Skip to main content

You know something is up when it's gotten to the point where a black man is being implored by a white woman to "release his righteous rage" ... Eek

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/enough...ould-r_b_125519.html



I especially enjoyed the montage of black male rage at the end of the piece. Big Grin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "I have not always been right, but I have always been sincere." ~ W.E.B. Du Bois ~~~~~~~~~~~
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I found this article interesting less for it's ideas ... than the way in which the ideas were put forth and by whom.

I just found it odd reading a white woman on a mainstream (albeit left of center) political blog informing her readers about the anatomy of black rage - particularly as it plays out in popular "mainstream" perception.

I mean - were it not for the candidacy of Obama - could anyone imagine reading the following from the same source?:

quote:

This is clearly part of Obama's lifelong attempt to present a nonthreatening persona, what Shelby Steele has dubbed the "iconic Negro." Think Oprah, Michael Jordan, and Tiger Woods. Now picture them in your mind... they're smiling aren't they?
quote:
To fully become the transformational leader we need, Obama must demonstrate to the American people his capacity for indignation -- for the kind of ferocious passion that fueled King and Nelson Mandela. He has to fight fire with fire, and wield anger in the service of what right, true, and good. The fierce urgency of now demands nothing less.


I think Ms. Huffington's got the wrong guy. sck

The motivation behind "the kind of ferocious passion that fueled King and Nelson Mandela" is completely different. And not nearly as intense.

The way I see it, Obama has only ONE good trump card to play ... the only thing he can do to get through to enough of the Americans he needs to vote for him to win this election is to relentlessly hammer home the fact that as much as they are suffering NOW a McCain win is GUARANTEED to make their situation even worse.

He needs to stop the Mr. Nice Guy, "McCain is picking on me" speeches .. and repeating the same old ad nauseum stumps, "Vote for me! I love America! If we work hard and together ..." and stick to the one premise that, "If you think it's bad now, it's gonna get a whole lot worse if McCain gets into the White House! Life as you know it now will be 10 times worse in another 4 years!!"

And he doesn't have to get mean and nasty about it. Just serious and insistent enough to scare these people into voting for him .. or at least not voting for McCain. 'Cause fear is something they understand AND will respond to. Trying to reason with them is a losing proposition .. and I thought Obama would have been able to figure that out by now. Roll Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
It is getting very close to that point. but maybe that will be his October surprise.


I don't think he can wait until October at this point. If Obama/Biden wants to win they need to start unleashing their last reserves now. Palin has been a huge benefactor to McCain and has given a significant boost to his popularity ratings and support amongst neocons, Evangelicals, gun-totin' right-wing populists and right-leaning "independents". She has given him appeal to conservative, middle-class soccer moms, NRA-loving right-wing populists who like Lou Dobbs and share his "Joe Everyman against the libruls, illegal immigrants and bureaucrats" mentality and midwestern rural voters who like her small town conservative aura.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
It is getting very close to that point. but maybe that will be his October surprise.


I don't think he can wait until October at this point. If Obama/Biden wants to win they need to start unleashing their last reserves now. Palin has been a huge benefactor to McCain and has given a significant boost to his popularity ratings and support amongst neocons, Evangelicals, gun-totin' right-wing populists and right-leaning "independents". She has given him appeal to conservative, middle-class soccer moms, NRA-loving right-wing populists who like Lou Dobbs and share his "Joe Everyman against the libruls, illegal immigrants and bureaucrats" mentality and midwestern rural voters who like her small town conservative aura.



I've heard that the Obama people are banking on the debates.

But IMO that's a deadly idea. I vividly remember Dubya doing very poorly in the debates against Gore but the media scoring it as if it were a draw ... I guess because they considered it significant that Dubya didn't make an utter fool of himself.
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
It is getting very close to that point. but maybe that will be his October surprise.


I don't think he can wait until October at this point. If Obama/Biden wants to win they need to start unleashing their last reserves now. Palin has been a huge benefactor to McCain and has given a significant boost to his popularity ratings and support amongst neocons, Evangelicals, gun-totin' right-wing populists and right-leaning "independents". She has given him appeal to conservative, middle-class soccer moms, NRA-loving right-wing populists who like Lou Dobbs and share his "Joe Everyman against the libruls, illegal immigrants and bureaucrats" mentality and midwestern rural voters who like her small town conservative aura.



I've heard that the Obama people are banking on the debates.

But IMO that's a deadly idea. I vividly remember Dubya doing very poorly in the debates against Gore but the media scoring it as if it were a draw ... I guess because they considered it significant that Dubya didn't make an utter fool of himself.


Yep. yeah Never underestimate the sheer craftiness of the Republicans and the sheer stupidity of the American public.
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
debates aren't Obama's strong point either sck


This stuff is strange. These elections are about 95% beauty pageant ... and 5% issues ...

It doesn't matter if debates are Obama's strong point. People are going to say he did well because of the general perception that he's eloquent. For example, I wasn't that impressed with his acceptance speech at the DNC. I actually agreed with Peggy Noonan's assessment of it. But most people thought it was great ... in accordance with Obama's general reputation as a great speaker.

In the end, the "debates" are not scored as one would if you regard a debate as a purely intellectual exercise. Because these presidential debates have very little to do with what one normally considers when confronted with a purely intellectual exercise.

For example, I finally saw the Rick Warren event where McCain supposedly did very well .. and Obama not so well.

As an intellectual exercise, I preferred Obama's performance. I was surprised (perhaps I shouldn't have been) that he seemed to have some philosophical depth. However, he spoke in a halting manner (as if - heaven forbid - he were actually thinking about the questions) and he gave complex answers to complex questions. This is wonderful for an intellectual exercise. Not so good for a presidential "debate".

Although I didn't appreciate McCain's part of the show as much, he scored on giving short, succinct, to-the-point answers to the questions. Everything about that event played to McCain's base. The questions first and foremost. But lastly - and something we should not underestimate - the Republican base and Americans generally really like short simple answers .... even to complex questions that deserve more than short simple answers.

Anyway, no matter how they perform during the debates, Obama will be judged "inspiring" and "eloquent" ... McCain will be judged a "maverick".

Who cares about the issues?
Last edited {1}
The longer Senator Obama 'holds his tongue' to bolder 'they' will become.

That boldness will unleash their arrogance.

Then...they will 'step on their tongue'...big time.

Maybe...irretreivably.

In any case, I also think Senator Obama will soon...before the end of September...have to make known his 'righteous indignation'.

But it must be righteous.

America doesn't...really...want to see 'The Angry Negro'...yet.

After his is President...and he will be President...America will demand that 'Angry Man' when they get 'pissed off' at someone...anyone.

He's holding on longer than I could...but...

On reflection, I can't recall anything I would really want to be righteously indignant about.

Strong rebuttal seems to be appropriate...so far.

I think Arianna Huffington just want to see political 'fireworks'.

Our local 'fireworks' talk show host abandoned Senator Obama when it became clear The Senator was not going to be the Angry Black Man the talk show host has historically aligned himself with.

So...he became a Senator Clinton supporter...and change his registration from Democrat to Independent.\ when she lost the nomination to Senator Obama.

Some of you may find him amusing.

Here is his web link?

http://den-a.plr.liquidcompass.cc/etm_plr/audio_player....ayerType=silverlight

PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
debates aren't Obama's strong point either sck


This stuff is strange. These elections are about 95% beauty pageant ... and 5% issues ...

It doesn't matter if debates are Obama's strong point. People are going to say he did well because of the general perception that he's eloquent. For example, I wasn't that impressed with his acceptance speech at the DNC. I actually agreed with Peggy Noonan's assessment of it. But most people thought it was great ... in accordance with Obama's general reputation as a great speaker.

In the end, the "debates" are not scored as one would if you regard a debate as a purely intellectual exercise. Because these presidential debates have very little to do with what one normally considers when confronted with a purely intellectual exercise.

For example, I finally saw the Rick Warren event where McCain supposedly did very well .. and Obama not so well.

As an intellectual exercise, I preferred Obama's performance. I was surprised (perhaps I shouldn't have been) that he seemed to have some philosophical depth. However, he spoke in a halting manner (as if - heaven forbid - he were actually thinking about the questions) and he gave complex answers to complex questions. This is wonderful for an intellectual exercise. Not so good for a presidential "debate".

Although I didn't appreciate McCain's part of the show as much, he scored on giving short, succinct, to-the-point answers to the questions. Everything about that event played to McCain's base. The questions first and foremost. But lastly - and something we should not underestimate - the Republican base and Americans generally really like short simple answers .... even to complex questions that deserve more than short simple answers.

Anyway, no matter how they perform during the debates, Obama will be judged "inspiring" and "eloquent" ... McCain will be judged a "maverick".

Who cares about the issues?

yeah This is certainly a beauty contest, and Obama can not come across as too cerebral while having to maintain and trade on eloquence and charisma. Conceivably, he should be able to win handily against McCain(5th from the bottom of his class at Annapolis). Then there is Sarah (5 colleges in 6 years to get a bachelor's in communication) Palin.

Americans are fanatically anti-intellectual, so I would not count on the debate. And sense no one has really dealt with issues or the particulars of the various party platforms to date, I am not sure dealing with them now will do any good.

Robert Muhammad, the regional minister of the NOI has a radio program on the Pacifica station in Houston. One of his catch phrases goes, "the people are smarter than you think." While I would love to abide by this mantra, I find it very difficult to do so. I am afraid that this election, just as most of the other ones that I have participated in for some two decades, will find this sentiment wanting once again.
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
debates aren't Obama's strong point either sck


This stuff is strange. These elections are about 95% beauty pageant ... and 5% issues ...

It doesn't matter if debates are Obama's strong point. People are going to say he did well because of the general perception that he's eloquent. For example, I wasn't that impressed with his acceptance speech at the DNC. I actually agreed with Peggy Noonan's assessment of it. But most people thought it was great ... in accordance with Obama's general reputation as a great speaker.

In the end, the "debates" are not scored as one would if you regard a debate as a purely intellectual exercise. Because these presidential debates have very little to do with what one normally considers when confronted with a purely intellectual exercise.

For example, I finally saw the Rick Warren event where McCain supposedly did very well .. and Obama not so well.

As an intellectual exercise, I preferred Obama's performance. I was surprised (perhaps I shouldn't have been) that he seemed to have some philosophical depth. However, he spoke in a halting manner (as if - heaven forbid - he were actually thinking about the questions) and he gave complex answers to complex questions. This is wonderful for an intellectual exercise. Not so good for a presidential "debate".

Although I didn't appreciate McCain's part of the show as much, he scored on giving short, succinct, to-the-point answers to the questions. Everything about that event played to McCain's base. The questions first and foremost. But lastly - and something we should not underestimate - the Republican base and Americans generally really like short simple answers .... even to complex questions that deserve more than short simple answers.


Anyway, no matter how they perform during the debates, Obama will be judged "inspiring" and "eloquent" ... McCain will be judged a "maverick".

Who cares about the issues?


yeah and I find the point in red highly annoying.
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
In the end, the "debates" are not scored as one would if you regard a debate as a purely intellectual exercise. Because these presidential debates have very little to do with what one normally considers when confronted with a purely intellectual exercise.



I don't think the purpose of a presidential debate is to engage in an intellectual exercise, but to understand how each presidential candidate feels about mainstream issues that are affecting American voters and what their plans are for addressing them. Candidates must also take into consideration the time in which they have to respond to questions. During the upcoming debates, I'm going to be listening for direct and honest answers. During the Saddleback forum, there were times when it seem liked candidates were just telling voters what they believed we wanted to hear. Instead, I hope we'll hear unscripted, unapologetic, and honest answers to this year's important questions.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
In the end, the "debates" are not scored as one would if you regard a debate as a purely intellectual exercise. Because these presidential debates have very little to do with what one normally considers when confronted with a purely intellectual exercise.



Brother Honest, I don't think the purpose of a presidential debate is to engage in an intellectual exercise, but to understand how each presidential candidate feels about mainstream issues that are affecting American voters and what their plans are for addressing them.


When I referred to debate as an intellectual exercise, I was mainly talking about the sort of event where one might expect "victory" to go to the debater who overall makes the most logical sense and has a greater command of the facts.

For example, in the Gore vs. Bush race, I think that person was clearly Gore ... but he was almost ridiculed for it ... characterized as the annoying kid in school who has all the answers ...

Clearly the thing wasn't about logic or facts. It was about the vague impressions the candidates left. sck

And so the purpose of a presidential debate is not to engage in an intellectual exercise ... but this isn't a good thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
In the end, the "debates" are not scored as one would if you regard a debate as a purely intellectual exercise. Because these presidential debates have very little to do with what one normally considers when confronted with a purely intellectual exercise.



I don't think the purpose of a presidential debate is to engage in an intellectual exercise, but to understand how each presidential candidate feels about mainstream issues that are affecting American voters and what their plans are for addressing them. Candidates must also take into consideration the time in which they have to respond to questions. During the upcoming debates, I'm going to be listening for direct and honest answers. During the Saddleback forum, there were times when it seem liked candidates were just telling voters what they believed we wanted to hear. Instead, I hope we'll hear unscripted, unapologetic, and honest answers to this year's important questions.


Confused Uhhhmmm... Call me crazy but...

Shouldn't the attempt by a candidate to get the puiblic to understand how they each feel about mainstream issues that are affecting American voters and what their plans are for addressing them, be an intellectual debate/exercise/discourse?
quote:
This is certainly a beauty contest, and Obama can not come across as too cerebral while having to maintain and trade on eloquence and charisma.


But that's what has been missing in debates: no Obama charisma or eloquence.

Maybe some serious rest before the debates would do some good and a speech pathologist or something. Whether he's cerebral or not, when the brother gets the stutters, he loses major beauty-cool points and that's a trademark of his in debates.

Now if he takes his "lipstick on a pig", "they must think you're stupid" swagger and attitude into the debates then it's all good. From what little I've seen of the debates, he hasn't struck a medium between his intellectual prowess, wonkish depth & nuance and his inspiring "Yes We Can" rhetoric.


BTW, I'm with HB about Obama's convention speech. It was grade A as a pure political speech were you get graded for scoring points on all the things "he need to do" with the speech but it was nowhere near his greatest speech up to and including his 2004 convention speech which, while I was critical of certain things he said in it, I can't help but admit that it was a great piece of American rhetoric.
quote:
Shouldn't the attempt by a candidate to get the puiblic to understand how they each feel about mainstream issues that are affecting American voters and what their plans are for addressing them, be an intellectual debate/exercise/discourse?


One thing: they are playing a move the goalpost game with Obama. So as the campaign has progressed since he announced... when he's wonkish in cozy townhall meetings... that's a problem. When he's inspiring people with speeches with lots of lofty rhetoric before record crowds... that's a problem. When he stops trying to stay above the fray and show he can throw a punch, politically speaking... that's a problem.

The real problem is the soundbyte, TV media. They only seem to want to do their jobs and inform the public when it can boosting their ratings and show how they are different from other soundbyte news channels.

If I was a political scientist I would study how political news changes at different stages of elections. Make no mistake about it, in the primaries and now, the media has allowed Obama's opponents (Clinton then and McCain now) to "define" Obama and they've been careful not to let Obama escape either definition or the conventional bs where the media tries to act like they want "specifics."

When Obama give specifics then they hardly recognize it. When Obama stops talking about Palin and focuses on McCain... Well, let's just say the lipstick story got in the way of honest journalism.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×