Finn dAbuzz wrote:Playing the Race Card:
DEFINITION #1
When one campaign seeks to focus public attention on it's opponent's race within a negative context.
An ad that insinuates Obama is as vapid as Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears is not playing the race card, unless empty-headed celebrity is now an African-american stereotype. (One never knows. Witness the hue and cry about racism triggered by the New Yorker cover)
DEFINITION #2
When one campaign insinuates that its opponent is playing the race card (see Definition #1)
Obama's recent speeches about how "they" are going to try and attack him because he doesn't look like Washington or Lincoln (did he mention "black") is playing the race card.
It's rather simple.
Obama is black (or at least half black) and there is absolutely nothing wrong with him pointing out he is black and commenting on his blackness (such as it is).
He is, however, guilty of tired low road politics when he attempts to paint his opponent as a racist --- without any cause whatsoever.
It's clear that his supporters are giving him a pass on the very same behavior of which his condemnation, they claim, was a big part of the reason they support him.
Instead of expecting their Galahad to adhere to his lofty pronouncements and high ideals, most of them have excused his obvious transgressions as necessary to either beat the big bad Republicans, or getting elected and THEN coming through on the idealism and promises.
If this isn't old politics I don't know what is.
If you believe the ends justify the means, fine. A logical argument can be made for that position. Please though, for the sake of you own self-esteem, don't try and tell us that your guy (and by extension you) is so special.
The great value of Cyclo's posts is that they perfectly represent the daily Democratic talking points. One can counter these points by countering Cyclo's.
His latest tact (and thus the latest tact of Dem supporters of Obama) is to insist he doesn't idolize, worship, slavishly follow etc Obama. I don't doubt this but I do keep running up against this incredible disconnect:
Obama is The One, but not really. Obama is different, but not really. Obama is new but of course he has to act old.
It really is intellectually bankrupt.
You are a fool, but not really. You type and write well, but it doesn't really come out as you would like. It's sad to see someone who is obviously intelligent but an idiot at the same time, such as yourself. Puzzling. In this case you have created a straw-man, and for some reason you don't expect anyone else to be able to see it; which is ridiculous. Neither I nor any other Obama supporter here referred to him as 'the one.' That's reserved for jealous Republicans, who seek to make a mockery of him, as they cannot really effectively land a punch any other way. None of us think Obama is perfect, just light-years better then your loser of a candidate. And it shows; the enthusiasm gap is gigantic.
Pointing out the tactics of your opponent in a mild way is not 'playing the race card.' Obama was correct when he described McCain's tactics. He didn't make a huge deal about it. It was one line in a long string of comments about McCain. But it was latched on to by the right-wing, who has spent months now looking for a chink in his armor - or in this case, a way to inject race into the discussion without looking like you are the ones doing it.
Predictable, easy to counter, pathetic, and quite typically Republican. Keep it up.
Finn, I really think it's sad the way you are obsessed with me. I never mention you ever in posts that aren't related to our direct conversation; this is mostly because you aren't worth mentioning.
Cycloptichorn
ps - The word you are looking for is 'tack,' meaning direction of travel, not 'tact,' meaning discretion. Foxfyre made this same error a while back.
