I don't understand the 'messianic' label attached to Obama. I don't feel that way at all.
He's a good candidate who has experience in the areas that I wish to see a candidate have experience, and his platform is essentially identical to the other two major candidates.
His oratory skills, cross-cultural appeal, and ability to inspire people leaves the other major candidate, Hillary, in the dust. You can't compare the two when it comes to the ability to convey a message which is full of emotional meaning.
He had a great line in his speech last night: this election isn't black vs. white, it's the past vs. the future. The pundits went nuts over it, and why not? It's right. It's whether or not the DLC regains control of the Dem party or whether the so-called 'people-powered' wing of the party does. To me, that's as important as anything else at this point.
Cycloptichorn
Wow, that's a big one.
The rumor mills says that Gore is going to endorse Obama. That would be a major coup on his part.
Cycloptichorn
Roxxxanne wrote:okie wrote:georgeob1 wrote:Whatever you may think of the Clintons, they have demonstrated a remarkably consistent ability to maneuver successfully through the various tactical political issues they have faced. Whether it was Bill's much touted "triangulation" of hotly debated public issues or his well-timed criticism of some Black hip hop singers & spokesmen (Sistah Solja in that case) during the 1992 campaign, they have shown the ability to manipulate issues so that they get the maximum political gain from the largest constituencies of voters - in almost every case.
It wouldn't surprise me to later learn that there has been some of this at work in their management of the contest in South Carolina. If they forsake a small fraction of the Black vote in the Democrat primaries and, by maneuvering Obama into a 'racist' corner of their own making, gain a small fraction of the much larger white vote - they will be ahead. If Hillary then gets the nomination, all will be forgotten.
I agree, george. The method is isolate, marginalize, then demonize and defeat.
This is why Republicans hate the Clintons. They have taken the prime Republican tactics and mastered them.
I will give credit to Obama for saying this race is not about rich vs poor, young vs old, black vs white, etc. That is a breath of fresh air, as the Dems, the Clintonistas have made their living off of demonizing the rich, the businesses, the whites, blah blah blah, we are starving the old, the children, on and on. Edwards mantra is two Americas, well some of us are sick of it. Roxi, the tactic has been the Democrat play book ever since I started watching politics, and that is one reason I am a Republican and will remain one.
Cycloptichorn wrote:I don't understand the 'messianic' label attached to Obama. I don't feel that way at all.Cycloptichorn
Me either. This is all so borderline Magical Negro-ish that's it's ridiculous. Now you can't simply have a black man who transcends on his merits, his accomplishments, his experience. Oh no. He's got to be Messianic. Supernatural.
You guys really are sad.
Cycloptichorn wrote:I don't understand the 'messianic' label attached to Obama...
His oratory skills, cross-cultural appeal, and ability to inspire people leaves the other major candidate, Hillary, in the dust.
That is the definition of messianic.
eoe wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:I don't understand the 'messianic' label attached to Obama. I don't feel that way at all.Cycloptichorn
Me either. This is all so borderline Magical Negro-ish that's it's ridiculous. Now you can't simply have a black man who transcends on his merits, his accomplishments, his experience. Oh no. He's got to be Messianic. Supernatural.
You guys really are sad.
Does that include me? I don't see him as 'messianic' but as the best candidate, by far, for a variety of different reasons.
Cycloptichorn
eoe wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:I don't understand the 'messianic' label attached to Obama. I don't feel that way at all.Cycloptichorn
Me either. This is all so borderline Magical Negro-ish that's it's ridiculous. Now you can't simply have a black man who transcends on his merits, his accomplishments, his experience. Oh no. He's got to be Messianic. Supernatural.
You guys really are sad.
I am baffled that you guys feel that messianic is a pejorative.
It's not a pejorative for me, but people who don't know what it means tend to equate it with religious fervor.
One thing I will say - the definition of Messianism which probably closest matches what you mean, Rox, is -
2. Belief that a particular cause or movement is destined to triumph or save the world.
I don't think there's much destiny involved in politics. That's Clinton talk.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:I don't understand the 'messianic' label attached to Obama. I don't feel that way at all.
He's a good candidate who has experience in the areas that I wish to see a candidate have experience, and his platform is essentially identical to the other two major candidates.
His oratory skills, cross-cultural appeal, and ability to inspire people leaves the other major candidate, Hillary, in the dust. You can't compare the two when it comes to the ability to convey a message which is full of emotional meaning.
He had a great line in his speech last night: this election isn't black vs. white, it's the past vs. the future. The pundits went nuts over it, and why not? It's right. It's whether or not the DLC regains control of the Dem party or whether the so-called 'people-powered' wing of the party does. To me, that's as important as anything else at this point.
Cycloptichorn
So the pundits just woke up to the virtue of not using demagoguery in regard to race, wealth, age, etc., wow, what a revelation; the Republicans have been pointing that out for decades and have nevertheless had to tolerate such demagoguery aimed at them. It is nice if the pundits would see the light, but Obama is hardly the first one to say it, although one of the first in the Democratic Party for a long time. If he walks the walk, that would be nice, but I have to see it first.
eoe wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:I don't understand the 'messianic' label attached to Obama. I don't feel that way at all.Cycloptichorn
Me either. This is all so borderline Magical Negro-ish that's it's ridiculous. Now you can't simply have a black man who transcends on his merits, his accomplishments, his experience. Oh no. He's got to be Messianic. Supernatural.
Too true.
Thomas is being uncharacteristically shallow on this. Roxxanne is hardly representative of all or even most Obama supporters... and I seriously doubt many, let alone most, would use the term messianic.
As for crowd reactions, and ability to motivate; watch the video of Bill Clinton at the 2004 DNC again and you'll see that Obama is still second best in this category (third if you've ever seen Blair on the floor of the House of Commons). From the Magic Negro aspect to the loosely veiled Hitler comparisons; these reactions are as ridiculous as they are over the top.
Saturday, Jan. 26, 2008
The Black-Brown Divide
By Gregory Rodriguez
I imagine he said it as if he were confessing a deep, dark secret. And, of course (wink, wink), he had no idea his little confession would make the rounds. But when Sergio Bendixen, Hillary Clinton's pollster and resident Latino expert, told the New Yorker after her win in New Hampshire that "the Hispanic voter--and I want to say this very carefully--has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates," he started a firestorm of innuendo that has begun to shape how the media are covering the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in the heavily Hispanic Western states.
After the Jan. 19 Nevada caucuses, in which Latino voters supported Senator Clinton by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1, some journalists literally borrowed Bendixen's analysis word for word before going on to speculate about Barack Obama's political fortunes in such delegate-rich states as California and Texas. Ignoring the possibility that Nevada's Latino voters actually preferred Clinton or, at the very least, had fond memories of her husband's presidency, more than a few pundits jumped on the idea that Latino voters simply didn't like the fact that her opponent was African American.
The only problem with this new conventional wisdom is that it's wrong. "It's one of those unqualified stereotypes about Latinos that people embrace even though there's not a bit of data to support it," says political scientist Fernando Guerra of Loyola Marymount University, an expert on Latino voting patterns. "Here in Los Angeles, all three black members of Congress represent heavily Latino districts and couldn't survive without significant Latino support."
Nationwide, no fewer than eight black House members--including New York's Charles Rangel and Texas' Al Green--represent districts that are more than 25% Latino and must therefore depend heavily on Latino votes. And there are other examples. University of Washington political scientist Matt Barreto has begun compiling a list of black big-city mayors who have received large-scale Latino support over the past several decades. In 1983, Harold Washington pulled 80% of the Latino vote in Chicago. David Dinkins won 73% in New York City's mayoral race in 1989. And Denver's Wellington Webb garnered more than 70% in 1991, as did Ron Kirk in Dallas in 1995 and again in 1997 and '99. If he had gone back further, Barreto could have added longtime Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley, who won a majority of Latino votes in all four of his re-election campaigns between 1977 and 1989.
Are these political scientists arguing that race is irrelevant to Latino voters? Not at all. Hispanics, coming from many countries, are hardly monolithic; but all things being equal, Latino voters would probably prefer to support a Latino candidate over a non-Latino candidate, and a white candidate over a black candidate. That's largely because they are less familiar with black politicians, as there are fewer big-name black candidates than white ones, and because, stereotypes not withstanding, many Latinos don't live anywhere near African Americans. California, for example, which has the largest Latino population in the country, is only 6% black. Furthermore, in politics, things are never equal.
"It's all about context," says Rodolfo de la Garza, a political-science professor at Columbia University. "It always depends on who else is running. Would Latino Democrats vote for a black candidate over a white Republican? Hell, yes. How about over a Latino Republican? I'm very sure they would." Guerra says name recognition and the role of mediating entities such as unions, political parties and Latino elected officials are also important. For a well-known black politician or incumbent, there is little problem winning Latino voters. But when the candidate is not well-known, it helps to be endorsed by mediating institutions that people trust. Part of Obama's problem in Nevada was that, apart from the late endorsement by the Culinary Workers' Union, he didn't have a lot of that institutional support. And though he has begun to build those relationships in California--including the endorsement of the Latina head of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor--he may not have enough time to attain the kind of recognition among Latino voters that Clinton enjoys.
But if there's one thing we're learning in this historic year, it's that voters are even less easy to pigeonhole than candidates.
Rodriguez is author of Mongrels, Bastards, Orphans, and Vagabonds: Mexican Immigration and the Future of Race in America.
TIME
eoe wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:I don't understand the 'messianic' label attached to Obama. I don't feel that way at all.Cycloptichorn
Me either. This is all so borderline Magical Negro-ish that's it's ridiculous. Now you can't simply have a black man who transcends on his merits, his accomplishments, his experience. Oh no. He's got to be Messianic. Supernatural.
You guys really are sad.
"Magic negro". I'd never bumped into that term before. Very interesting indeed... see
here
One bit of data in the piece...
Quote:Rush Limbaugh aired a song parody called "Barack, the Magic Negro",
But to be fair to the messianic-trepidation argument... I think these folks are really speaking to the dangers that fall out from our social natures... we can (and certainly have in the past) been moved to significant abuses through a common tendency to wish to be led. In extremity, this can get pretty ugly.
But Obama is nowhere near such extremity, of course.
Cycloptichorn wrote:It's not a pejorative for me, but people who don't know what it means tend to equate it with religious fervor.
One thing I will say - the definition of Messianism which probably closest matches what you mean, Rox, is -
2. Belief that a particular cause or movement is destined to triumph or save the world.
I don't think there's much destiny involved in politics. That's Clinton talk.
Cycloptichorn
Messianic simply means a zealous leader. Bill Clinton, RFK and MLK were messianic.
Why don't you post this crap on a Clinton 08 thread This is what is known as spam.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:[ Roxxanne is hardly representative of all or even most Obama supporters...
I don't know how you could possibly know this.
The difference, Miller, is that those are all California newspapers from the state Hillary is counting on having in her back pocket.
Other than that, it is great that the NY Times endorsed her two days ago. These endorsements for Obama were just announced today so they too are making news.
eoe wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:I don't understand the 'messianic' label attached to Obama. I don't feel that way at all.Cycloptichorn
Me either. This is all so borderline Magical Negro-ish that's it's ridiculous. Now you can't simply have a black man who transcends on his merits, his accomplishments, his experience. Oh no. He's got to be Messianic. Supernatural.
You guys really are sad.
I have gone back and looked at thomas' post, my agreements and every other post following. Nowhere did I see Messianic juxtaposed with black, or magical negro or anything resembling it.
Until you connected the two, and the other cultists chimed in in perfect agreement.
tjis isn't about race remember?
