Obama as Jackie Robinson

Adam Serwer laments the fact that Barack and, particularly, Michelle Obama have to humanize themselves to the electorate and fight back against an elitist caricature.

[T]he Obamas are still fighting Jackie Robinson Syndrome, the reflexive double standards and often small, sometimes large, but always public humiliations that come from being the first black person to do something.

Ezra Klein thinks this “beautifully put” but thinks there’s more to this than race.

Rather, the campaign against Obama has metastasized into a variant of class warfare. It’s the resentment of the meritocracy. What the GOP realized was that Obama did come across different than the average American, but not so much because he was black as because he was effortless. The very set of supercharged talents and qualities that allowed Obama to levitate past the boundaries of race and class make him different than those who haven’t rocketed upward on the strength of their intelligence and charisma and charm. After all, if you’re a fumbling, struggling individual out in suburban Ohio, how can you believe that this guy who doesn’t look to have struggled a day in his life cares about your pathetic problems? Obama, in other words, is elite. As in “A group or class of persons enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status.” Obama isn’t an economic elite, but he is a social and intellectual elite. And it’s that creeping sense that he’s different, that he’s better and knows it, that McCain is trying to exploit.

But that’s a time-honored tactic.  Witness the campaign against Michael Dukakis in 1988, George H.W. Bush in 1992, Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004.  Or any seriously contested presidential primary, of either party, in my memory.  Being “out of touch” with “regular Americans” is a political liability.   Caring about “people like me” is good.  Being elite is fine.  Being elitist, not so much.

Getting back to Serwer’s quote, it marks the second time in recent days I’ve seen the Jackie Robinson comparison trotted out.  A National Journal poll over the weekend, the results of which were released today, asked, “Who is Obama most like — John F. Kennedy, Jackie Robinson, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter or Colin Powell?”

My response:

It’s an insult to great achievers like Robinson, Powell, and Kennedy to mention Obama in the same breath.  Obama’s got the youthful charisma and inexperience JFK brought to the White House, minus the war hero credit.  That leaves, by default, Jimmy Carter, who was a decent, smart guy in way over his head.

Jackie Robinson was a demonstrably talented baseball player, denied access to the Major Leagues by dint of the skin color he was born with, who instantly became a top player once given a chance.  Barack Obama has faced no such barriers, getting admitted to the finest schools in the country by virtue of his qualifications and then put on the fast track in academe, politics, publishing, and other pursuits through combination of extraordinary gifts, hard word, and, ironically, the color of his skin.  While there’s no doubt that being “the first black” poses challenges, it comes with perks.

Regardless, he’s very young to be on the verge of a major party presidential nomination and has none of the usual resume entries one expects to see in one who got there so quickly.  Bill Clinton was about the same age but had been governor of Arkansas for a dozen years.  Kennedy was a war hero and Pulitzer Prize winner.  Obama gives good speeches.

That said, comparisons only go so far.  As I’ve written on numerous posts in recent months, we’ve had great presidents who seemed barely qualified for the job and lousy ones who had extraordinary preparation.   It’s quite reasonable to look at Obama’s and McCain’s pasts as clues to their futures — they’re really the only clues we have, after all, aside from gut feelings about their personalities — but the presidency is sui generis and people surprise you.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2008, Race and Politics, US Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Bithead says:

    Obama gives good speeches

    Your points are well taken, James, but let’s fine tune this line just a bit;

    Obama delivers great speeches which, once written for him and place in the screen in front of him to read aloud. When he’s forced to think on his feet, not so much.

    Now, in fairness, let me point to my own time behind a mike, and say, as I’ve said many times before, that some of the smartest people I ever knew froze up solid behind a mike and some of the dumbest pains in the ass I ever had the misfortune of working with were more dependable behind the mike than the likelyhood of rain after you wash the car. there’s no sense to it.

    But as you say, what we have in front of us is in reality all we have to go on. The evidece we have is that Obama does not come off as one who thinks well on his feet… which plays into that 3am thing, again.

    Now… nicely written speeches, nicely delivered is one thing. But what of the values of what his speeches contain? And do they mesh with what we know of his history, seems another matter.




    0



    0
  2. Michael says:

    The evidece we have is that Obama does not come off as one who thinks well on his feet…

    He thinks just fine on his feet, he just doesn’t talk nearly as well. From watching him speak “on his feet”, his problem seems to be that he wants to think too much about the topic, and that having to talk about is requires conscious redirection of his attention.

    That is, I believe, why his original writing is better than his original speaking, because he has the luxury of thinking before committing to words.




    0



    0
  3. Bithead says:

    He thinks just fine on his feet, he just doesn’t talk nearly as well. From watching him speak “on his feet”, his problem seems to be that he wants to think too much about the topic, and that having to talk about is requires conscious redirection of his attention.

    I would hardly call that an objective observation. What objective evidence would you present us to confirm that he thinks well on his feet?




    0



    0
  4. James Joyner says:

    That is, I believe, why his original writing is better than his original speaking, because he has the luxury of thinking before committing to words.

    That’s certainly true in my own case.




    0



    0
  5. Michael says:

    which plays into that 3am thing, again.

    Some people have the ability to make the right decisions without having to think about the situation, and some people have to think about the situation in order to determine the right decision. I think Obama is obviously in the later group.

    If a situation happens at 3:00am, I don’t imagine Obama will make the right call at 3:01am. However, I don’t imagine that he will make the wrong call 3:01am either. McCain seems quite capable of (and favorable to) making a call at 3:01am, I’m just not sure if it will be the right one or the wrong one.

    If my choices are between someone who can not make correct decisions quickly, and someone who can make quick decisions incorrectly, I’ll stick with the former.




    0



    0
  6. Michael says:

    What objective evidence would you present us to confirm that he thinks well on his feet?

    Because when he does finally get the words out, they are well thought.




    0



    0
  7. Bithead says:

    If my choices are between someone who can not make correct decisions quickly, and someone who can make quick decisions incorrectly, I’ll stick with the former.

    Hmmm. Where was that… Oh, here it is…

    “A good plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite point in the future.”
    General George Patton Jr

    James;

    That is, I believe, why his original writing is better than his original speaking, because he has the luxury of thinking before committing to words.

    That’s certainly true in my own case.

    And in mine as well, and I’ve written to that point several times over the years, and there no shame in it. Yet, I’m not sure that qualifies as ‘thinking on your feet’.

    Again the 3am thing comes to mind as a place and a situation where you or I wouldn’t have that luxury.




    0



    0
  8. sam says:

    @ Bit:

    Again the 3am thing comes to mind as a place and a situation where you or I wouldn’t have that luxury.

    My take on McCain, given what I’ve read, is that he’s impulsive. Add to that his well-attested volcanic temper and his national greatness fixation, and you’ve got someone who,at 3 A.M, scares the hell out of me. (But see the next.)

    @James:

    That said, comparisons only go so far. As I’ve written on numerous posts in recent months, we’ve had great presidents who seemed barely qualified for the job and lousy ones who had extraordinary preparation… [T]he presidency is sui generis and people surprise you.

    Harry Truman, for example. Never went to college, failed businessman, creature of the Pendergast machine in Kansas City, casual antisemite and racial bigot, and yet, and yet…




    0



    0
  9. Rick Almeida says:

    Some people have the ability to make the right decisions without having to think about the situation…

    Who?




    0



    0
  10. Michael says:

    Who?

    Okay, good point. I guess I should have said that some people seem to be able to do that. In actuality they’re probably either really fast thinkers, or really lucky guessers.




    0



    0
  11. Steven Donegal says:

    There’s only one way to resolve this 3 am thing: reality TV. Set up a TV program where each candidate is called unexpectedly at 3am and tell them of some impending crisis in their campaign and see how they react. That would be much more revealing than any debate.




    0



    0
  12. Beldar says:

    Klein wrote, ungrammatically,

    Rather, the campaign against Obama has metastasized into a variant of class warfare. It’s the resentment of the meritocracy. What the GOP realized was that Obama did come across different than the average American, but not so much because he was black as because he was effortless.

    Pish-posh. This translates into: “Because he really is superior, Republicans hate him.” I completely reject the premise.

    I will concede that he’s charming; that he’s attractive and physically graceful (that is something else he shares with both JFK and Reagan); that he’s self-disciplined; and that he carefully and usually successfully contrives to conceal the fact that he has a typical amount of cunning and ruthlessness for a young Chicago politician.

    These things make him dangerous. They do not make him superior, Klein’s crush notwithstanding. He is inexperienced and egotistical, less cunning than a presidential candidate needs to be, and consistently reflexively liberal (while consistently, reflexively seeking to camouflage that leaning); those are the non-superior “qualities” that may result in his losing the election.




    0



    0
  13. anjin-san says:

    Obama delivers great speeches which, once written for him and place in the screen in front of him to read aloud.

    Sounds a bit like Reagan, who people tended to think, with no foundation, was not very bright. He was often portrayed as nothing more than an actor who did well with the strong material Peggy Noonan provided him with.

    In fact, Reagan was often a poor speaker on policy issues when talking off the cuff. He was hell on wheels with a quip, though, one of the best.

    And if you read his writings, he was obviously quite intelligent, and on many levels a man of admirable character.

    I like some brainpower in a leader. It saddens me that Bush’s stupidity and overall mediocrity seems to resonate with a lot of people.




    0



    0
  14. sam says:

    So, Beldar:

    he carefully and usually successfully contrives to conceal the fact that he has a typical amount of cunning and ruthlessness for a young Chicago politician

    But

    He is inexperienced and egotistical, less cunning than a presidential candidate needs to be

    Would you dip into that deep well of political experience you’ve acquired and educate us on the
    difference between the cunning of a Chicago politician and the cunning of a presidential candidate? And why the former is not sufficent for the latter?




    0



    0
  15. lunacy says:

    We want more than cunning in a POTUS. We want proven track record. We want integrity. We want evidence of character under fire.

    Where is Obama’s?

    He’s a VERY likable candidate. On the surface. But his superficiality will be his undoing, I fear.

    Robinson proved his abilities. Obama hasn’t had the opportunity of experience to prove his. Sorry but it’s true.

    Ferrarro was right. Were he not black, and “clean” like Biden said, we wouldn’t even be discussing him. Hillary would be our man.




    0



    0
  16. anjin-san says:

    Lunacy how are things under the bridge?




    0



    0
  17. lunacy says:

    Is that the extent of your comment to me? Under the bridge?

    I lurk here every day. Comment once in a blue moon.

    That makes me a troll?

    Thanks. I didn’t realize “rarely comments” equals “troll”.

    But now that I have, YOU, Nonjin, to give me the definitive, I know where I stand.

    Ad hominem much?




    0



    0
  18. Toombs says:

    It appears that Affirmative Action is going to apply even to the Presidency.

    Obama is, and will be, held to lower standards than previous Presidents are held to. Comedians will not make jokes about him.




    0



    0
  19. Bithead says:

    I like some brainpower in a leader. It saddens me that Bush’s stupidity and overall mediocrity seems to resonate with a lot of people.

    If he’s really that stupid, Anjin, why are the Democrats in Congress having such problems with him, then?




    0



    0
  20. JAL says:

    JFK, in addition to his military experience, served in the US House of Representatives from 1947 to 1953 (3 terms) and in the U.S. Senate from 1953 until 1960. He thus served in the US Congress during the post WWII years, including the rebuilding of Europe and Japan, and during the Korean War.

    Although younger than Barack Obama, his experience was significantly more than Obama’s is.




    0



    0
  21. anjin-san says:

    why are the Democrats in Congress having such problems with him, then?

    As I have said before, they are kind of spineless.

    And while Bush may be stupid, that does not mean the people who run the White House Political operation are.




    0



    0
  22. Gad, James, you’re sinking awfully close to overt racism on this one.

    Barack Obama has faced no such barriers, getting admitted to the finest schools in the country by virtue of his qualifications and then put on the fast track in academe, politics, publishing, and other pursuits through combination of extraordinary gifts, hard word, and, ironically, the color of his skin. While there’s no doubt that being “the first black” poses challenges, it comes with perks.

    Hmmm. You ignore his mom being on welfare, or the fact that he got into the “finest schools” based upon his “qualifications,” which is more than you can say for legacy hacks like George W. Bush. I’m sorry, you’re trying to make the argument for affirmative action by making the argument AGAINST affirmative action. James, you’re better than this. Do you seriously think John McCain, who graduated fifth from last in his class, who got into the Naval Academy SOLELY because his dad was an admiral and became a pilot for the same reason, is somehow better?

    In fact, your post does more to strengthen the analogy to Robinson than deny it. In fact, it comes off sounding like some sort of white male jealousy. I know you’re above that.

    @ some useless idiot:

    We want more than cunning in a POTUS. We want proven track record. We want integrity. We want evidence of character under fire.

    Have you been paying attention for the last eight years? Where was the track record? Texas? A state that has an emasculated governor? Integrity? WTF? Evidence of character under fire? WTF again? You mean someone who has emasculated the 4th amendment to the constitution?

    Seriously, give me a break.




    0



    0
  23. 1.I’ve heard many times that Obama was admitted to a very expensive private school, as well as Columbia and Harvard solely because of his unique intellectual abilities. Can anyone here explain to me why Obama flat out refuses to release his SAT and LSAT scores? Me thinks his scores are no better than Bush’s.
    2.I’ve also heard that Obama is being painted as elitist because he is so smart, so successful (as if he built a private business), so effortless. Well, in reality, Obama is an elitist because he believes he is smart and good enough to rule American million. And by “rule”, I mean make us live our lives as he pleases. Read his wife’s speech about Obama – how he will not allow us to do this, how he will make us to do that. Couple this with his superior attitude towards gun-clinging, bible-reading whites, and you get the picture. So, yes, Obama is an elitist, a guy who believes he knows how we should run our own individual affairs.

    BTW, any liberal here can explain why Obama refuses to disclose his SAT and LSAT? Give us a couple of ideas.




    0



    0
  24. Chris says:

    So, yes, Obama is an elitist, a guy who believes he knows how we should run our own individual affairs.

    Good luck finding a presidential candidate who doesn’t think they know best how to run things, anyone who thinks they should be considered for the most powerful office in the world is bound to carry a certain amount of egotism.

    As for ‘elitist’, again, to be a serious presidential candidate you need to be in a powerful enough position to convince a large amount of other powerful people to give you millions of dollars to pursue the most powerful office on earth. If you’re in a position to be seriously pursuing the presidency, chances are things are going pretty well for you career wise. You won’t get humble ‘guys like us’, only people who pretend they are. A candidate’s ‘down-to-earth’ credentials should be thrown out as a consideration for the presidency.




    0



    0
  25. lunacy says:

    -Have you been paying attention for the last eight years? Where was the track record? Texas? A state that has an emasculated governor? Integrity? WTF? Evidence of character under fire? WTF again? You mean someone who has emasculated the 4th amendment to the constitution?-

    WTF to you.

    Where in the hell did anybody say that Bush delivered? I thought we were talking about Obama.




    0



    0
  26. Chuck Pelto says:

    TO:
    RE: Good Idea, But…

    Set up a TV program where each candidate is called unexpectedly at 3am and tell them of some impending crisis in their campaign and see how they react. — James Joyner

    …I recommend 2 am. As one [in]famous head of state/commander-in-chief put it….

    As to moral courage, I have seldom met with the two o’clock in the morning courage, I mean unprepared courage. — Napoleon Bonaparte

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Courage is grace under pressure.]




    0



    0
  27. Chuck Pelto says:

    TO: All
    RE: My Error on Citation

    Set up a TV program where each candidate is called unexpectedly at 3am and tell them of some impending crisis in their campaign and see how they react.

    That wasn’t said by James Joyner. It was said by Steve Donegal.

    My apologies to both of them.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [There’s too much blood in my caffeine system.]




    0



    0
  28. Bithead says:

    As I have said before, they are kind of spineless.

    And while Bush may be stupid, that does not mean the people who run the White House Political operation are.

    Or maybe your read on the situation needs re-evaluation, huh?

    Hmmm. You ignore his mom being on welfare, or the fact that he got into the “finest schools” based upon his “qualifications,” which is more than you can say for legacy hacks like George W. Bush.

    On his qualifications, say you?
    Apparently you’re unaware he had help, or perhaps you consider who helped him a problem? I know I would, in your position.




    0



    0
  29. B Dubya says:

    The 3:00 am thing…
    The man (or woman) who can react to crisis within the time frame that allows for the optimum level of success is the individual who has already thought about the possibilities and has already prepared a response. That person already understands the threat and has a good feel for his or her response capabilities before the threat actually materializes. This is not necessarily one of the inborn skills in any single individual’s toolbox. It is usually a skill acquired experientially.
    Accepting the above premise, who do you bet on at 3:00 am, Obama or McCain?
    Jackie Robinson had a real fight on his hands when he broke into the Dodgers, not the smallest component of which was the animus displayed by his own team mates. Jackie fought through that by virtue of real, undeniable talent in baseball. He became a symbol of rugged individualism at its best and, as an individual, paid a very high price in the coinage of bitterness and anger. Barack Obama is not Jackie Robinson, sorry.

    Regarding Mr. Obama’s purported inability to think on his feet and to speak extemporaneously, I believe it has less to do with his need to think about the question so much as his need to self edit his natural responses so that they are more what he thinks you want to hear. He, in my observation, comes from an environment of un-American sentiment and one that basically seeks to repudiate the Constitution and the very ideas upon which this Republic was formed. His association with his church, his adherence to the thought of Saul Alinsky, his actual performance record tell me that when he answers impromptu questions, his unscripted answers stumble and stutter out because he is a very bad lier.
    McCain, not so much…lol




    0



    0
  30. Bithead says:

    the individual who has already thought about the possibilities and has already prepared a response. That person already understands the threat and has a good feel for his or her response capabilities before the threat actually materializes. This is not necessarily one of the inborn skills in any single individual’s toolbox. It is usually a skill acquired experientially.

    And, over time, may I add. Expereince.
    Oops… that kinda leaves Obama out, doesn’t it?




    0



    0
  31. Bithead says:

    I believe it has less to do with his need to think about the question so much as his need to self edit his natural responses so that they are more what he thinks you want to hear.

    (Chuckle)
    Exactly so. Personally, I find that a bit frightening.




    0



    0
  32. Michael says:

    And, over time, may I add. Expereince.
    Oops… that kinda leaves Obama out, doesn’t it?

    Only if you postulate that experience is gained at the same rate for all people. I’ve known some people at 25 who have gained more experience than some people at 50, I’m sure you have too.




    0



    0
  33. anjin-san says:

    Or maybe your read on the situation needs re-evaluation, huh?

    Not really. I have been listening to the man speak for 8 years. He’s stupid.

    How did he summarize the experience of the Presidency recently, after Katrina, with thousands of the troops dead in the war he started in Iraq, after 9/11?

    “a cool experience for Laura and I.”

    Stupid and shallow.




    0



    0
  34. anjin-san says:

    Perhaps your hero-worship is affecting your read of the situation…




    0



    0
  35. spencer says:

    On CSPAN2 on the weekend they show programs of authors on book tours talking about their books. Good programs. But this last weekend they showed two old tapes of Obama on book tours.

    They included films of his sitting there signing books and talking to individuals while he signed. I was very impressed by the way he related to the individuals in these short one on one situations. Of course this is something that is suppose to be second nature to politicians, but he was very good at it.




    0



    0
  36. ic says:

    Steven D: We’ve just had a 3:00 am call at probably 3:00 pm a couple of weeks ago: Putin invaded Georgia.

    Obama’s response: call that old white guy. Ergo he picked an old white guy for VP.




    0



    0
  37. Bithead says:

    Only if you postulate that experience is gained at the same rate for all people

    So, you think 120 days as a Senator, with little previous experience other than being a poverty pimp, qualifies one for the presidency?

    Sorry, but the credibility seems a little streteched, here.




    0



    0
  38. Michael says:

    So, you think 120 days as a Senator, with little previous experience other than being a poverty pimp, qualifies one for the presidency?

    Yeah, because that is the sum of Obama’s existance.

    I’ll concede that McCain has more experience than Obama, in virtually every variation that experience comes in. But that alone doesn’t qualify McCain or disqualify Obama. It’s a good thing for a President to have, but not nearly as important as what they learned from it, and how they will use it.




    0



    0
  39. anjin-san says:

    If experience was what made a president, GHW Bush would be up on Mt. Rushmore.

    How much experience did Lincoln have?




    0



    0
  40. Max says:

    How much experience did Lincoln have?

    Just looked it up on Wikipedia. Seems Lincoln had too much experience for me to type out here.




    0



    0
  41. James Joyner says:

    You ignore his mom being on welfare, or the fact that he got into the “finest schools” based upon his “qualifications,” which is more than you can say for legacy hacks like George W. Bush.

    I didn’t ignore his qualifications; indeed, I said that’s what got him in. My point is that merely being qualified wasn’t enough for Robinson or, certainly, his predecessors.

    I’m sorry, you’re trying to make the argument for affirmative action by making the argument AGAINST affirmative action.

    Not following here. Did his being “the first” help him get the editorship of the Law Review? Probably. Did being “the first” contribute to his being offered tenure at Chicago Law without a single publication? Almost certainly. Did it help him get national media cred as a presidential candidate despite so little traditional experience? It certainly didn’t hurt.

    James, you’re better than this. Do you seriously think John McCain, who graduated fifth from last in his class, who got into the Naval Academy SOLELY because his dad was an admiral and became a pilot for the same reason, is somehow better?

    Different times. The Academy wasn’t competitive in the same way in those days as it is now.

    But nobody’s comparing McCain to Jackie Robinson.




    0



    0
  42. anjin-san says:

    Lincon had some military experience, pretty minor, he joked about it for the rest of his life.

    He was a good, perhaps excellent attorney.

    He was a state legislator.

    He served a term in congress. (opposed the Mexican-American war)

    He was an unsuccessful candidate for the Senate in 1855

    He was recognized as a fine orator.

    He was active in the formation of the Republican Party.

    He was elected president.

    In fact, at the time of his election, Lincon was considered by most of his own party’s leadership to be a lightweight would would be too weak to lead.

    Chase, Stanton, Seward, none of them held Lincoln in much regard when he took office (this would change).

    Not much relevant experience going in. Yet most (correctly, I think) regard Lincoln as our greatest President.




    0



    0
  43. Michael says:

    Yet most (correctly, I think) regard Lincoln as our greatest President.

    I think you’re stretching a bit there. While most would consider him one of the greatest, he’s got quite a bit of competition for the top spot.




    0



    0
  44. anjin-san says:

    While most would consider him one of the greatest, he’s got quite a bit of competition for the top spot.

    It makes for an interesting discussion. Washington, simply by setting the precedent of walking away from executive power, deserves consideration. Jefferson gave so much to our country, but much of his work was done outside of the presidency. FDR, certainly is on the short list.

    Another interesting list is the “not quite the best, but pretty damn good”. Who makes that one?




    0



    0
  45. Michael says:

    While Jefferson certainly did a lot outside of the presidency, he also did quite a bit inside the presidency, certainly enough to be in the top 5.

    I would definitely include Adams in the top 5, even if much of his best work was done outside of the oval office, the very structure of our government is owed to him.

    I’m not sure I would even put Washington in the top 5. Sure he was first, and undeniably a good president, but what would qualify him for the top 5?




    0



    0
  46. Bithead says:

    Amazing, how far we’ve come, isn’t it?
    A mere 40 years ago, better qualified blacks were turn away from jobs. Now we’ve got someone running for President whose sole qualification seems to be he’s black.




    0



    0
  47. anjin-san says:

    Now we’ve got someone running for President whose sole qualification seems to be he’s black.

    Well, there is also the fact that millions of people think he should be President. But I forget, you Bushies are not really into that democracy thing.




    0



    0
  48. Michael says:

    A mere 40 years ago, better qualified blacks were turn away from jobs. Now we’ve got someone running for President whose sole qualification seems to be he’s black.

    That statement itself shows just how far we still have to go.




    0



    0
  49. Floyd says:

    Michael;
    To be fair,I watched many of speeches given at the Democrat convention, I RARELY had to watch more than 30seconds before the race or sexism card was bandied.
    The new Democrat Party platform is based on race or sex baiting and an appeal to unfounded white guilt. If content of character is what counts, then those who think with their brains and not their skins or genitals will withhold their votes from Obama, and the Democrat Party in general.
    There is no need to lecture me in response about the many defects of the Republican Party, they are myriad and yet, alas, they only need be marginally better than the opposition to deserve votes in this system.




    0



    0
  50. Michael says:

    To be fair,I watched many of speeches given at the Democrat convention, I RARELY had to watch more than 30seconds before the race or sexism card was bandied.

    Oh you’re absolutely right, the Democratic party loves to point out that they embody minority and gender issues. However, as I’ve argued before, there is a moral difference between racial and gender affinity, and racial and gender discrimination, even if the end results are not easily distinguishable.

    If content of character is what counts, then those who think with their brains and not their skins or genitals will withhold their votes from Obama, and the Democrat Party in general.

    So you’re accusing me of thinking with my pale skin and penis, instead of my brain? Come now, Floyd, give me more credit than that.

    There is no need to lecture me in response about the many defects of the Republican Party

    I always try to avoid that route. I’ve always been against the “but Al Qaeda does worse torture than we do” justification, and I’m against the “well the GOP is just as bad” justification for the same reason. If the Democratic party can’t stand on it’s own, it doesn’t matter what the GOP is doing.




    0



    0