If Obama gets elected can I get rid of my white guilt?

dajafi wrote:That you see affirmative action primarily in political terms is exactly why I'm not interested in arguing it with you. Believe it or not, not everything is a direct mailer or push poll waiting to happen.

So you're not interested in arguing the point with me, you just want to make a caricature of my "caricature" of an argument, assert I am wrong, and call it a day.

Strong.

Edit: In what manner am I supposed to view the issue of affirmative action other than in political terms?

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:That you see affirmative action primarily in political terms is exactly why I'm not interested in arguing it with you. Believe it or not, not everything is a direct mailer or push poll waiting to happen.

So you're not interested in arguing the point with me, you just want to make a caricature of my "caricature" of an argument, assert I am wrong, and call it a day.

Strong.

If you're interested in arguing the merits of affirmative action, that's one thing. My strong hunch, though, is that you see it as nothing more or less than a political weapon with which one can push a racial backlash link without actually having to be an overt racist. I'd rather not play.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rleUPHX8yfM[/youtube]

jerseyhoya wrote:Edit: In what manner am I supposed to view the issue of affirmative action other than in political terms?

I'd suggest that it's not a particularly good political issue for Democrats at this point, almost certainly losing them more votes than it wins. So presumably the policy has some other justification--economic, social, values-based. To me, that's the grounds on which to argue the policy, and there are legitimate arguments on both sides.

Woody wrote:How does Ed Rendell not know that he can't say that type of thing

Let me get this straight. A Jewish governor in a country that has plenty of anti-Semitism is saying that an African-American can't win? They'll vote for the Jew, but not the Black guy? Really, Ed?

He's Jewish!? Aw man, I didn't know!

Ed is one of the chosen people.

That's a very lame argument from "The Gov". It's really a slap in the face to his constituency that we are going to think along these lines. So while he was elected governor as a democrat twice, Casey gets in after a backlash against the incumbent Santorum and the state voted Democrat for President the last 4 elections (including Gore & Kerry) - we're now going to vote differently because of Obama's skin color?

His political analysis is becoming eerily similar to his terrible football commentary.

jerseyhoya wrote:McCain can't ignore the upcoming primaries, but his major focus should be raising money. And maybe trying to reach out to the right win talk radio crowd while the rest of the country is paying attention to Obama v. Clinton.

If McCain still has primary money left it has to be spent on the primaries. General election money is a different $2,300. I'm not saying that he needs to go all out. But he needs to campaign in each state.

I'm convinced John McCain shouldn't reach out to the right wing talk radio crowd right now. He's not going to change his opinion on global warming. He's not going to renounce McCain-Feingold. At CPAC he mentioned all the places he agrees with them and left out everything else. He can win the center by sticking with what's worked for him.

There are more than six months before the convention and eight months before the general election. There's plenty of time. He won't come around to their position, so he needs to see if they'll come around to him. Right now he won't look conservative compared to Huckabee. He'll look a lot better compared to Obama.

This morning I was reading a blog of someone who claims she's a "Christian stay-at-home mom." It's not political. Just about her life. She thinks James Dobson is crazy on McCain. They can't sit out the election. They need to make sure McCain appoints conservative judges. The comments all agree with her. Winning James Dobson is very difficult. Over time he'll win Dobson's members.

Right now Senator McCain should keep winning votes in the primaries and stick with what is attracting people right now. Give it a few months and see where the Limbaughs are in June or July.

A few tidbits:

Clinton agrees to NBC debate, despite the "pimping Chelsea" imbroglio, because they're attacking Obama for not debating and the campaign concluded that they're "getting more mileage out of the debate theme than out of the war with MSNBC."

And Rasmussen's tracking polls have two pieces of good news for Obama: he's ahead in the national Democratic contest, and he leads McCain by six while Clinton trails him by four.

It's pretty clearly his to lose right now, though if Edwards endorses Clinton that will make things harder for the O-man.

Stay out of it, Johnny; you'll be Attorney General either way.

dajafi wrote:If you're interested in arguing the merits of affirmative action, that's one thing. My strong hunch, though, is that you see it as nothing more or less than a political weapon with which one can push a racial backlash link without actually having to be an overt racist. I'd rather not play.

I wasn't really looking to argue the merits of affirmative action, and I really wasn't looking for a political weapon to push a racial backlash link. I don't think I'm going to swing the presidential election by calling for the South to rise again on BSG or even by subtly hinting at such things.

We were discussing Rendell's comments about Obama. Most people were jumping all over the tone in which he made them and either ignoring the substance of them or throwing them out with the bathwater. I argued that his point, while crude and inappropriate, touched on something important, and represented in them what I (wrongly?) believe to be the overwhelming opinion of the Democratic Party (and probably Americans as a whole) that blacks are mistreated/disadvantaged/distrusted/disliked by some whites.

I threw out affirmative action as the example of where the Democratic Party shows that it still believes being black is in itself a disadvantage because my understanding was affirmative action for minorities was and is a system that is in place to the challenges they face due to racial disparities and prejudices in our society. If we're not worrying about whether or not some whites will vote for a black guy to be president, why are we still worrying about whether a black kid will get a fair shake getting into college or a Hispanic woman will get hired for the job she's qualified for? In making the point I wasn't looking to get us all to agree that we should end affirmative action. I was making a rhetorical point that there are clearly ways the Democratic Party (not necessarily wrongly, either) thinks race and racism does still matter, and I'm not sure why people are getting bent out of shape when asked to consider if voting is one of them.

Paul makes a good point when he asks how many of these people would vote for a Democrat anyway. Maybe Rendell makes this point and he doesn't even know it when he says Swann was cost votes by his race. Perhaps it's worse to be a Republican and black running for office because those racially influenced voters would typically back the Republican. If that's the case, then maybe Obama doesn't have anything to worry about. I dunno. It's not something that's going to be proven or disproven, I imagine.

TenuredVulture wrote:But the real objection to Rendell's statement is that he seems to be saying that PA is more redneck and backwards than Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Maine, etc.

I'm originally from NE PA... a range of lower/lower-middle class "suburbia" (areas around Wilkes-Barre/Scranton) and rural. Lets's just say I may be the only poster here that has actually used an outhouse (had relatives that didn't have indoor plumbing when I was a kid). The state does have it's share of "redneck-iness".

jerseyhoya wrote:We were discussing Rendell's comments about Obama. Most people were jumping all over the tone in which he made them and either ignoring the substance of them or throwing them out with the bathwater. I argued that his point, while crude and inappropriate, touched on something important, and represented in them what I (wrongly?) believe to be the overwhelming opinion of the Democratic Party (and probably Americans as a whole) that blacks are mistreated/disadvantaged/distrusted/disliked by some whites.

Okay, that is a different matter. I agree with your take on Rendell's comments, but I think it's way overstated to characterize what you write as "the overwhelming opinion" of the Democratic Party. And my initial response was more snarky--maybe even "dickish"--than deserved. Sorry about that.

jerseyhoya wrote:I threw out affirmative action as the example of where the Democratic Party shows that it still believes being black is in itself a disadvantage because my understanding was affirmative action for minorities was and is a system that is in place to the challenges they face due to racial disparities and prejudices in our society. If we're not worrying about whether or not some whites will vote for a black guy to be president, why are we still worrying about whether a black kid will get a fair shake getting into college or a Hispanic woman will get hired for the job she's qualified for?

I don't think they're really comparable, which was the (probably buried) point of my response. There's something else going on with affirmative action than simply pushing back against the legacy of discrimination, though that is part of it.

Most of my policy work involves trying to understand the labor market, and what I've found is that personal networks have a lot more to do with how and why people get jobs than one might think considering the problem in the abstract. Think about sports coaching positions: if, 50 years ago, all MLB managers and coaches were white, and hiring tended to be an old boys' club process by which guys recommended their buddies from the minors or whatever, wouldn't this lead to white guys continuing to get hired in disproportionate numbers even if the executives making the hiring decisions weren't racist? Needless to say, baseball was far from the only industry in which this was the case, and it applied outside the job market with college/professional admissions, etc.

So you build in affirmative action, which if it falls short of a quota system (as it always should, at this point) at least broadens the networks through which you consider job candidates. At some point, the networks are "integrated" such that you might not need that intervention anymore; I don't think we're there yet, in part because blacks still tend to live disproportionately in poorer and less socially connected communities, but we're getting there.

jerseyhoya wrote:Paul makes a good point when he asks how many of these people would vote for a Democrat anyway. Maybe Rendell makes this point and he doesn't even know it when he says Swann was cost votes by his race. Perhaps it's worse to be a Republican and black running for office because those racially influenced voters would typically back the Republican. If that's the case, then maybe Obama doesn't have anything to worry about. I dunno. It's not something that's going to be proven or disproven, I imagine.

Well, maybe. I think Swann lost because Rendell is a real maven on policy who also has great retail campaigning skills (another similarity he shares with Bill Clinton), and because it was a great Democratic year. I'm assuming he did fine in the middle of the state (and in Pittsburgh because of his Steelers glory days), which would work against Rendell's hypothesis, but I haven't looked at it in detail.

I'm all for broadening networks but at this point is it a good thing for the government to tell a business who they should hire?

Laexile wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:McCain can't ignore the upcoming primaries, but his major focus should be raising money. And maybe trying to reach out to the right win talk radio crowd while the rest of the country is paying attention to Obama v. Clinton.

If McCain still has primary money left it has to be spent on the primaries. General election money is a different $2,300. I'm not saying that he needs to go all out. But he needs to campaign in each state.

I'm convinced John McCain shouldn't reach out to the right wing talk radio crowd right now. He's not going to change his opinion on global warming. He's not going to renounce McCain-Feingold. At CPAC he mentioned all the places he agrees with them and left out everything else. He can win the center by sticking with what's worked for him.

There are more than six months before the convention and eight months before the general election. There's plenty of time. He won't come around to their position, so he needs to see if they'll come around to him. Right now he won't look conservative compared to Huckabee. He'll look a lot better compared to Obama.

This morning I was reading a blog of someone who claims she's a "Christian stay-at-home mom." It's not political. Just about her life. She thinks James Dobson is crazy on McCain. They can't sit out the election. They need to make sure McCain appoints conservative judges. The comments all agree with her. Winning James Dobson is very difficult. Over time he'll win Dobson's members.

Right now Senator McCain should keep winning votes in the primaries and stick with what is attracting people right now. Give it a few months and see where the Limbaughs are in June or July.

A) You don't have to spend primary money during the primaries. It can carry over. In any case, the convention isn't until September 1-4, so you can't spend general election money until after that.

B) He's getting enough freeish press right now that he's doing fine with staying in the news and relevant even if his primary campaign isn't as interesting as the Democratic side. He's going to need the money in the spring and summer to be able to stay relevant and get attention. The Democratic nominee will be able to outraise him, but the gap can't be allowed to be too huge.

C) If McCain was able to have 30-40 million to blow on a couple of weeks of national advertising in key states trying to define Obama as a liberal a week or two after the Dem primary wrapped up, that would be phenomenal. Bush went up on TV in March of 2004 after Kerry locked it up and was able to make big strides in setting the tone for the general election.

D) I don't mean compromise his values or try and persuade conservatives on core issues they don't agree with him on when I say reach out to talk radio I mean he should see if Rush will have him on. If Hannity will have him on, etc. Go out and talk to the people in the belly of the beast. Emphasize the areas where they do agree, and at least try and soften up the opposition from the right before the general election heats up so he doesn't have to spend the entire general election campaign fighting a two front war he can't win of trying to win moderates and trying to win over conservatives.

jerseyhoya wrote:D) I don't mean compromise his values or try and persuade conservatives on core issues they don't agree with him on when I say reach out to talk radio I mean he should see if Rush will have him on. If Hannity will have him on, etc. Go out and talk to the people in the belly of the beast. Emphasize the areas where they do agree, and at least try and soften up the opposition from the right before the general election heats up so he doesn't have to spend the entire general election campaign fighting a two front war he can't win of trying to win moderates and trying to win over conservatives.

Limbaugh says:

“‘If I really wanted to torpedo McCain, I would endorse him,’ Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show. ‘Because that would send the independents and liberals who are going to vote for him running away faster than anything.’”

A bit self-aggrandizing but not necessarily incorrect. I'll admit that a good chunk of the fondness I have for McCain is that the far-right freaks seem to loathe him. But he needs them to win--their votes and energy. So I suspect he'll pick a running mate who appeals to them and try to mend fences. But if he can pull that off while not ceding the independents to Obama, assuming he's the Democrat, he's a political miracle-worker.

I also read somewhere yesterday that people are pushing Rob Portman as McCain's VP. I don't know that much about Portman, but everything I heard (not a nativist or social-issues fanatic, big into fiscal responsibility), I like--so that presumably would rule him out...

One of the guys I work with was named to one of the 50 best up and coming people in politics or something like that by the Politico today. They got both his job title and the name of our company wrong.

Gives one great confidence in the fact checking abilities of that publication.

jersey, now isn't the time to go on Rush. Wait until Rush wants him on and the interview/callers will be much kinder for McCain. In a few months people should mellow a bit. And Rush is right. McCain shouldn't be seen as wanting Rush's blessing. To win in November it needs to be the other way around.

Any VP will have to be a McCain supporter. Picking someone who isn't in his corner doesn't help him. My VP ideas: Rick Perry, Charlie Crist, Fred Thompson, Colin Powell.

Powell would be my dream VP. The right likes him and a McCain-Powell combo would make Obama look really light on foreign policy.

While most people think he needs a VP to appeal to the right, he might be able to get the right simply by running against Obama. To go for moderates, independents, and women Olympia Snowe would be a good choice.

Interesting stat:

States in Which Clinton Has Obtained a Delegate Lead over Obama:

California, New York, New Jersey, Mass., Arkansas, Tenn., Arizona, Oklahoma, NM (by 1)

That's it. 9 states. Obama has taken more delegates in 25 states.


Wisc. (92)
HI (29)
Ohio (161)
Rhode Island (32)
Texas (228)
Vermont (23)
Wyoming (18)
Miss. (40)
PA (188)
Guam (9)
Indiana (84)
North Carolina (134)
West Virgina (39)
Kentucky (60)
Oregon (65)
Montana (24)
South Dakota (23)
Puerto Rico (63 - really?)