Obama plays the race card.

[Harper_is_Bush]

Obama:
“You know, when we had a debate back in Iowa a while back, we spent, I think, the first 15 minutes of the debate hitting me on various foreign policy issues. And I didn't come out and say, ‘Look, I'm being hit on because I look different from the rest of the folks on the stage.’”

Cunning way of saying "Don't taze me bro, I'm black!!"

Not to mention Hillary never said she was being hit on ("hit on", nice one) because she was a woman. She said Presidential politics has been an "all-boys club", and thus far it has. Simple statement, and a fact. How is that twisted into her "hiding behind her gender" or saying that she's being "picked on" because she's a woman?

So, to his credit (Obama believes, anyway) he didn't come out and complain after Iowa that he was being "hit on" because he is black. Does that mean he thinks he WAS being hit on because he's black? Sounds like it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071102/pl_nm/usa_politics_obama_dc

[journalist3072]

1. It gets worse than that

As I mentioned in another thread here on DU on yesterday, he was interviewed by Tavis Smiley on Smiley's radio show.

Tavis Smiley asked Obama about the perception that some people apparently have, that if Obama was receiving the same level of support within the Black community that Jesse Jackson received when he ran, that Sen. Clinton would "have to pack her bags." (Tavis Smiley's words).

Obama agreed with that, and said "There is no doubt that if we consolidate our vote, the polls would shift."

In other words, he's suggesting the Black community should "consolidate" our vote...in order to help him improve his standing in the polls.

And as an African-American myself, I took great offense to that.

[MADem]

2. If WE consolidate OUR vote?

Jesus, who advises this guy? Duncy McCampaignHack? Mrs. Malaprop? Talk about a Freudian slip!!!

I am undecided, but this guy keeps grabbing the shovel and digging--he's sliding down my list at a sharp angle, at this rate.

Don't vote on the issues (even though the average black voter has a better grasp of community-based issues than many voting blocs), vote on the 'hue?' That does seem to be what he is saying.

Geez, what happens, then, if those "female voters" consolidate THEIR vote? Or those OLD FOLKS play their McCain or Thompson cards?

You're right--it does get worse. I thought, foolish me, that the worst was over!

[journalist3072]

3. Here's the exact quote from yesterday

"There's no doubt that if we consolidate the Black vote, that would have a profound shift in the national polls."

Again, that was in response to Tavis Smiley's question to him, about the perception that if Obama was getting the same level of support in the Black community that Jesse Jackson got, Sen. Clinton would have to leave the race.

And that was Obama's response.

[MADem]

5. I realize that sometimes things look differently in print than they sound when spoken

but that just seems profoundly ... disrespectful... to me. There's an assumption that all that is needed is that an ORDER be barked "Everyone, now, CONSOLIDATE!!!" and that it will be made so.

There's no analysis in his statement, or apparently any UNDERSTANDING, of WHY Jesse got so much support. Shit, a cursory glance at Rev. Jackson's actions, speeches, positions, outreach efforts, will give you a pretty good idea where his head and heart have been at, consistently, over DECADES. I mean, really--Jesse EARNED it.

He was a favored candidate, even amongst those who didn't intend to vote for him, BECAUSE he spoke the truth and cut through the bullshit. Absolutely nothing was given to the Reverend Jackson just because of his hue--it was his ideas, and his ideals, that pulled people to him.

I'm troubled, too. It's taking way too much for granted.

[journalist3072]

19. Agree with you wholeheartedly. You are dead on. eom

[ellacott]

40. I don't see what's wrong with what he said

He didn't they "should" consolidate their vote. He said "if" they consolidated their vote.

I saw no offense in what he said.

[MADem]

44. He said "If we" actually.

If Biden said to all Catholics "If WE consolidate our vote..." or if Clinton said to all women "If WE consolidate our vote..." wouldn't you consider it a bit, well, presumptive?

Like they're assuming they've EARNED that consolidated vote simply by virtue of being a member of the group? And that the entire group thinks like a Borg???

[ellacott]

50. No, I wouldn't think that at all

It was an hyupothetical question. He never said they should do it.

[MADem]

51. Well, you're rare. I'm not the only one who "took it" that way.

I am not suggesting that his "offense" rises to the level of ten whacks with the ruler and go stand in the corner with the Dunce Hat on, but it came off as presumptive and cavalier, as though to say "If ONLY you 'peeps' would just get with the program, 'WE' black folk will have a WIN!"

To me, he sounded as if he wished to just not have to deal with these black folks, that they should just hurry up and get on board, get the spirit, and then he could devote his time elsewhere. He probably didn't intend it to come out that way, but that is how it came out.

Rookie mistake. People, as Tip O'Neill learned and oft-repeated, like to be ASKED for their vote. Not told to get in line and "consolidate" based on membership in a group--any group.

[ellacott]

53. I'm not rare at all.

I'm not doubting that anyone else found it offensive. I saw no offense and I think many people are looking for something and I guess you've found it.

[Lord Helmet]

4. I don't get why people complain about Obama using race because Hillary uses her gender.

selective criticism imho

[MADem]

6. Ah, the famous FALSE DICHOTOMY argument!!!!

If you have a problem with this, then you MUST be for Clinton? But, but...what if you AREN'T??? Then where does your little whine go?

Say, where's the gripe that Kucinich uses the Hot Wife Card?

[FredScuttle]

7. I'm waiting for Biden to play the Blowhard Card

n/t

[MADem]

11. .............. .................... ..............

:rofl:

He does like to talk, doesn't he!!!!!

[Lord Helmet]

8. no, just an observation about the selective criticism around here

[MADem]

10. Ahhh, that's the "If you talk about ONE subject, you have to throw EVERYTHING, including the kitchen

sink, into the discussion, otherwise it won't be FAIR" argument.

Please. If you take issue with "selective criticism" start your own thread, selectively criticizing whosoever you please. It's not like we're paying by the post, here--you can afford to do it!!

It's cheesy to shit on someone else's discussion with that kind of nonsense. What you postulated WAS a false dichotomy, even if you won't acknowledge it.

It makes you look deliberately partisan and disruptive, and surely that wasn't your intent?

[Lord Helmet]

15. lots of people disagree with your assessment

A prof of mine went off yesterday in class about this baloney attack on Obama, so you don't have the high road on this at all. Like he says, partisan is as partisan does so I don't expect people acting unfairly about this to see it much less correct their own bias. Doesn't matter really because there are plenty of people who see this for what it is.

[MADem]

24. And lots of people DO agree with my assessment.

Repeating the same false themes to someone who isn't a Clinton supporter doesn't make your argument more compelling, see?

All it does is demonstrate how eager you are to shut down this discussion. If you REALLY wanted to talk about that which concerns you, you'd start a thread on it.

And do tell your little prof that I said so.

[Guaranteed]

32. ???? Not seeing that particular fallacy in the post.

Course, usually people throw terms of fallacy around without having any clue as to what they mean. Or, they just use them interchangeably.

[Harper_is_Bush]

36. Because Hillary has not used her gender.

That's only an accusation made by Obama, one without merit.

If people what to pretend it's a fact, then their arguments based upon it are empty.

[Guaranteed]

39. Yeah, not seeing it.

Check out what "false dichotomy" means, also called the false dilemma:

"...a situation in which two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

So, I don't see how the fallacy applies here. A choice hasn't even been set up.

It sounds as if you're just saying that someone implied that Sen. Clinton used her gender, when, in your opinion, she didn't. If she didn't, that would just be a false statement. No fallacy about it.

[MADem]

45. It has naught to do with the statements of the candidates. It has to do with the way the

argument is presented. The false choice being insisted upon is between Obama and Clinton. If you object to Obama's actions, then (falsely) you "must" approve of Clinton's (supposed) actions.

If you don't support Obama, you 'must' support Clinton.

That's what's being shopped.

[Guaranteed]

47. That's not much of a choice, either.

The way you present it, it just sounds like a false inference, or a false assumption, as opposed to a false choice.

[MADem]

48. Well, the false inference was presented as a false choice.

You get painted into that corner even if you don't belong.

[Bullet1987]

52. Clinton HAS used the Gender Card

And she has been pointed out on it by numerous people other than Obama.

[MADem]

43. It's in there. The assumption is that, if you take issue with

Obama allegedly playing the race card, then you MUST be for Clinton who ostensibly plays the gender card. You are permitted only two choices, you are assumed to be in the Clinton camp if you comment in negative fashion about Obama's actions, and if you aren't for Obama, you MUST be for Clinton.

That's the point I was making. See? All those Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, Undecided folks, they're all lumped into that false Clinton choice by this method.


http://info-pollution.com/false.htm
In a false dichotomy (also called a false dilemma, either or, black or white, the missing middle) you are presented with two choices, when in fact there are more than two choices. If one choice is discredited, then the reader is forced to accept the other choice. But this is not an adequate argument, the choice favored must be supported by evidence.

[Harper_is_Bush]

9. But it's Obama who is complaining about Hillary using her gender

is Hillary complaining about Obama using his race? No.


And besides that, she went to an all-Womans college and commented about how it prepared her for the "all boys club" of presidential politics. What she didn't do (which is what Obama is claiming she did) is complain that she was getting piled on at the debate because she's a woman.

Obama is coming off like a big hypocrite here.

Of course, this thread will quickly sink, whereas a similar thread about Hillary would get 100 recs.

Maybe DU suffers from the same "operatives" some suspect DailyKos has.

[slowry]

12. Reading comprehension? He's saying that he doesn't think it was because of his race. n/t

[Harper_is_Bush]

14. Get some yourself. He said he didn't come out and say it.

He isn't saying it wasn't the case, or he doesn't think it.

[casus belli]

28. Uh, yeah. You're wrong here, sorry.

Immediately after the quote you use, he says "I figured it was because there were real policy differences there." So yes, he does in fact say that he doesn't think that he was singled out because of race. He is using an example, which you have conveniently edited to suit your agenda.

Nice parsing, but I have the feeling anyone with any amount of intelligence or intellectual honesty will see right through this BS angle you're promoting.

[Harper_is_Bush]

31. No more wrong than Obama was to claim Hillary was using the gender card

In the same respect then, will you say Obama was wrong?

[XemaSab]

13. Them Negroes is sho' uppity...

If Edwards is allowed to talk about how he grew up poor, and Clinton's allowed to talk about how she grew up a woman, then why can't Obama bring race into it? :shrug:

[Harper_is_Bush]

18. Just giving him the same critisism that he's giving, that's all.

He twisted one Hillary comment about being prepared for the "all-boys club" of presedential politics to mean she's playing the gender victim card, so let's just twist - ever so slightly - his comment that he didn't complain in Iowa that he was being attacked because he was black to mean he believes he was attacked because he was black.

They're essentially identical.

[XemaSab]

20. Speaking as a white female

I wouldn't compare being Black with being a woman. It's still a boys club in many ways, but the senate is currently almost a fifth female, so she's hardly the first of her kind in there. Obama, on the other hand... not so many Black dudes in the senate, ya know?

I think Blacks have it much harder than women do.

[Rosemary2205]

21. Black men, specifically.

Black women don't exactly have a cake walk but Black men are generally percieved as uneducated criminals from the get go.

[Harper_is_Bush]

29. I didn't compare being black with being a woman.

I compared Obama's criticism of Hillary with what he himself is doing by doing the same thing to him.

[spooky3]

49. it is always a mistake to argue as progressives about

who has it "much harder." There is a huge amount of evidence that both sexism and racism continue to be problems in society (as are some other "isms"). However, if you are going to make that argument, you need to take into account the most fundamental facts, such as that women are a much greater proportion of the population than are blacks. Relative to their proportion of the population, women are as grossly underrepresented in Congress as minorities - and more so in other institutions of power (such as the Supreme Ct.).

[flashl]

16. Pleez, every study on black candidates shows that

blacks candidates with few exceptions will not win without majority-minority communities vote.

Again, and again, studies reveal WHITE FLIGHT and crossover and there is NO difference in party affiliation. Black candidate=white crossover voters.

White voters trends reveal who play the race card.

edit: "According to a study at Yale, "(W)hite Republicans nationally are 25 percentage points more likely on average to vote for the Democratic senatorial candidate when the GOP hopeful is black...In House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black." That 25% of Republicans has nothing to be proud of, but as you can see, the Democrats are far worse."

[flashl]

17. Dupe.

[NorthernSpy]

22. How many threads have you started on this same topic -- 4? 5?

All of them lame attempts to "prove" that Barrack Obama IS TOOOOOOOOOOOOO! playing the "race card":

Obama:
“You know, when we had a debate back in Iowa a while back, we spent, I think, the first 15 minutes of the debate hitting me on various foreign policy issues. And I didn't come out and say, ‘Look, I'm being hit on because I look different from the rest of the folks on the stage.’”

Cunning way of saying "Don't taze me bro, I'm black!!"

In other words, because Obama stepped up and answered the barrage of questions; and didn't ask anyone to give him a break; and didn't claim that he was singled out for this special foreign policy third degree because of his race, all this really means that:

• He DID TOOOOOOOOO! dodge all that extra foreign policy questioning.
  
  
• And he DID TOOOOOOOOOO! demand that they give him a break ('cuz I'm black, bro!).
  
  
• And he DID TOOOOOOOOOOOO! claim that he was singled out for all those questions because of his race.

Because you say so. And we should take your word for it, because you are the world's sole official translator of Obamaoppositese.



Whatever. Assery like this makes me happy to be a Kucinich supporter.

[Harper_is_Bush]

30. This is the only one

not that I have to defend myself to you. Please try to be more concerned with accuracy if you're going to accuse posters.

"And he DID TOOOOOOOOOOOO! claim that he was singled out for all those questions because of his race."

No, I didn't say he did. I said he made the point that he didn't. Why make the point? Why make the point that he DIDN'T blame his color for being singled out, unless he was thinking that was the case?

Not much different than twisting Hillary's words the next day in a speech to mean she was blaming her gender for being singled out, even though she didn't say that either.

Get it?

[NorthernSpy]

33. oh, I see!

You're quite right. There ARE two of you working together on this. A little tag-team action going on. Why not?

No, I didn't say he did. I said he made the point that he didn't. Why make the point? Why make the point that he DIDN'T blame his color for being singled out, unless he was thinking that was the case?

:rofl:


Yes, is this the room for an argument, please?

[Harper_is_Bush]

35. I'll explain it to you again

Obama:
“You know, when we had a debate back in Iowa a while back, we spent, I think, the first 15 minutes of the debate hitting me on various foreign policy issues. And I didn't come out and say, ‘Look, I'm being hit on because I look different from the rest of the folks on the stage.’”

The reason Obama said that was because Hillary went to an all-Womans college the day after the debate and said the college had prepared her for the "all-boys club of presidential politics".

Ok, how can Obama claim that by saying that Hillary is referring specifically to the debate of the previous day and complaining that she was singled out due to gender?

Explain that to me, if you can.

My extrapolation is no different than his. For him to say that he didn't say he was being hit on because he looks different leads to the question: why WOULD he make that point? Ah, obviously because he believed there was cause for him to say it!!

And in future please don't attempt to attack me personally. Once your accusation of me posting multiple threads on the same topic fell thru, now you accuse me of being in cahoots with someone else. Just stop it. It's against the board rules, and for good reason.

[NorthernSpy]

37. "explain" it all you want, and it still won't make any sense...

... because what you're trying to convince us of is just silly.

And just why it is silly has been explained to you already, by me and by others -- one of whom pointed out that you have deliberately edited the quote in the OP in an apparent attempt to create a quote more conducive to making your case. (Not that it helped much, to be honest.)

And in future please don't attempt to attack me personally. Once your accusation of me posting multiple threads on the same topic fell thru, now you accuse me of being in cahoots with someone else. Just stop it. It's against the board rules, and for good reason.

You need to read up on what constitutes a "personal attack", because that ain't one. You yourself may not have posted multiple threads -- and you'll note that when you said so, I readily conceded that point -- but the person who did lay all those threads on us is right here and participating heartily in your thread. Did you not also participate in her threads on this topic?

You see, that's behavior, and I'm allowed to comment on and characterize behavior.

[Harper_is_Bush]

38. I truely believe you have no idea what I'm trying to "convince" you of.

You have no idea what my "case" is, unfortunately. I will say this, I edited nothing. Your accusation is bogus, unless you want to claim that nobody can be quoted without being quoted in their entirety (ex. from the first word to the last of everything they said at that sitting). Calling that "deliberate editing" is simply ridiculous.

And I have read up on the rules, and yes...focussing on me and calling me out as you did is specifically mentioned.

I don't even know who you're referring to. You see, you've made an accusation of collusion or "behavior" which is nonsense, and in doing so that is trolling for a response (a defensive response) from me. That's probably why it's against the rules. Your sense of paranoia is in overdrive, and it's leading you to make bad decisions.

[NorthernSpy]

41. leaving out the part where the guy you quote EXPLICITLY rules out...

... the very thing that you're trying so very hard to rule in, while giving his own explanation -- well, yeah: that does constitute "deliberate" and tendentious editing.

And I have read up on the rules, and yes...focussing on me and calling me out as you did is specifically mentioned.

Read 'em again. This time for meaning.

I don't even know who you're referring to. You see, you've made an accusation of collusion or "behavior" which is nonsense, and in doing so that is trolling for a response (a defensive response) from me. That's probably why it's against the rules. Your sense of paranoia is in overdrive, and it's leading you to make bad decisions.

This is plausible. It's easy to overlook such near and aggressive advocacy of ones own position. Especially when it comes from someone who has peppered her threads with verboten insults like "asshole", "dummie" and "you're ignorant".


:rofl:

[Harper_is_Bush]

42. So then, is Obama correct in claiming Hillary played the gender card

the next day in her speech at that womans college?

She didn't even mention the speech, did she? Nor did she say she was being "singled out" because of her gender, did she?

No on both counts.

Yet Obama seems to think that because he didn't complain about being singled out because he's black he deserves credit....why?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cgrindley]

25. Which one? (nt)

[NorthernSpy]

26. 2 of Clubs...

:shrug:

[NOLALady]

27. Hey,

I have it on good authority that it's the two of diamonds!

[NorthernSpy]

34. Dammit! Nothing beats the 2 of diamonds...

Rush told me that the race card makes every hand a winning hand.


Might as well throw away my three kings and pair of aces.


x(

[Renew Deal]

46. You contorted yourself for this one.

E for Effort

[cuke]

54. And plays it badly