I Am So Popular: Billie Jean Is Also Not MY Lover!
![Snapshots: Patrick Wolf @ Antone's [Last Night]](http://austinist.com/assets_c/2009/07/3681926004_a0e4378bf2_m-thumb-110x110-364431.jpg)
Snapshots: Patrick Wolf @ Antone's [Last Night]
Faith/Void: Bill Callahan at the Parish, Being Great
Weekend Music Preview: Sky Sunlight Saxon Memorial + 4th of July events
Commentary- African American Book Festival
Editors’ Note: The opinions and ideas expressed in The Accidental Gentrifist are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the outlook or beliefs of anyone else in the Ist network.
Don't call it a comeback!
I thoroughly enjoyed watching Barack Obama win South Carolina. Like most Americans, I like Barack Obama. And, like most Americans, I'm not sure why.
Of course, there are the obvious reasons:
He's not George W. Bush.
He's not Rudolph 'Hess' Giuliani
He's not Creepy John McCain.
He's not Mitt 'I'm not stopping no matter how much the terrified dog shits on the windshield' Romney.
And, he's definitely not Hillary Clinton. Like, six ways from Sunday.
Not that Mr. Clinton hasn't been around to remind us.
Jesse Jackson has told both Barack Obama and the U.S. media that Mr. Clinton wasn't racist or snide in rebutting Mr. Obama's landslide victory in South Carolina.
But, I would like to mention two things: Mr. Jackson's ability to function in his well-established capacity as an influential activist depends, at least partially, on having a sympathetic ear in the White House, and Hill ain't out of the race yet. At least not until February 6th, anyway. Second, Mr. Jackson's wife supports Mrs. Clinton. So there's that.
Really, I think the subtext is obvious to everyone, and Mr. Clinton meant exactly what he said. Which is, basically: There are a lot of black voters in South Carolina, so don't think the results are representative of the nation as a whole. Which is, really, not a racist statement. However, the media is not so generous, and, in presidential politics, perception tends to predate reality by about fifteen minutes. This forces Dr. Bill to backpeddle a bit, and Mr. Jackson has been diplomatic enough not to call him on his shit. And Barack was diplomatic enough not to say: "Uh, didn't the House of Representatives, like, impeach you?"
[Before you hastily scroll down to leave your comment, I would like to add that I too would like to give Bill the benefit of the doubt. I mean, the man was careless in regard to which ashtray he left his cigar, but he's obviously not stupid. He's a freaking Rhodes Scholar. And he left office with a 65% approval rating. There is, however, a nagging third option: He's going insane. Or he's suffering from acute campaign sleep-deprivation.]
But, again: Pointing out that there are a lot of black voters in South Carolina is not, in and of itself, a racist act. But it does bring up an important point:
While Mr. Obama himself would ostensibly like to deemphasize race as a campaign issue, there is a question in my mind: Are people voting for Barack Obama simply because he's black? I mean, non-black people. And, is there a moral or ethical difference?
If a black person votes for Obama simply because he's black, we can, as a nation, accept that. In fact, if you ask CNN or Bill Clinton, it's to be expected. A matter of course. I don't really care. It doesn't bother me if black people vote for the black guy. For 230 years, we have, in general, chosen our candidates from a field of uniformly wealthy crackers. (And 'we' has only meant 'all of us' for the last 44 years.) What bothers me is the idea that some whites are voting for Mr. Obama solely because he's blacker than they are. Because that's tokenism, even at the highest office. Even if the end justifies the means.
"All right, all right. You people can vote, you go to college, you can even teach public school. Hell, you've even been to outer space. Now, sure as shit, you can even be president. Can we finally give this affirmative action stuff a rest?"
This is not, I should be clear, what I think. But because I live where I do, and because I drive an old truck that constantly needs old parts that can only be found in small town junkyards, and because I can't often afford to eat in fancy-pants restaurants, I am periodically neck-deep in redneck hickoids. Some of whom communicate (albeit poorly) the idea that voting for Mr. Obama somehow absolves them from recognizing the static inequity that is our nation. (I've also run into many sensible, non-racist middle class types who also seem to feel this way.)
And yet, nonetheless, and contrary to the basis of my own invented moral quandary, it is arguable that electing such a man would be a solid and incontestable first step toward addressing that problem.
And yet, it seems simplistic: If you're constantly being lied to, misled, and internationally humiliated by white Christian men, then maybe you should vote for the non-white non-evangelical guy.
Fuck. Maybe I should just vote for Michelle.
I have, what my non-white, non-black professor of ethnographic film referred to as 'analysis paralysis.'
Ultimately, if we truly desire to transcend race, us undecideds should just give him the same respect (or lack thereof) we traditionally give the guy we end up voting for. It's pretty pragmatic: Put 'em in there, and see what he do.
With any luck, he'll win. And, with respect to those who've put us in an endless war and have sunk our dollar lower than the Canuck Buck, he'll do what the old lady tells L.L.:Get upstairs and take out that garbage.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
shorter BR:
What Bill Clinton said was not racist. But the press said it was. Because it was. Not because it was, but because Jesse Jackson is not black. Or something.
my problem with obama is that his plans are too vague, he's too hawkish, and his health care plan is more of the same health insurance crap. but that's because i read what he says, instead of listening to or watching him. i'm sure if i watched him on the tv, i'd be just smitten.
Obama is the least hawkish of any of the viable candidates. The only 3 candidates less hawkish than him are Edwards (unfortunately a distant 3rd), Ron Paul (not a viable candidate in any way), and Dennis Kucinich (who has since dropped out). I suppose it could be argued that Bill Richardson was less hawkish as well. And, I'll openly admit that I don't know what Dodd, Biden, or some of the other folks were thinking because they dropped out too quickly to matter.
At this point, whose plans are NOT too vague?
I'm amazed at how the media can turn a few remarks into a full out war between Bill Clinton and Obama. I read this article, the article that was supposed to be "more in-depth", other online mainstream media sources and watched the 5:30pm news over the past week and have yet to really see sufficient evidence for this WAR between the two. On Thursday night all three stations ran the same story on Bill bringing down the campaign, making race an issue, etc. NO ONE had any evidence in their reports, only viewpoints from outside sources.
This seems to be an orchestrated attack on the Clinton campaign because, let's face it, it's more exciting to cover Obama. There's more to talk about, more energy, it's better press. But, does that make him qualified to be president?
I went (and took my 14 year old daughter) to the rally last year at Auditorium shores because I wanted to see what Obama was all about. I left disappointed - he said many things, none of which dealt with hardcore policy issues, his whole speech was about making America a better place -- no specifics. Yes, I want it to be better but I need to know how you are going to do it. The whole event was more like a rock concert than a political rally.
I'm not a fan, no matter what color he is, I want the most qualified and connected president to dig us out of this freaking nightmare Bush has created. I'm for Hillary.
"But, does that make him qualified to be president?"
Hillary either fell for the Iraq bullshit being fed to the Senate by Bush, or knew it was BS but voted to give Bush the authority to invade anyways because she thought it was the best political move at the time. Obama was against the Iraq war from the start, and unlike the idiots like Kucinich, it wasn't because he's a happy-rainbow all-wars-are-bad fruitcake; he knew that THIS war was a bad idea.
Pick your own reason, but either way, I'm thinking "more qualified" is Obama's to lose at this point.
I'm not on the Obama boat quite yet, but is Hillary all that qualified? She talks about her experience, but she very rarely gives examples of her experience.
She is experienced in fighting (a good fight, no doubt) for health care (and losing, unfortunately).
She has no real foreign policy experience at the executive level, since she never ever had any security clearance as first lady to attend or read the executive briefings. She's experienced at voting for the war in Iraq and sabre rattling at Iran though.
Great.
Remember the last time we elected a really well connected guy to be president?
He was connected to a former president and the Florida governor by blood. He was connected to celebrities and athletes. He was connected to big corporations -- telecom, oil, energy! He was connected to relatively high ranking religious leaders. He had executive level qualifications and had "successfully" run a few really large businesses as well as being the head executive of a pretty big state.
He was connected and qualified, for sure. He brought in the best of the best to surround himself with top policy makers. Experts! Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Ken Lay, oh joy!
And it turned out how? Fucking great? Spectacular?
Austingal,
A point that I didn't feel like I had the space to discuss was that Obama benefits from both our very American desire to root for the underdog, as well as our more human desire to end up on the winning side. And Bill's comments definitely helped that. And that's really as far as I'd go in terms of a 'war' between them.
Second, I think it is arguable (or perhaps even true) that Mr. Obama has hesitated to build a platform of promises, specifically because candidates never seem to have the character (or even ability) to actually deliver half of what they promise.
In short, I'm comfortable voting for the guy who says little, when his opponent promises the moon.
Benj,
I never thought of it that way (your second point) and it actually sums up why I think Hillary is full of shit: because what she says could never possibly happen, she knows it can't happen, and therefore she's just lying to me.
I am more than happy to vote for a president (obama) who seems to have an acknowledged ability to build alliances across party lines and listen to people. What is more, he inspires hope and confidence in people and I believe he makes many of us feel proud to be Americans again, something we haven't felt in a very long time. To me there is only one clear choice for a candidate who can bring new breath and inspiration to a country mired in red-blue squabbles. No president can get his domestic or foreign policies passed on his own, unless he starts a war (see current prez), so just having someone in office who inspires hope, cuts down on bitter rancor and has genuine intelligence and a desire to bridge the cultural and political gaps in our country seems like the obvious choice, even if you do have a few nits to pick with his policy choices, or absence of detailed stances on said during a demo-specific ealry nominating process. Now if we could just figure out a way to get Romney to beat McCain, the road to Penn Ave for Obama would be that much easier. Sorry, Clintons, if the Kennedies are abdigating any idea of dynasty by backing one not-of-their-own, your fractured power play and bill's desire to only save face by having his wife win the primary, does not have legs on which to stand. PS. Jesse Jackson was not a sitting Senator, so bill's analogy is weak at best, race-baiting at worst.
Very well said Barney.
You summed it up for me.
Although I'm not so sure that Romney would be easier to defeat than McCain.
I do realize that even republicans are a bit enamored with obama, and since many conservatives HATE McCain, they would be likely to stay home rather than vote for the indie-ish McCain over Obama, but make no doubt about it, romney would be an easier beat than McCain for Obama, ask any republican strategist. McCain would beat Hilary, hence republicans laughing about the dems losing an 'unlosable election,' once again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
i will stop soon, but one more point, for all of these people (clinton's people and sometimes amublance chaser's) saing it is about who can get elected...do they/people realize that there is no more gaalvanizing force for republican hatred than the clintons? republicans would crawl on their knees in the snow uphill to vote against the clintons. or do we not remember the mid-90s? it just boggles my mind.
republicans would crawl on their knees in the snow uphill to vote against the clintons.
lol.
that's probably happened a number of times in colorado, i suspect.
I've always wondered why Republicans hate Bill Clinton so much since he was a wolf in sheep's clothes.
Besides simply being a rallying point to get people out to vote, he gave the Republicans exactly what they wanted in his free market and deregulation policies. And those policies allowed the Republicans to rule Congress as well as the majority of Governorships/State Legislatures for more than a decade.
cause he gets laid and they don't
Besides being a lousy candidate, a Hillary nomination would kill hopes for Texas Democrats to retake the Lege. They're about 5-6 seats short of taking the House now, and with Obama at the top of the ticket, there are enough races "in play" around the state to make it doable.
But Hillary's negatives are so high, she would bring rednecks out of the woods (literally) just to vote against her. That would likely throw most of those borderline districts back to the Pubs.
I can't stand Hillary - although she talks a good talk about health care and Iraq and everything else now, who says she won't change her mind to get re-elected? Bill and Hillary both suffer from being politicians first and dreamers third or fourth. What great liberal ideas did Clinton push while he was president with a democratic-controlled congress? Healthcare? Failed. Welfare reform? Check - he cut it. "Free" trade? Wow, thanks but no thanks. I would much prefer someone like Obama that stands for unpopular things even when they are unpopular - and fights to make them popular. Can Hillary do that? No way in hell. I would probably write-in someone before voting for her.
If somebody knows an idiot, it's definitely Mdahmus. After all, when a crackpot calls a kettle a crackpot....
Why do you have this aching hard on for mdahmus, AsherBaruch?
He doesn't have to like Kucinich or Demling, but he shouldn't marginalize them because he disagrees with their left wing ideologies and feels that they shouldn't enter the political world.
Calling good, communal people idiots and crackpots is childish, boorish, and quite frankly worthwhile of condemnation.
Condemnation begets condemnation. Sounds fair to me.
I'm for Barrack Obama and have been since the beginning. I normally don't like Democrats - except the good guys, like Kucinich - but this was the election I knew I'd have to make an exception for.
To be honest with you, unlike many of the candidates I've supported in the past, I don't know a great deal about Obama and his plans or whatever. But, as Benjamin said, it's not about who he is; I don't care about that. All I care about is that I think he can beat Hillary Clinton and whomever the Republicans roll out of a Men's Wearhouse bag on election day, and he doesn't make me want to beat the shit out of some bubble wrap.
SIDE NOTE: Has anybody else thought about the striking similarities between Ma Ferguson and Hillary Clinton? Oh, but Ma died at 86; that would give Hillary 16 more years to try to be President. Well, fingers crossed!
*Actually, it's 26 more years. So.
Either way, both ladies were firsts, in part because they were/are hitched to the impeached.
But Ma had a hat.
I had a UT Texas history prof who was adamant that Ma's success was based on a photo taken of her wearing a hat.
I guess you had to be there.
Point in case, I can't even spell Barack. Gosh, I am such a vanilla face!
Hillary should totes sport a hat. She could join the Red Hat Society. I hear they have dope parties... I mean, droll parties.
Kucinich and those who support him are doey-eyed fools who think we shouldn't ever get into a war; not even Afghanistan, or, heck, WWII. They make it way too easy for the hawks to claim that anybody against any war, even a bar war like Iraq or Vietnam, is just a hippie.
AsherBaruch is also mad because I pointed out that it's not illegal or unconstitutional for the Texas Dems to require Kucinich to sign a loyalty oath to run in, and here's the important part: _their_ _primary_.
I'm not mad, Mdahmus. Just because you think so, doesn't make it true. Like you calling Demling a crackpot and Kucinich an idiot. Those two have cajones larger than your head. Why? Because they are willing to take on the challenge of bettering their society. Telling Demling to take a hike because he rides bikes, grows a beard, and wasn't born in Austin, but is still interested in running for City Council, is a bit close minded. As is your portrayal of Kucinich a doe-eyed, unicorn-over-the-rainbow-rider because he feels there should be a Department of Peace in our Cabinet, an idea that dates back to the OGW.
You are, in effect, what is wrong with this country, what with all your barking from the sidelines with a complete lack of respect for others, hoping that some insult of yours will stick and become a part of our local jargon. (And not even original, I may add. I believe the term is Dittohead.) What good does that do anybody, let alone the Austinist?
What I'm saying is that your projection tells me a lot. You sound like an angry, cranky man who needs to dominate discussion with ridicule rather than approach ideas with thought. Do you ever re-read your posts? Or, better yet, do you ever read an article and not post, or write a diatribe out and decide not to post it? In other words, do you ever censor your own thoughts and behavior in order to not turn people off with your approach?
I do know this to be true: If I don't speak up, and I wait for someone else to do it, then I'm not helping matters. And if anyone knows that you need help, Mdahmus, it's someone who has read your commentary on these here posts.
Now, go on outside and have yourself a beautiful day, ya'hear?
"In other words, do you ever censor your own thoughts and behavior in order to not turn people off with your approach?"
My irony meter just broke. You owe me a dollar.
So many levels of irony that it's not even funny.
Really, not funny at all.
See, this is why we don't talk about politics at the dinner table. Or near sharp objects.
But for the record, I am definitely a doe-eyed fool who thinks we should avoid all war. I don't think we can, just that we should.
Benj, that's a real nice third-grade philosophy you got yourself there. So what do we do in the WWII case?
Those who can't admit that there are "just wars" should really just go join the Amish or the Swiss. Get thee as far away from the levers of the voting booth as possible. You make it far easier for the truly bad people to insist that opposition to any war is the same thing as opposition to all wars, and thus should not be listened to.
AsherBaruch,
You are not alone in your feelings towards mdahmus. I too often wonder if he thinks before he speaks...or really thinks critically about anything at all.
p.s. mdahmus "thinking critically" is different from criticizing everything that differs from your opinion.
Dear last couple of boneheads: one example of "what I've done" was spend 5 years on the UTC, and then sticking my neck out to point out (in 2004) how bad this commuter rail plan was going to screw Austin in favor of Mike Krusee, even though I knew it was gonna get me kicked off for my trouble.
Well, and blogged about transportation in particular for the years since then as well. And a bunch of other things, but this ought to be enough to counter the personal attack.
Now, what have you done?
Watched you through your window from across the street as you peeled off those longjohns and stepped into a steamy tub full of bubbles and scented oils....
did I just say that aloud?
mmmmm....tasty, tasty slacktivism...i'd blog about it, but only if it were forwarded to me in an email or something.
and served hot.
Third grade philosophy? And you're the one who thinks one war can end another? That violent action is the remedy for violent action?
I guess that would be the 2nd grade curriculum. Or the Old Testament. (You know, the same book that places authority with supernatural beings.)
WWII. Wow, I almost forgot about that one. What to do, what to do...?
Schiße, don't ask me. I'm German.
But seriously.
I guessed you missed the part where we fought on both sides of the same Afghan war. Or didn't you know that the name "Al Qaeda" comes from a U.S.-backed, anti-Soviet training camp? Winning by proxy wasn't enough. We had to go back and lose directly.
And WWII was an extension of WWI. Which was a result of the complete stagnation of diplomatic ability during the transition from feudal to democratic states. Just... fear.
Come on. Anyone who accepts that any voluntary action is unavoidable--who accepts it without question, instead automatically seeing it as one option among many--is a vegetable, a farm animal, a hopeless asshole gumming the works of human evolution.
Violence and hostility and confrontation are all necessary parts of human existence. But warfare is not. Systematic rape is not. Infanticide is not. Mass murder of civilians for ethnic, religious, or national reasons is not. And don't--for one second--think you can have one without the others.
Mdahmus, I read your comments all the time. I'm shocked your mind is this asleep. You probably couldn't stretch if meant crossing your legs.
Before you make that decision, I'd encourage everyone to read this article from the NY Times Magazine this Sunday: here
American hegemony is over. The empire is crumbling. We are at a crossroads and we need a leader that understands this.
Benj, not all wars are just because we were bad guys. Some, like WWII, were because other people were bad. Note that our country was the only 'winner' in WWI that didn't try to squeeze blood from the German stone. So it'd have been as bad or worse if we hadn't been involved in WWI.
But if you think we shouldn't have fought in the big one (WWII), you've got yourself the proverbial third-grade philosophy.
Oh, yes. That proverb. Not the one about simplistic hawkishness.