-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/01/debate-talk-and-my-questions-to-the-candidates/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Despite the cheering of House Negroes for Hillary (aka the Congressional Black Caucus), I got the sense most of South Carolinians were tired of Hillary by the evening's end, and cheering was more for Edwards and Obama. She pissed off Black people in South Carolina - that caucus is Obama's to lose.
Mr. O hasn't persuaded me to climb aboard his bandwagon, but the Borg Queen has flat out lost my vote, even if she wins the nomination; I'm writing in Kucinich, or voting for Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party as a protest (if she gets the Green Party nomination).
Adding troops to the military and raising the military budget even higher, as both the Democratic front runners intend to do, takes money from every human need we know black people are in favor of, from job creation to education to health care and more. Why no questions on this?
I have been planning to post Glen Ford's Democracy Now debate with Michael Eric Dyson. I even have the title of the post picked out.
Thanks for the reminder, and stay tuned. Appreciate it.
Post-Iraq, the military does need expansion. Whether you want to admit it or not, "waging peace" under the democrats in the 90s has contributed to some of the problems the military is currently experiencing. This is one of the few things I agree with them on.
This was the first democratic debate I watched from start to finish. Obama did take a beating, but I think he took it rather well. Edwards, at this point, is angling more for VP than anything at this point...and Obama/Edwards would be a hell of a ticket to beat (especially since I'm still trying to pick a VP for McCain).
And the 3-5 minute referendum on Bill Clinton's "blackness" was completely useless...and Obama's comment was not presidential.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/15/185205.shtml?et=y
Hilarious. Bill Clinton falls asleep at MLK celebration
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/01/clinton_gets_sleepy_at_mlk_day.php
CLINTON SAYS WE HAVE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BECAUSE LYNDON JOHNSON SIGNED IT.
GOLDWATER RAN A CAMPAIGN AGAINST JOHNSON...
SO WHY WAS SHE CAMPAIGNING FOR BARRY GOLDWATER WHO WAS AGAINST THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT???
BY THE WAY CHECK OUT BILL CLINTON'S RACIST POSTCARD HE SENT TO HIS GRANDMA IN 1966 DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.
http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2007/10/bill-clinton-racist-postcard-buy-it-now.html
Well, he might lose a few of those white voters who were unpleasantly surprised--frightened, even--by his Black masculinity. But he'll make for those votes with more Black voters and a few independents and Republicans who appreciate that a Democrat can still be a man's man.
Most importantly, Obama has demonstrated that he won't be "Swift Boated".
So how is Obama being swiftboated?
I would have been OK with one of two responses from Obama.
(1) He could have stood indignantly and proclaimed that all of the poor character traits attributable to Bill Clinton -- and thus him being referred to as "black" -- are an insult to Black people all around the world; or
(2) He could have said exactly what he did and demonstrated just how silly the subject was in the first place. Either way, the media has seen how ridiculous they look by asking the question as though it were a serious one.
Kinda makes you view the earlier "shuck and jive" comment in a different light, huh?
First, that's YOUR definition of SwiftBoating. Not mine (or most other intellectually honest observers).
Second, I'm not saying that Obama has been SwiftBoated. But if he gets the nomination, he most certainly will. Now, when Bush surrogates pulled that on John Kerry, he didn't have the testicular fortitude to turn it around and put W's piss-poor military record on blast. And that was a serious factor in his loss. But I don't see Obama going out like that.
Mmmm, no ...
Same ignorant, racially-infused comment that it's seen as.
"Intellectually honest?" Well, what's your definition of it?
On the "shuck and jive," fair enough. But I have to wonder: why do we get a pass when we justify the stereotype, and get pissed at others for using the same stereotype? Yeah (after some reflection) "shuck and jive" was a kinda messed up thing to say...but damn if Obama didn't just justify that stereotype. Your first choice of response would've been a lot better. I would've applauded Obama had he gone that route.
How do I define SwiftBoating? Rounding and riling up a bunch of no-life, bitter old white guys, and getting them to criticize and bait you on your Viet Nam war record, even when they know that much of what they're saying is either untrue or un-provable.
Now, who knows. Maybe there were one or two benign items on which someone could challenge Kerry. But unless he lied about serving at all; unless he lied about his rank; unless he lied about something significant, it was all much ado about very little.
Obama has demonstrated that he ain't havin' it. Good for him.
And you are telling us Barack and Hillary are right about needing to expand it further? You are also telling us that King was flat out wrong when he said that a nation which spends more on the military than on programs for people is approaching spiritual death. You are also telling us that most African American voters, who want to see the military budget cut because it conflicts with everything we need to see the money spent on here --- are wrong too.
The military breaks things, kills people and spends money. Lots of things, lots of people and lots of money. To suggest that we need more troops and a bigger military is just plain wrong. Barack's numbers among black voters would surely go down if voters were allowed to see a candidate with an alternative position, but alas, the corporate media will not allow that.
My question then, is why are we following the lead of corporate media on this, allowing them to decide what are the legitimate issues, who should be included or excluded? Why are so many of us blindly signing on to campaign for a candidate, to crft had carry his messages, and ignore what he or she ignores, rather than trying to hold candidates accountable? I don't understand. I thought black blogs were gonna lead, not follow.
Barack did say something I agreed with last night. When asked who King would endorse for president, he said "none of us". King would be leading a movement to pressure all of us to do better, Obama said.
Why aren't black bloggers doing that?
So I still have to ask...how is this happening to Obama.
Yes, the military breaks things, kills people, and spends money. It also contributed to the end of slavery, Nazism, facism, and will ultimately contribute to stopping the spread of radical Islam.
Or were these things no big deal to you?
Yes, the military is a big, expensive machine. But the purpose it serves-to keep this country safe and to preserve the right of people like you to complain about it-cannot have a monetary value placed on it.
Again, it hasn't happened to Obama, yet. But he has served noticed that he won't stand for it ... regardless of how it's defined.
The maximum enlistment age is 42, so unless you're past that, there's still time. :) My most valuable experience to date was my time in uniform.
I guess my issue is how someone can be swiftboated if they didn't serve, especially since the very nature of the term deals with one's service.
I use the term as merely a generic reference, i.e., being Shanghai'd.
The US military exists not for the purpose of defending citizens, but to impose the will of this country's elite upon the rest of the planet. There are, according to Dr. Chalmers Johnson, about 800 US military bases, three quarters of them outside the borders of the US. Those bases are not defending me. They are defending the privatizers who dictate to third world countries that they have to sell their natural resources at a deep discount to American and European elites and their local compradors. AFRICOM is not defending me. The two or three nuclear armed carrier task forces in the Persian Gulf are not defending me, nor are troops which have been in Korea for the last 50 years.
And no, I do not feel threatened by "radical Islam". I am a lot more threatened by some right wing Christians, quite a few of whom are in command positions in the Us military, like that crazy general who said his God is bigger than the Somali's and that a haze around Mogadishu was evidence of "demonic presence". That guy is number two or three in the Defense Intelligence Agency right now. Really, we need protection FROM the military.
The original point of this post wasn't for a military debate. After a long night of research and phone calls, I've found that some of the points you just made are factually incorrect. If you're interested, I'd be willing to provide you the correct info, so you don't have to rely on years-old data to prove your point.