Yes we can ...

Posted by: garyW

Yes we can ... - 02/02/08 05:20 PM

<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jjXyqcx-mYY&rel=1&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jjXyqcx-mYY&rel=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object><br><br>
Posted by: Mike

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/02/08 05:45 PM

Awesome!<br><br>[color:blue][/b]Hodie mihi. Cras tibi.</font color=blue>[/b]
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/02/08 07:54 PM

Nice piece. Thanks for that.<br><br>[color:red]_________________________</font color=red><br>[color:white]Max </font color=white><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/02/08 07:59 PM

The "next JFK" thing is building and building, and I admit it is sucking me in.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/02/08 08:04 PM

I agree that there is a hopefulness about it all. But the worst thing is to compare it to the past, in a sense - hey, this guy is his own man; therefore he will make his own history, build his own legend, commit his own mistakes. <br><br>This is not the era of Camelot, but it's sure something different for our time and I say iit's welcome. I only hope the momentum this fellah is building doesn't somehow derail. There are a lot of forces at work here. Lots of snakes in the grass. Poisonous ones.<br><br>[color:red]_________________________</font color=red><br>[color:white]Max </font color=white><br>
Posted by: Lea

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/02/08 08:04 PM

It makes me uneasy.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:white]xx</font color=white>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/02/08 08:09 PM

Now that's a message that can go viral. Hope so.<br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/02/08 08:11 PM

or for 4 minutes during a break in the Superbowl. <br><br>
Posted by: DLC

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/02/08 08:13 PM

in what way ?<br><br>bad memories of the 1960's ??<br><br>and people who spread hope ?<br><br>David (OFI)
Posted by: garyW

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/02/08 08:13 PM

Mr. VBlubber, to see the old friend well, happy today and new! <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/02/08 08:16 PM

It would cost 4.27 million dollars for those 4.27 minutes. Money well spent.<br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/02/08 08:24 PM

Meaning? If you mean: "We can't get all sucked into this man's "cult of personality" just like so many did with Bush" or something like that; I think you are right. So I just hOpe the trust people (including me) are putting in him is not wasted and that he can be as good and as much of a force for positive change as he makes himself out to be.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/02/08 08:26 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>Mr. VBlubber, to see the old friend well, happy today and new! <br><p><hr></blockquote><p>Yes, dear mister G-man-Sir! And is a special permission of mine to speak that it so nice as to be recuperated well in the kind facilities your people have me offered at this hour of juncture!!<br><br>[color:blue]I am here, say you are so!<br><br>=(:->D)</font color=blue><br><br>[color:red]_________________________</font color=red><br>[color:white]Max </font color=white><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/02/08 09:59 PM

Hello Mister Blubber, now it seems the gang is all here. If we could somehow leave a note on the door back at MCF but unfortunately the door won't even exist soon but at least I was able to leave a note at the MCF wiki page.<br><br>Same place just slightly different color scheme. I went for "Desert" at MCF and here I am blue. Fun place though.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/02/08 10:18 PM

Hey, Luc. Good to yakk with you. Been reading you and many others in here for the past month since MC went into lockdown. Just was biding my time. Freakin' great to be here. I expect the waters to calm ...and then, of course, sooner or later there will be more upsets, spilt milk, grim accusations, righteous demonstrations of passion, etc. etc.<br><br>Hey, you be blue, I be Varmentious. What the hey. Plus ca change...<br><br>In a little while we won't read about MC this or MC that, or even MM this and that. It'll just be us. This is one time where I look forward to assimilation. Borg me now, baby.<br><br>Gadzooks, that sounds rude.<br><br>[color:red]_________________________</font color=red><br>[color:white]Max </font color=white><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/02/08 10:38 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Borg me now, baby.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yes, we can.<br><br>
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

LOL! - 02/02/08 10:43 PM

Consider it done.<br><br>[color:red]_________________________</font color=red><br>[color:white]Max </font color=white><br>
Posted by: Lea

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/02/08 11:23 PM

Yes, that's what I meant, but without the Bush specific intent. Again, I do hope I'm wrong. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:white]xx</font color=white>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/03/08 07:52 AM

i think i read it's 3 million for 30 seconds so that song would be just under 40 million during he superbowl.<br><br>unfortunately, Fox won't allow political ads during the game anyway.<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/03/08 08:08 AM

You suck at math. 4.27 minute time 6 million/ minute = 25.62 million. Still a little steep. But the Fox ban puts the kibosh on it anyway. <br><br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/03/08 08:22 AM

There is a huge difference though in how Obama's personality works for him and how Bush's personality works for him. George W. Bush and his surrogates during the 2004 campaign (when we could say he was most cult-like) fostered an attachment to him not through particularly inspiring and empowering rhetoric, but through fear-mongering and a clear disdain for homosexuals. You could argue that Ronald Reagan did a similar thing by fostering caricatures of a poor black underclass, living on the government's dime on his way to becoming "the Great Communicator" and killing a pant-load of Nicaraguans.<br><br>In Obama's rhetoric, you cannot find a target. There is no hobby horse that he beats and fear is totally absent from his speeches.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Posted by: eckhard

freaky!!! - 02/03/08 08:29 AM

<br>What are you guys electing? A Messiah??<br>This thing makes me feel just as uneasy as all that rah-rah flag waving a few years ago.<br>´<br><br>
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/03/08 08:34 AM

Good observation, Cary. Yet I fear that may well be his Achilles heel. He has done a magnificent job of holding his head above the fray but the people like a good bloodbath and the man's utter unassailable nature thus far only inspires his fiercest detractors to redouble their efforts and sharpen their knives as they lie in wait. We can't overlook the importance of theatre in this contest. Yegods, the whole state election apparatus is based on insanely long lead times designed to build up a sense of occasion. It's part of the electorate's DNA now.<br><br>At some point Obama is going to have to demonstrate a different kind of steel - something a little less grand, a little more tarnished and tempered from battle.<br><br>[color:red]_________________________</font color=red><br>[color:white]Max </font color=white><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 08:41 AM

He's not the Messiah - he's a very naughty boy!<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/03/08 08:48 AM

I worry all the same about that, but we have been so accustomed to the tit-for-tat and straw man political arguments lately that anything that looks tempered (like the Clinton campaign's whole "ready to fight" trope) cannot possibly sound like anything we haven't been through over the last decade and a half and that is going to turn people off. Hell, it certainly doesn't make me want to vote.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Posted by: FSM

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/03/08 08:53 AM

yeah, i guess i was using twelve 30 seconds instead of 8. doh. <br><br>
Posted by: eckhard

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/03/08 08:55 AM

<br>[color:blue]...something a little less grand, a little more tarnished and tempered from battle.<br></font color=blue><br><br>.... you mean, like, being a politician? <br><br>This poster-child euphoria won't last until November. <br>He might make a decent VP, however, relieving Hillary of the goodie-goodie tasks, letting her be the bitch she probably prefers to be anyway. ;)<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/03/08 09:02 AM

Yes, right now he does resemble a Messiah and doubtless he is milking that lofty, impossible image. But I also agree with Cary that Clinton's hawkish warrior schtick is a bit shopworn and calulated.<br><br>We agree on one thing, certainly: there is plenty of time for Obama to be exposed, for him to fall and stumble about in the vry muck which awaits every individual running for public office - especially for those pols with presidential aspirations.<br><br>I don't know that he'd make a decent VP, however. Seems to me it's a neutered position. A grand emptiness. Titular but useless. He would probably squirm. He wants more executive powers than that, surely.<br><br>[color:red]_________________________</font color=red><br>[color:white]Max </font color=white><br>
Posted by: eckhard

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/03/08 09:07 AM

<br>[color:blue]Hell, it certainly doesn't make me want to vote.</font color=blue><br><br>It comes right down to the basic question: are you electing a politician, to manage a host of challenges? Or a Messiah, to give America back its soul?<br><br>Could it be that people have unrealistic and thus unfair expectations?<br>Sure looks like that from this end .... almost as though this youngster will have to carry the weight of many years, a kind of positive whipping boy Messiah.<br><br><br><br> <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/03/08 09:10 AM

they've had 20 some debates. Obama has given hundreds and hundreds of speeches and television appearances. the thinking that he's prime for a stumble is wishful thinking by some. he could stumble but so could any candidate; however, he's clearly shown he can go toe-to-toe with the established and nearly incumbent candidate in a way that's unprecedented. he's largely been a grassroots movement. Howard Dean was a grassroots movement and he was wiped out before the first primary in 2004. Obama won that first primary and he's either tied or beat Hillary in every primary since then. she hasn't won more delegates in any state yet. and, Obama is doing it by pulling new people into the race that haven't voted before. this is a coveted group that every candidate wants, but that have historically not delivered. the fact that they are delivering for Obama is why he has the momentum going into Tuesday to perhaps tie Hillary on this big day. a close super Tuesday is a big win for Obama.<br><br>Obama won't be a VP. not. a. chance.<br>Hillary won't be a VP. not. a. chance.<br>the winner of the nomination will make an obligatory offer to the other, but it won't be accepted and the offer will help heal the party. <br><br>
Posted by: Jashue

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 09:16 AM

Trust me Eck-- this is no rah-rah, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A! (a la 1980 Olympic Hockey victory) jingoistic BS.<br><br>This is a lot of Americans experiencing for the first time in their political lives-- a vision that things can be right. At the age of 40, my first memories were that of Carter. Though history has been kind to him-- I can't say that anyone was too jazzed about his administration at the time (and here, I'm being kind). Ford = ( ). Reagan, hero to many was deep down, just another wealthy man with utter contempt for the poor and at a gut level everyone knows it. Bush Sr. = more of the same. Bill Clinton, though at the helm during one of the most prosperous times in modern history was a good president, but in the back of my mind I always felt that he could have been equally comfortable hosting a game show like Family Feud (and this was before the Lewinski scandal).<br><br>Obama is different.<br><br>I'm not crazy about the video. I'd just as soon hear Obama speak minus the editorial licenses taken to force his words to fit in with with the other elements in the video. But maybe that's just me.<br><br>
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/03/08 09:17 AM

I am not saying that he's more likely to stumble than anyone else - merely noting that a stumble is inevitable and a good litmus test of true ability is the manner in which you recover from your stumbles - gracefully, efficiently, or otherwise.<br><br>Agreed with your assessment about the VP thing. Neither one would want it.<br><br>[color:red]_________________________</font color=red><br>[color:white]Max </font color=white><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/03/08 09:19 AM

Obama has as many specifics on his policies as anyone else running for this position. visit his website and then Hillary's and then McCain's, etc. the position papers are available to read. but this stuff doesn't translate to the sound-bytes that Americans tend to react to.<br><br>None of the candidates speak in specifics on the campaign trail. Obama just happens to be overwhelmingly more inspirational in not giving specifics than the other candidates. he can speak in generalities and provide motivation to support his movement that the other candidates can't tap into. will it translate to actual movement and change if he wins the election? time will tell. i am not sure what people expect other than a guy who is promising to listen to the other side rather than just trying to ram things through like Bush has done. Obama has a history of working with the other side in the Illinois legislature so his background seems to indicate that he's serious about trying to be less divisive than most candidates. we'll see . . . hopefully. but he's also about opening up government and not having back room deals. he wants to get more government stuff on the C-Span networks and let the public see government happening more so that we can have a voice in our government. that resonates with me, particularly after Hillary's back-room deals previously in Healthcare in the 90s and the overwhelming back-room energy deals by Cheney and other secret meetings by the Bush admin. i believe that Obama will do this. is this wishful thinking by me? perhaps, but i believe this promise. <br><br>
Posted by: eckhard

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/03/08 09:26 AM

[color:blue]Obama won't be a VP. not. a. chance.</font color=blue><br><br>I have actively followed presidential elections since 1964 and know that tradition would support your view, but this isn't a traditional situation, because both are "minority" candidates and cover very different constituencies.<br>Traditionally, a nominee would select a running mate, to complement his own position, be that geographic of ideological.<br>This time, I get the feeling that tradition may not cover all eventualities.<br><br>I honestly believe that dividing the current ticket would be too hard to take for a large portion of the electorate and could result in reduced Democratic votes. (Heck, when even Craig already says it doesn't make him want to vote, we may have a problem.)<br><br>I don't believe it would harm Obama, to put in a few years (perhaps just the first term) in the Clinton Court and then prepare for the main event. <br><br>But of course, even I could be wrong ;)<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/03/08 09:32 AM

The US doesn't have a head of state separate from head of government, so here the president needs to do both, manage the govt. and also provide an identity (or soul). It's very very rare that one can get both in a single package. Sometimes we get someone who is good at one of them, and sometimes someone who is good at another of them, but usually we get mediocrities at both and when we're really really lucky we get someone who is terrible at both (don't look now, but if you knock on the front door at 1600 PA Ave. today, you'll get to meet one of those). IMHO, the most "successful," by which I really mean "popular" presidents of the last 50 years have been in the charisma, soul-providing category—Kennedy and Reagan. Neither one of those guys was a particularly good administrator, I think, but they both presented an image of American/Americans that captured the imagination of the people. So that's what many of us see as being the definition of a good president (and in many ways, though they were of different political parties and political persuasions, IMHO the images they presented were astonishingly similar). It'd be nice if we could get a Wunderkind president who combines both characteristics, but I'm not holding my breath.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: eckhard

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 09:32 AM

<br>I know, I know ...... but this kind of euphoria seems as far removed from reality as the flag-waving jinguism.<br>Hopefully, this isn't just a brush-fire (pun intended) and hopefully, there is substance behind the man's media-and sex appeal.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 09:38 AM

i think it's hard to define the "euphoria" as being removed from reality. the reality is that Obama is still behind Hillary in the polls. he's gaining rapidly, but he's still facing an uphill climb.<br><br>
Posted by: Jashue

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 09:52 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>his kind of euphoria seems as far removed from reality...<p><hr></blockquote><p>Let's just suppose that Obama wont make a good president (and here I'm giving a huge benefit of doubt). That said, he still would have politicized a whole lot of people that perhaps otherwise would not have given a sh!t. Barrack Obama has been a shot in the arm of democracy. It feels good.<br><br>And as far as competence goes... I think that he is the type of person that can overcome better than most, the congressional gridlock that has been the norm since before I can remember. The man can, and will, lead.<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/03/08 09:58 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>This poster-child euphoria won't last until November. <p><hr></blockquote><p>That is not all that Obama is about. Two days before super Tuesday of course the rah rah is going full tilt but the man has substance behind him that will last the nine months and hopefully eight years.<br><br>Here is a test. Go to the main McCain website and parse the economy plan. There is none. Zero, nada. It does not add up. He has no plan except promise to cut taxes and prime the pump and stuff that is not going to work in 2009-2012. Then do the same for Obama's web site. Dig down. He makes no promises. In fact in speeches recently he has said taxes are going to have to be raised. His economic, education plans are where I get all euphoric because he is not over reaching. Of course he does the "middle class will see some more bucks and I am taking from the rich" because he has to get elected. His swap actually has some credibility to it. It could pass.<br><br>Two examples: he actually comes out and says basic research in the USA is at 50% funding in real dollars as compared to 1970. Any scientist knows that but to hear a politician say it is refreshing. <br><br>Do a search on the word "science" on the McCain site and on the Obama site. Two times for McCain, 13 for Obama. And the two times McCain says it the sentence reads "keep science innovations that we have already made ready to use in hospitals". This is lab bench to bedside jingoism that belies where real innovation comes from. Basic research. Obama wants more scientists minted, more funding for basic research. That is the economic engine of the 21st century. Everyone else just wants to build a cool embassy in Baghdad. <br><br>Bush jingoism four years ago was just that. Hot air mixed with fear mongering. Obama is a man with a plan and it is actually a realistic plan. America will have no wiggle room for funding anything but the debt and social security unless we make a quantum shift in our thinking. All we need is a an 8% turn to continue being the economic giant that we are (sorry europe). A messiah telling us we need to raise taxes because we have a new and better path to follow is what we need. Because a straight politician can't say that. At least out loud.<br><br>That 8% course correction will be done by a lot of persuasion. A lot of thinking about our kids and not the newest HDTV for the family room. To do that a messiah mixed in with euphoria is our last chance. It's a pretty good one too.<br><br>Aside: this is absolutely the first election that I might be voting for my favorite in the final election. No compromises. That would be amazing.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 10:12 AM

Eck,<br><br>First off, this video was not produced by anyone associated with the Obama campaign. The musicians involved wrote and produced this on their own because they were inspired by the message of hope in Obama's NH speech.<br><br>The message of hope is that there can and will be a better America, so the song and video set to Obama's words strike a chord that many others are feeling. No, we're not electing a messiah, we're electing a skilled politician who connects with the mindset and aspirations of a country beaten down and left to distrust those who were elected to govern us.<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 10:35 AM

All I can add is that in Chicago, we elected an Illinois Senator. Then in Illinois we elected a United States Senator. Neither time did we expect or receive a "messiah". Both times, we expected and received an amazingly intelligent leader who handled every task put in front of him with integrity.<br><br>It's horribly insulting to those of us who have actually voted for Barack Obama to have our votes invalidated as the needy fascination with a messiah figure.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Posted by: Jashue

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 10:59 AM

Don't take it personally.<br><br>Just keep in mind how dramatically different this situation is. And from the outside looking in, it seems way larger than life.<br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 11:08 AM

That is very well put.<br><br>I'm sick as hell of the notion that he is somehow risky because of a lack of experience, or that he's all charisma. He's a damn fine politician (as far as that goes), and he has been for many years now. AND, he's an exciting speaker. He is the antithesis of Bush. <br><br>How can that not excite you?<br><br>
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 11:11 AM

And he has absolutely no, nad, nill experience as a statesman. He is an empty suit that has embodied decades of white guilt. A Messiah figure is actually an appropriate description. <br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 11:28 AM

I do not think that word means what you think it means.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>statesman |&#712;st&#257;tsm&#601;n|<br>noun ( pl. -men)<br>a skilled, experienced, and respected political leader or figure.<p><hr></blockquote><p>He has experience at the local, state and national level. He has been successful (skilled) in all of those stages and he is now within reach of being the nominee for the president of the United States. His local community loved and respected him, his state loved and respected him as a state senator, and he has been very well received in Washington. He is very respected, just not by you.<br><br>I don't even want to address the "white guilt" comment. Its only February and I'm already sick of that nonsense.<br><br>
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 11:42 AM

I know. The truth can hurt sometime. No problem. <br><br>
Posted by: Jashue

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 11:46 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>He is an empty suit that has embodied decades of white guilt.<p><hr></blockquote><p>That you could say that is totally f**ked up. Totally. Completely.<br><br>And for what it's worth, I'm a white person. A white male, in fact. And I seem to have a pretty clear conscience. No guilt here!<br><br>But if you have to tell yourself such things to be more comfortable with the same ole same ole then be my guest!<br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 11:51 AM

"White guilt" is a favorite Rush Limbaugh talking point to attack the broad support for Obama ... that's where it's coming from. <br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Jashue

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 12:04 PM

Well, Rush has to say stupid, outrageous things. His entire career is built upon it (and that can be said of most pundits). <br><br>But let's just wait and see how this candidate of "white guilt" absolutely destroys whatever fodder the GOP is able to provide in the big race. I'm almost salivating at the prospect. Will Obama get his due then? Or will those that don't care for him come up with some other label designed to make him seem less of what he is?<br><br>Of course, I'm assuming that he gets by Hillary for purposes of this thread, but I wouldn't mind seeing her have at it with a GOP candidate either!<br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 12:18 PM

"that's where it's coming from."<br><br>I am glad someone is keeping track of these things, so I know when someone is just passing on someone else's schlock.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 12:22 PM

Actually Rush picked up on an article published by the very liberal LA Times defining Obama as "The Magic Negro" Careful where you cast your dispersions gw. For they often originate from within your own kind.<br><br>AS EVERY CARBON-BASED life form on this planet surely knows, Barack Obama, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, is running for president. Since making his announcement, there has been no end of commentary about him in all quarters — musing over his charisma and the prospect he offers of being the first African American to be elected to the White House.<br><br>But it's clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the "Magic Negro."<br><br>The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. "He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist," reads the description on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro .<br><br>He's there to assuage white "guilt" (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.<br><br>As might be expected, this figure is chiefly cinematic — embodied by such noted performers as Sidney Poitier, Morgan Freeman, Scatman Crothers, Michael Clarke Duncan, Will Smith and, most recently, Don Cheadle. And that's not to mention a certain basketball player whose very nickname is "Magic."<br>Poitier really poured on the "magic" in "Lilies of the Field" (for which he won a best actor Oscar) and "To Sir, With Love" (which, along with "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner," made him a No. 1 box-office attraction). In these films, Poitier triumphs through yeoman service to his white benefactors. "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is particularly striking in this regard, as it posits miscegenation without evoking sex. (Talk about magic!)<br><br>The same can't quite be said of Freeman in "Driving Miss Daisy," "Seven" and the seemingly endless series of films in which he plays ersatz paterfamilias to a white woman bedeviled by a serial killer. But at least he survives, unlike Crothers in "The Shining," in which psychic premonitions inspire him to rescue a white family he barely knows and get killed for his trouble. This heart-tug trope is parodied in Gus Van Sant's "Elephant." The film's sole black student at a Columbine-like high school arrives in the midst of a slaughter, helps a girl escape and is immediately gunned down. See what helping the white man gets you?<br><br>And what does the white man get out of the bargain? That's a question asked by John Guare in "Six Degrees of Separation," his brilliant retelling of the true saga of David Hampton — a young, personable gay con man who in the 1980s passed himself off as the son of none other than the real Sidney Poitier. Though he started small, using the ruse to get into Studio 54, Hampton discovered that countless gullible, well-heeled New Yorkers, vulnerable to the Magic Negro myth, were only too eager to believe in his baroque fantasy. (One of the few who wasn't fooled was Andy Warhol, who was astonished his underlings believed Hampton's whoppers. Clearly Warhol had no need for the accouterment of interracial "goodwill.")<br><br>But the same can't be said of most white Americans, whose desire for a noble, healing Negro hasn't faded. That's where Obama comes in: as Poitier's "real" fake son.<br><br>The senator's famously stem-winding stump speeches have been drawing huge crowds to hear him talk of uniting rather than dividing. A praiseworthy goal. Consequently, even the mild criticisms thrown his way have been waved away, "magically." He used to smoke, but now he doesn't; he racked up a bunch of delinquent parking tickets, but he paid them all back with an apology. And hey, is looking good in a bathing suit a bad thing?<br><br>The only mud that momentarily stuck was criticism (white and black alike) concerning Obama's alleged "inauthenticty," as compared to such sterling examples of "genuine" blackness as Al Sharpton and Snoop Dogg. Speaking as an African American whose last name has led to his racial "credentials" being challenged — often several times a day — I know how pesky this sort of thing can be.<br><br>Obama's fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he's written in his two (count 'em) books, or even what he's actually said in those stem-winders. It's the way he's said it that counts the most. It's his manner, which, as presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden ham-fistedly reminded us, is "articulate." His tone is always genial, his voice warm and unthreatening, and he hasn't called his opponents names (despite being baited by the media).<br><br>Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him. <br><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by mojo_jojo on 02/03/08 03:28 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 12:41 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>And he has absolutely no, nad, nill experience as a statesman. He is an empty suit that has embodied decades of white guilt. A Messiah figure is actually an appropriate description. <p><hr></blockquote><p> I know you just want to rattle the cages here with Rush Limbaugh talking points but you should really rearrange the words a bit. It is comical to google (no experience as a statesman+ empty suit + white guilt + Messiah figure ) and read some teeth grinding venom. The empty suit plus white guilt is off the charts.<br><br>Is it all experience? Are all the decades of experience that have trapped John McCain into the incorrect decisions to push on with a failed policy in Iraq a requirement? More troops John? We have to send more troops? John does not need more statesmanship he needs to take remedial math. Go back to the stateside barracks and do a head count. The quiver is empty. We don't need old failed policy and statesmanship. We need a bold change. We can easily right this ship of state but we need a real leader not the same old variations on the same policy. Hillary, John, Mitt, same old path. I would vote for an empty suit if that was the only choice but we have a real possibility of getting a real leader.<br><br>Don't pick fear mongering hopelessness. Do a 180. It is amazing how you will feel. <br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 12:58 PM

What surprises me the most about Rush is that he is rather positive about Obama. "He's a nice guy, doesn't deserve the disparaging remarks about his experience, etc that is coming from the Clinton machine, he deserves a chance." So is his real target Hillary? <br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 12:59 PM

I can see where some of this is coming from, but the line:<br><br>"Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand."<br><br>irks me. How much does anyone who doesn't truly know them understand the "heart" of a face on TV who holds the reins of power (or any celebrity really?). I often wondered (and wonder) at the heart of GW when I saw all the things that went on during his watch. Maybe I could be more forgiving if I did understand his heart. If Obama is an empty suit, Bush is even emptier; if we are discussing others' caricatures, Doonesbury's comes to mind.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: polymerase

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 01:08 PM

Boy, I thought The Magic Negro story had play a year ago but I guess it can be trotted out time and time again for the next nine months. An opinion piece in the LA Time by a black liberal. Since he says "magic negro" and a few other things then all the right wing pundits get to use it and paint this opinion as the general thesis of leftist white man guilt. <br><br>How whacky. I could paint the right wing as totally bat sh[i][/i]it crazy if I could use one year old opinion pieces of Malkin or Coulter. But I won't because it is completely meaningless what nuts say. Anne Coulter is not policy spokesman for conservatives. This dude is not a spokesman for liberals. <br><br>The only thing I can figure is that it gives Rush or others the ability to say "magic negro" which just thrills them no end.<br><br>
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 01:15 PM

The difference being, of course, is that Coulter and Malkin do not represent the main stream media. They are fringe right wingers with a limited audience. The LA Times is main stream and its message is heard far and wide. <br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 01:26 PM

The LA Times opinion pieces of the author of the opinion. You give far too much weight to the LA Times if you make it out to be the mouthpiece of liberal media or liberal thought in 100 percent of its opinion pieces.<br><br>The problem is that you are used to listening to conservative mouthpieces which do tend to speak in a monochrome of thought. Liberal rags like the LA Times will let anyone in the rainbow a few moments on the soapbox. It's called keeping an open mind.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 01:27 PM

Coulter didn't used to be seen as fringe, she has done that to herself. Good riddance. I don't know who Malkin is, but I do my best over here.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: MicMeister

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 01:37 PM

If I'm reading and understanding this text correctly, he is basically calling Obama an Uncle Tom*, am I right? <br><br>Doesn't matter if he loops it via that Spike Lee's theory, which does have a point to it, though, but not sure if it does here, and further, had someone other than Spike Lee come up with that term, It just might not have been accepted like it is, I believe. Well, I find it funny when he starts explaining it. Come to think of it, I'd be interested to hear Spike Lee's say on Obama. And Hillary. Heck, he'd probably have some cheeky comments on the other side as well.<br><br>The Magic Johnson reference I don't quite understand. Considering he banged just about every woman he figured would give it, including many white women I guess, Magic definitely doesn't fit the Magical Negro archetype. Doesn't quite fit the image the writer gives about the actors he uses as examples.<br><br>*I could've used a slang term perhaps more colourful in nature, but it would've been rather derogatory and definitely not politically correct, and I didn't want to either. Oh well, you get the picture. <br><br>And hey, IIRC some columnist or whatever did pretty much the same thing about Colin Powell wayback. Meaning, suggesting he was an Uncle Tom as well. <br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 01:39 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Actually Rush picked up on an article published by the very liberal LA Times defining Obama as "The Magic Negro" Careful where you cast your dispersions gw. For they often originate from within your own kind.<p><hr></blockquote><p>That's not an article by the Times, its an opinion (check the big blue words at the top).<br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 02:12 PM

moreover, it's not even an opinion by a regular LA Times op-ed writer. this is one op-ed piece by a guy who most often writes about hollywood. calling this an LA Times piece is about like saying that the NY Times is pro guns because they allowed Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association to write an op-ed. <br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: freaky!!! - 02/03/08 09:50 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Actually Rush picked up on an article published by the very liberal LA Times defining Obama as "The Magic Negro" Careful where you cast your dispersions gw<p><hr></blockquote><p>As others have stated, Limbaugh used this opinion piece as a justification to play his juvenile "Magic Negro" song. The opinion piece was by a film historian who wrote his opinion in the context of film history.<br><br>Rush uses his "Magic Negro" song solely in the context of derogatory race-baiting disguised as satire and justified by blaming the "liberal " LA Times.<br><br>And by the way, the LA Times does not have the liberal slant that you claim it to, it was purchased by the Tribune Corporation several years ago and they promptly fired their left-leaning writers. I read the LA Times every day, so please don't tell me it's something different because Rush tells you so. (Yes, now I get to read LAT's Max Boot and Jonah Goldberg rather than Robert Scheer). <br><br>Do you also justify Rush's Obama "Spade and the Hoe" satire?<br><br>Your echoing of Limbaugh's shallow satire and claiming our support of Obama is due to "White Guilt" is equally as shallow. You didn't put your "White Guilt" claim in context of the "Magic Negro", I did by identifying it with Limbaugh, you just stated as our problem. Rush loves to claim it's the Democratic party that has a problem with race and gender, and somehow having a black, a hispanic, and a woman candidates proves his point ... I guess in his warped mind that makes sense. And somehow those of us on this forum supporting Obama proves that point for you too, and you echo Limbaugh's opinion that we must have the problem. What complete nonsense.<br><br>Sure mojo, you justify your Hussein Obama posts too as we've discussed previously. Your intentions are obvious and they fool no one.<br><br><br>I posted the "Yes We Can" video because I felt a strong connection to the uplifting and positive context it presents. Unfortunate that you find it only as an opportunity to drag that message into the gutter. And so it goes.<br><br><br><br> <br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: freaky!!! - 02/04/08 03:30 AM

Regardless. Rush DID NOT write the article. The message is still clear.<br><br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: freaky!!! - 02/04/08 07:42 PM

With all due respect for you as a provocateur, Mojo, you are doing the exact same thing that Rush did even here in the forum. You are trying to make a point by co-opting someone else's quote, but then not answering to the arguments against because after all, "Rush did not write the article."<br><br>That does not change the charges that you leveled against Sen. Obama without comment. The "empty suit" you are accusing of saying nothing has had a record of promoting transparency and building coalitions totally outside of ideological partisanship. I can understand how someone from outside of Illinois might not understand this, but to level these kinds of charges without making sense of them with some reference to Sen. Obama's record or public statement is at the intersection of arrogance and ignorance, the very place we're all trying to drag this country away from.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: freaky!!! - 02/05/08 03:53 AM

"promoting transparency and building coalitions totally outside of ideological partisanship."<br><br>"to level these kinds of charges without making sense of them with some reference to Sen. Obama's record or public statement"<br><br>I will say it again. The man is an empty suit. He can say whatever he wants to in stump speeches or on his web site. But the man has little if any record of taking a stance on important issues during his THREE years as a US Senator. Look at his voting record. On key issues he takes the no road by a wielding the mighty no vote. Is that how a real leader acts? Or an empty suit? <br><br>And on issues where he does take a stand this is what he stands for...<br>Abortions on demand<br>Carte blanche amnesty to illegals, and medicaid and welfare benefits for them in the mean time.<br>Gun control limiting the sale and distribution of semi automatic firearms. My Remington 1100 shotgun would fall into that category. <br><br>I wish I could list more but that is about all he has time for. Too busy on the campaign trail since, oh, about his third month as a US Senator.<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: freaky!!! - 02/05/08 04:10 AM

My Remington 1100 shotgun would fall into that category.<br><br>Can't do without that!<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: FSM

Re: freaky!!! - 02/05/08 04:32 AM

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm <br><br>why doesn't his extensive legislative experience in Illinois count? he procedurally voted present a few hundred times but still voted more than 4,000 times. and the "present" strategy is something that is used in Illinois as strategy to protect more vulnerable members of your own party, for example. Obama even used it when he knew legislation was unconstitutional even though he he felt as though the legislation was on the right track. <br><br>Obama has as much detail and more than any other candidate still viable if you look on their websites. he's telling you what he intends to do.<br><br>
Posted by: MikeSellers

Re: freaky!!! - 02/05/08 07:07 AM

"I will say it again. The man is an empty suit."<br><br>The full suits on both sides of the aisle haven't had a good track record lately. Maybe lots of experience is overrated.<br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: freaky!!! - 02/05/08 07:19 AM

maybe? just maybe? <br><br>sometimes experience is everything to everybody:<br><br>one experienced John McCain fought against the tax cuts being permanent. <br><br>the other experienced John McCain is now supporting the tax cuts being permanent. <br><br>which experienced McCain did you like?<br><br>
Posted by: MikeSellers

Re: freaky!!! - 02/05/08 07:34 AM

One old saying I've heard is "You can have 20 years of experience or one year of experience repeated 20 times." <br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: freaky!!! - 02/05/08 08:34 AM

Why is voting "no" a nullity? Suppose you were in the Senate and a series of bills, one to make abortion available to girls without parental consent, one to make marijuana legal to everyone, regardless of age, one to cut the defense budget by two-thirds, one to increase the subsidy to the UN . . . you get the picture. Would you vote for them, or would you vote "no," and have that "no" express your sense of principles?<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: freaky!!! - 02/05/08 11:06 AM

Obama cowrote the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 which created a national database we can all use to track federal spending. He worked with Sen. Lugar on non-proliferation. While not perfect, he helped to push through the 2007 Government Ethics Bill over Sen. McCain's initial objection. (Remember those angry letters McCain wrote?)<br><br>Very few other Senators have been authoring bills at the pace he has.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Posted by: Inverted_Flag

Re: Yes we can ... - 02/05/08 12:17 PM

I concur.<br><br>Needless 'words'...<br>why not just talk numbers<br>then when the numbers don't jive<br>cut off that leader early<br>see where we're at now?><br>that's what happens when you keep back your thoughts<br>words are a dime a dozen<br>thoughts that make dollars (w/o blood on them)<br>makes sense<br><br>fyi<br>Florida is no place for the slow.<br><br>[color:green]I'll never forget the day I noticed weather modification happening: "What nature fearing cheaters."</font color=green>
Posted by: FSM

Re: freaky!!! - 02/08/08 08:44 PM

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/politics/09obama.html?_r=1&ei=5088&en=2a88709e3c7a587b&ex=1360213200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all">NY Times article out today</a> -- snippet starting with Obama in his freshman year of college:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Mr. Obama displayed a deft but unobtrusive manner of debating.“When he talked, it was an E. F. Hutton moment: people listened,” said John Boyer, who lived across the hall from Mr. Obama. “He would point out the negatives of a policy and its consequences and illuminate the complexities of an issue the way others could not.” He added, “He has a great sense of humor and could defuse an argument.”<br><br>Mr. Obama seemed interested in thinkers like Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud and Jean-Paul Sartre, whom he studied in a political thought class in his sophomore year.<br><br>The professor, Roger Boesche, has memories of him at a popular burger joint on campus.<br><br>“He was always sitting there with students who were some of the most articulate and those concerned with issues like violence in Central America and having businesses divest from South Africa,” he said. “These were the kids most concerned with issues of social justice and who took classes and books seriously.”<p><hr></blockquote><p>yeah, most "empty suits" get into Nietzsche and Freud and discuss the complexities of issues. Numerous "empty suits" can frame issues better with the best of them and most also go on to be president of the Harvard Law Review. other "empty suits" in the Harvard Law review include:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Prominent alumni of the Harvard Law Review include Supreme Court Justices Edward Sanford, Felix Frankfurter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., as well as Secretary of State Dean Acheson, Charles Hamilton Houston, Alger Hiss, Archibald MacLeish, Judge Richard Posner, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Chris Cox, New York governor Eliot Spitzer, Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, Yale Law Dean Harold Koh, former Canadian ambassador Allan Gotlieb, former New York State Solicitor General Preeta D. Bansal, University of Texas President William C. Powers, and Harvard University president Derek Bok.<p><hr></blockquote><p>becoming the President of Harvard Law Review is also what landed him the book deal that eckhard questions. this is why he wrote that book, fwiw. He was the first black president of the HLR and that was national news at the time.<br><br>mojo, i am curious why you're using rhetoric like "empty suit" when the facts don't support what you're saying. i don't believe that you'd reach that conclusion because of something like race, but i honestly don't know how you arrive at it.<br><br>
Posted by: eckhard

not quite .... - 02/09/08 02:00 AM

[color:blue]the book deal that eckhard questions</font color=blue><br><br>Not that he wrote a book, but that the two have both been autobiographical in nature, is what I find interesting... for a young man.<br>I don't doubt for a moment that he would have liked Nietztsche and Freud, however. It still shows. ;)<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: not quite .... - 02/09/08 07:10 AM

<br><br>personally, i think he's a "christian" only in name. i don't think he's religious at all. he's been carving this presidential run (or at least involvement in politics) for a very long time. Bill Clinton was the same way so i don't think there's anything wrong with it. but i do wish a candidate could get elected to a high office as an atheist in this country. we're a long, long, long way from that. so they all give a shout out to "God" and some even make it the basis of their campaign (and win, as Bush did).<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: not quite .... - 02/09/08 07:22 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>they all give a shout out to "God" and some even make it the basis of their campaign<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yeah, I mean we had all that with Blair as well, as if any entity could be more important than himself. So he promotes the bombing of Iraq on some spurious foundation claiming to have been commanded by God but when the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope both said he was deluded he started going on about how Muslims were ignoring their spiritual leaders - what an idiot.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: not quite .... - 02/09/08 08:23 AM

unfortunately, they most often reflect us. <br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: freaky!!! - 02/09/08 01:14 PM

[Hee]<br><br>INIGO<br>(whirling on Vizzini)<br><br> You keep using that word -- I do not think it means what you think it means. <br><br>(looks down again)<br><br>My God! He's climbing.<br><br>THE MAN IN BLACK,<br><br>and so he is. Very slowly, he is picking his way upwards, sometimes a foot at a time, sometimes an inch.<br><br>CUT TO:<br>The group at the top, staring down. <br><br><br>[/Hee!]<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: Trog

Re: freaky!!! - 02/09/08 01:23 PM

Its a classic, isn't it?<br><br>