Perhaps you should read my posts instead of just making up my argument yourself.

jAZ
03-13-2008, 11:50 AM
When was the last time a white guy, two years removed from his state's senate, was his party's nominee for President?
Who's 2 years removed from State Senate?

jAZ
03-13-2008, 11:52 AM
In other words, it's been quite a while (more than a lifetime for most of us) since anyone has even come close to what is happening for Obama, and even going back that far it remains unprecedented.
If this is a criticism of Obama or a defense of Ferarro, you're sputtering.

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 11:52 AM
When was the last time a white guy, two years removed from his state's senate, was his party's nominee for President?

Were any of their middle names Hussein?

Well there you go. There's your cause and effect. That's the only way it can be explained.

Cochise
03-13-2008, 11:53 AM
Perhaps you should read my posts instead of just making up my argument yourself.

I'm just trying to figure out why you think what you think. It sounds like there is still some meat left on that bone.

jAZ
03-13-2008, 11:58 AM
The state senator thing amuses me. That's pretty small time. These are the people that voters read their name on ballots time and again and never remember who they are. They are people's elected representatives whom upwards of 90% of them can't name. In some states they make less than I do, I think most of them probably have other jobs. It would seem like being promoted from part-time checker at the grocery to CEO of the chain.

Abe Lincoln's only elected office before running for President in 1860 was 2 years in the US Senate and a number of years in the Illinois State Legislature.

Small time.

jAZ
03-13-2008, 12:01 PM
I wasn't, I was belittling our current candidate whose resume is state senator, plus two years in national office the entire period of which has been spent campaigning for president.
Abe Lincoln.

Cough.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 12:08 PM
Abe Lincoln.

Cough.

Evidently Abe served too long ago to be any sort of metric for modern politicians.

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 12:08 PM
Abe Lincoln.

Cough.

IT WAS A PRE-1870S WORLD, MAN

Cochise
03-13-2008, 12:14 PM
Abe Lincoln's only elected office before running for President in 1860 was 2 years in the US Senate and a number of years in the Illinois State Legislature.

Small time.

Like I said, he was at least involved in national politics, and he was in Congress for a period where he wasn't running for president, and even still... we go back 150 years to find a similar example.

jAZ
03-13-2008, 12:23 PM
Like I said, he was at least involved in national politics, and he was in Congress for a period where he wasn't running for president, and even still... we go back 150 years to find a similar example.
Same question (different form) as I posed to patteeu.

How is being a once in a generation, a once in a lifetime, a once in a century political figure a bad thing?

It's certainly no criticsm to be compared to Lincoln.

jAZ
03-13-2008, 12:26 PM
Like I said, he was at least involved in national politics, and he was in Congress for a period where he wasn't running for president, and even still... we go back 150 years to find a similar example.

Lincoln had been in effect running for President since 1854 (6 years), subsuming his entire time in the Senate.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 12:57 PM
Lincoln had been in effect running for President since 1854 (6 years), subsuming his entire time in the Senate.

Cochise already made up a reason why Abe doesn't count. He is out of bounds.

Cochise
03-13-2008, 01:04 PM
Cochise already made up a reason why Abe doesn't count. He is out of bounds.

You can use Lincoln. I will take having to search back to the first half of our nation's 230 year history to find someone with less experience as a win.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 01:22 PM
No, not really. Some of our best Presidents during our most modern, troubling times, did not have a great deal of experience as elected officials. Indeed, traditionally a lot of time in Washington, especially as a congressman, is seen as a detriment.

People like people that portray themselves as Washington Outsiders. Claiming that a great of congressional experience is a net gain for candidates for the Presidency is a departure from political logic.

Trying to pretend that there are people who meet the description in my question by ignoring the description completely and making up your own is a departure from an honest answer.

jAZ
03-13-2008, 01:24 PM
You can use Lincoln. I will take having to search back to the first half of our nation's 230 year history to find someone with less experience as a win.

Leaders like Lincoln and Obama don't rise through the system very often. That's an amazing point of pride.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 01:25 PM
Leaders like Lincoln and Obama don't rise through the system very often. That's an amazing point of pride.

Yeah, it seems like Cochise is arguing that the democrats should have gone with Kerry again for this election. I wonder why he would want that?

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 01:26 PM
Trying to pretend that there are people who meet the description in my question by ignoring the description completely and making up your own is a departure from an honest answer.

Could you please reiterate your question again.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 01:28 PM
Who's 2 years removed from State Senate?

Forgive my error. 3 years.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 01:30 PM
If this is a criticism of Obama or a defense of Ferarro, you're sputtering.

It's a criticism of your statement in post #15 on behalf of the notion that Obama is where he is in spite of his race not because of it. The fact that we can't easily come up with relatively recent examples of white men who have accomplished the same thing tends to work against your argument even if it isn't absolute proof that you're FOS.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 01:32 PM
Could you please reiterate your question again.

When was the last time a white guy, three* years removed from his state's senate, was his party's nominee for President?


*Amended from "two" after jAZ prompted me to check my facts.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 01:36 PM
Same question (different form) as I posed to patteeu.

How is being a once in a generation, a once in a lifetime, a once in a century political figure a bad thing?

It's certainly no criticsm to be compared to Lincoln.

Isn't it quite a coincidence that he's also a once in a generation, once in a lifetime, once in a century figure in terms of his race and the success he's had too? Why yes, it is.

jAZ
03-13-2008, 01:49 PM
It's a criticism of your statement in post #15 on behalf of the notion that Obama is where he is in spite of his race not because of it. The fact that we can't easily come up with relatively recent examples of white men who have accomplished the same thing tends to work against your argument even if it isn't absolute proof that you're FOS.
Ah ha!

I see...

You've constructed a narrow question in order to try to orchestrate a desired outcome.

Your general question (absent your narrowly defined terms) is how often do white men of limited national political history end up a serious candidate for President.

Given the very few number of people actually competing for President at all, that broader question has all kinds of answers.

John Edwards in 2004 and 2008
Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996
Hell, Bill Clinton and GW Bush in 1992 and 2000 fit that chriteria.

There are lots of white men who moved up rapidly in the political world by would-be political king makers (see Bush and Clinton).

That the oft-cited greatest President in history happens to have the EXACT same conditions as Obama and was white... is just amusing icing on the cake of this discussion.

jAZ
03-13-2008, 01:51 PM
Isn't it quite a coincidence that he's also a once in a generation, once in a lifetime, once in a century figure in terms of his race and the success he's had too? Why yes, it is.
That actually makes him a once in HISTORY.

His race is an obstacle he's forced to over come. It's stunning that anyone is trying to aruge otherwise.

Well, stunning if stunning were actually spelled "stupid".

jAZ
03-13-2008, 01:51 PM
When was the last time a white guy, three* years removed from his state's senate, was his party's nominee for President?


*Amended from "two" after jAZ prompted me to check my facts.

Obama isn't his party's nominee.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 01:52 PM
When was the last time a white guy, three* years removed from his state's senate, was his party's nominee for President?


*Amended from "two" after jAZ prompted me to check my facts.

Why is that extremely narrowly defined question significant in the discussion on whether or not a great deal of experience in a nationally elected office is prerequisite for a quality Presidential candidate? It has always been laid out that other candidates with relatively little experience as an elected official on the national stage went on to be fine Presidents. All of these people were white.

jAZ
03-13-2008, 01:53 PM
It's a criticism of your statement in post #15 on behalf of the notion that Obama is where he is in spite of his race not because of it. The fact that we can't easily come up with relatively recent examples of white men who have accomplished the same thing tends to work against your argument even if it isn't absolute proof that you're FOS.
This is such a twisted logical fallacy, it's really quiet amazing.

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 01:56 PM
When was the last time a white guy, three* years removed from his state's senate, was his party's nominee for President?


*Amended from "two" after jAZ prompted me to check my facts.

When was the last time a first lady was her party's nominee?

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 01:57 PM
When was the last time John McCain was the republican nominee?

patteeu
03-13-2008, 04:10 PM
That actually makes him a once in HISTORY.

His race is an obstacle he's forced to over come. It's stunning that anyone is trying to aruge otherwise.

Well, stunning if stunning were actually spelled "stupid".

I think it's fantastic the way Obama has transformed politics into a less vitriolic process. Outstanding.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 04:14 PM
This is such a twisted logical fallacy, it's really quiet amazing.

Given that I've admitted that it doesn't prove my contention but only weakens yours, what's the fallacy?

patteeu
03-13-2008, 04:16 PM
When was the last time a first lady was her party's nominee?

Never. I think it's undeniable that Hillary is benefiting from having been first lady.

When was the last time John McCain was the republican nominee?

This one's not as interesting, but obviously John McCain has benefited from being John McCain in this election cycle.

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 04:19 PM
Never. I think it's undeniable that Hillary is benefiting from having been first lady.

So if Barack is benefiting from being black, why is Hillary not benefiting from being white and a female(two majorities)?

jAZ
03-13-2008, 04:38 PM
Given that I've admitted that it doesn't prove my contention but only weakens yours, what's the fallacy?

The falacy is that the accomplishments of (or lack of) a white man in past races has any logical impact on the question of whether a black candidate in this current election has had to overcome being black in order reach the level of being the nominee front runner.

By your logic Al Sharpton would have won the Dem nomination every time he's ever run.

jAZ
03-13-2008, 04:46 PM
See if patteeu where intellectually honest, he'd admit that being black IS an obstacle that Obama has had to overcome. And that simultaneously, he's also been (after shaking off the "black candidate" label, even among blacks... and proving he's a viable candidate on his mertis) benefited from his race among black voters.

And there is a question of net benefit.

But he's chosen to dispute the assertion that Obama has ever had to over come being black.

Calcountry
03-13-2008, 04:53 PM
You should change your username to vailpass, jr.

Obama is where he is because he gets people to go and vote for him.Take a large random sample of his voters asking each of them, why are you voting for Obama. Over half will say, he is for "hope" and/or "change".


Stupid people shouldn't vote, wouldn't you agree jettio? There is no one on this board who is more openly and arrogantly calling their fellow human beings "stupid" as much as you do.

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 04:55 PM
Take a large random sample of his voters asking each of them, why are you voting for Obama. Over half will say, he is for "hope" and/or "change".

Why do you think people are voting for Hillary?

jettio
03-13-2008, 05:15 PM
Take a large random sample of his voters asking each of them, why are you voting for Obama. Over half will say, he is for "hope" and/or "change".


Stupid people shouldn't vote, wouldn't you agree jettio? There is no one on this board who is more openly and arrogantly calling their fellow human beings "stupid" as much as you do.


I speak about people stoopid enough to believe in B*sh and his dishonorable and immoral war in the abstract.

Therefore, don't take it too personal.

Just remember that war always has casualties and is not just fun and games and sh*ts and giggles.

A majority of the folks with high SAT scores choose Obama.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 06:10 PM
So if Barack is benefiting from being black, why is Hillary not benefiting from being white and a female(two majorities)?

I think she is. I also think she's benefiting from being the spouse of Bill Clinton.

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 06:14 PM
I think she is. I also think she's benefiting from being the spouse of Bill Clinton.

No no no. But why isn't she benefiting as much?

patteeu
03-13-2008, 06:25 PM
The falacy is that the accomplishments of (or lack of) a white man in past races has any logical impact on the question of whether a black candidate in this current election has had to overcome being black in order reach the level of being the nominee front runner.

By your logic Al Sharpton would have won the Dem nomination every time he's ever run.

No, that's not my logic. And it's not a logical fallacy.

If it were possible to look at a history of races in which every variable was the same except the race of the candidate, it would be reasonable to study the differences in the results and identify the correlation between race and results would it not? Of course it would. Unfortunately, political science doesn't lend itself to the kind of observations where we can hold all else equal like we often can in the hard sciences so we are left with imperfect data. I acknowledged the fact that the data is imperfect when I admitted that the answer to my question doesn't really prove that you're FOS (nor does it prove that I'm right). The best we can hope to do is to look at political history for close cases and attempt to draw conclusions from the imperfect data.

Political science is more of an art than a science. As such, you can't use pure logic to prove/disprove competing assertions like mine and yours. All you can do is talk about historical examples that tend to support or discredit one theory or another and speculate about the psychology involved or how other factors may reinforce or invalidate the attempt to make a comparison. It is up to each of us to determine, based on all the other factors involved, how much or how little persuasive power the example holds.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 06:47 PM
See if patteeu where intellectually honest, he'd admit that being black IS an obstacle that Obama has had to overcome. And that simultaneously, he's also been (after shaking off the "black candidate" label, even among blacks... and proving he's a viable candidate on his mertis) benefited from his race among black voters.

And there is a question of net benefit.

But he's chosen to dispute the assertion that Obama has ever had to over come being black.

Right. :rolleyes:

And if you were intellectually honest, you would have admitted well before this that there was a positive aspect of Obama's race instead of exclusively arguing that race is an unmitigated negative for Obama, right?

Don't be an idiot. I never denied that there was an initial hurdle for Obama to overcome. In fact, I discussed it earlier today when I pointed out that Obama had an authenticity problem initially. I've also explicitly indicated that I recognize that there are racists in the democrat party who will refuse to vote for Obama if he wins the nomination (see my poll about racists and sexists in the democrat party). And while I don't believe I've said it recently, you can rest assured that I understand that there may even be a racist or two in the Republican and Libertarian partys.

Of course this is a question of net benefit. Duh. It is my strongly held opinion, that Obama is currently a net beneficiary. In addition to all the white liberals and moderates who have been waiting for their so-called "magic negro", he now also has the vote of the blacks who were initially hesitant about his authenticity. To be sure, he's also got votes from people of all colors who agree with his policies, like his happy talk or are mesmerized by his winning smile, but those people aren't relevant to a discussion about how being black helps or hurts Obama. It would have been a tougher call early in the race when blacks were skeptical of Obama and largely seemed to be sticking with the known quantity in Hillary.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 06:52 PM
No no no. But why isn't she benefiting as much?

Because Barack Obama manages to hide his ideological inclinations behind a facade of conciliatory rhetoric, he's articulate and charismatic, and he's black.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 06:54 PM
I speak about people stoopid enough to believe in B*sh and his dishonorable and immoral war in the abstract.

Therefore, don't take it too personal.

You have to remember that patteeu's extraordinarily ability to spell and use proper grammar masks that when it comes down to it, he ain't so bright.

Abstract? ;)

It's OK jettio, I still love you like a retarded little brother. :)

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 07:20 PM
Because Barack Obama manages to hide his ideological inclinations...

Wrong. Obama and Clinton share similar views on most major issues and frequently admit it in debate.

Gimme another reason.

patteeu
03-14-2008, 09:19 AM
Wrong. Obama and Clinton share similar views on most major issues and frequently admit it in debate.

Gimme another reason.

Please. Obama has a ton of support from so-called moderates who appear completely oblivious to his radical ideology. You and I understand what he's about, but you can't believe that those moderates understand it. He's done a good job of masking his radical views with moderate-sounding, conciliatory language.

As Baby Lee has quipped, he's very convincing about the notion that he'll listen intently to both sides of every argument before he ultimately decides on the most liberal option.