Why Obama? Why not McCain?

[SquirleyWurley]

Please consider this article by Christopher Hitchens:


Identity Crisis: There's something pathetic and embarrassing about our obsession with Barack Obama's race.
http://www.slate.com/id/2181460/pagenum/all/

Some highlights:

One can't exactly say that Sen. Obama himself panders to questions of skin color. One of the best chapters of his charming autobiography describes the moment when his black Republican opponent in the Illinois Senate race—Alan Keyes—accused him of possessing insufficient negritude because he wasn't the descendant of slaves! Obama's decision to be light-hearted—and perhaps light-skinned—about this was a milestone in itself. But are we not in danger of emulating Keyes' insane mistake every time we bang on about the senator's pigmentation? If you wanted a "black" president or vice president so much, you could long ago have turned out en masse for Angela Davis—also the first woman to be on a national ticket—or for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. So, why didn't you? Could it have been the politics?

...

The unspoken agreement to concede the black community to the sway of the pulpit is itself a form of racist condescension. The sickly canonization of Martin Luther King Jr. has led to a crude rewriting of history that obliterates the great black and white secularists—Bayard Rustin, A. Philip Randolph, Walter Reuther—who actually organized the March on Washington. It has also allowed a free pass to any demagogue who can manage to get the word reverend in front of his name. The white voters who subconsciously make the allowance that black folks sure love to hear their preachers are not only patronizing their black brothers and sisters but also helping to empower white ministers or deacons who make the same pitch, from Jimmy Carter to Mike Huckabee. The Iowa caucuses of 2008 were not the end of our long national nightmare about race, but another stage in our protracted national nightmare of piety, "uplift," and deceptive optimistic windbaggery.

[SquirleyWurley]

In addition, please consider this other article by Christopher Hitchens:


One Angry Man: Should we worry about John McCain's temper?
http://www.slate.com/id/2190109/

Some highlights:

The anecdotes are both reassuring and distressing, and the best and the worst both come from Arizona. About two decades ago, facing a group in his state GOP that resisted proclaiming a state holiday for Martin Luther King Jr., he shouted, "You will damn well do this" and rammed the idea home with other crisp and terse remarks. Fair enough. However, a bit later, in 1986, he was pursuing a Senate career and took extreme umbrage at an Arizona Young Republican who had given him too small a podium on which to stand before the cameras. It can be tough being 5 foot 9 (as I am here on tiptoe to tell you), but most of us got over it before we were out of our teens, let alone before donning the uniform of the U.S. armed forces.

...

One reason that I try never to wear a tie is the advantage that it so easily confers on anyone who goes berserk on you. There you are, with a ready-made noose already fastened around your neck. All the opponent needs to do is grab hold and haul. A quite senior Republican told me the other night that he'd often seen John McCain get attention on the Hill in just this way. Not necessarily hauling, you understand, but grabbing. Again, one hopes that the nominee has been doing this for emphasis rather than as a sign that he is out of his pram, has lost his rag, has gone ballistic, has reported into the post office that he's feeling terminally disgruntled today. (Or, as P.G. Wodehouse immortally put it, if not quite disgruntled, not exactly gruntled, either.)

[VLinvictus]

How can you stand to read that gin-soaked hack?

[SquirleyWurley]

How can you stand to read that gin-soaked hack?

Because when I don't agree with him, I still find his writing mentally stimulating, enjoyable, and when I do agree with him, I find his wit and insight to be refreshing.  I think a lot like him despite certain disagreements.

[VLinvictus]

How can you stand to read that gin-soaked hack?

Because when I don't agree with him, I still find his writing mentally stimulating, enjoyable, and when I do agree with him, I find his wit and insight to be refreshing.  I think a lot like him despite certain disagreements.

Well, good for you I guess. I've never found a single thing he's written to be stimulating or enjoyable. It's nothing but self-important over-hyped fluff.

[SquirleyWurley]

I thought that at least some point or two from either of the highlights could be discussed.

Whether or not you like Hitchens, I was wondering what people thought about what is mentioned in the highlights below, or  in the articles that I linked, about Obama and McCain.

[VLinvictus]

I thought that at least some point or two from either of the highlights could be discussed.

Whether or not you like Hitchens, I was wondering what people thought about what is mentioned in the highlights below, or  in the articles that I linked, about Obama and McCain.

OK. The first highlight on Obama is kind of pointless. Of course it's the "politics" that have made people support Obama when they did not support Angela Davis or Jesse Jackson. Neither of them ever stood within a hair's breadth of winning. Obama, if he doesn't totally sabotage himself, stands a good chance of winning.

The second Obama highlight is typical Hitchens: vapid inanity that is somehow supposed to be "insightful."

The McCain highlights:
McCain has anger issues. Great.

Couldn't you find anything by a writer with actual talent?

[SquirleyWurley]

Couldn't you find anything by a writer with actual talent?

   My patience for political rhetoric in article form isn't so great.  I was glad in a few clicks I actually found some sort of comments on either that reflectded some of my own concerns, and interestingly enough, both are from the same writer.

The issue I have with both Reverend Wright AND those who enjoy such speakers (whether it is in church or elsewhere), is the penchant for showmanship, empty rhetoric, grand-standing, etc.  I dislike it greatly.  Wow, someone can sway an audience, make them swoon or holler.  I can appreciate a good Pentecostal service -- I've shouted and hollered and spoken in tongues and sung the praise music, myself.  Long periods of praise singing or prayer would tend to rile me up, get me in a certain state.  But the preaching itself that I looked for was substance over style.

Perhaps some of it is culture: I'm of Polish-German-Czech-Hungarian stock (3rd generation born on US soil), from the Mid-North Eastern US, and was raised Roman Catholic.  But a lot of it is my distaste for rhetorical manipulation in politics or religion or car sales, etc.  Add race to the equation it doesn't make it any better, for me.  I'm glad Hitchens made some reference to it.

The issue I have with McCain is with his temperament.  It's a good question.  Is he the sort who will needlessly escalate tensions between people (from our own country, people in Washington, diplomats, other governmental leaders)?  Is he the kind who just flips out?  How much of an anger problem does he have?  He appears stable and sensible when he speaks.  People of his own party mention his outbursts.  I don't know what to make of it, but it raises a caution flag.

[Thorolf]

I have to agree with VL here... neither clip is particularly compelling.

I will say this - the "politics" that have people enamored with Obama have more to do with the dislike of Bush than any particular affection for what Obama himself has done or said.

Oh, people (especially the shoe lickers in the "media" like Chris Matthews) can't get out of their own way on the path to canonizing Obama by issuing ecstatic "halleluias" at every syllable he utters - but really, is there all that much (or any) substance or new thought coming from him?

He's about as far from Bush as you can get right now (although I think a true conservative might be a little farther away ), and that really is the key, IMO.

As for McCain, ya he has a temper. Of course, so have other presidents.

[SquirleyWurley]

I agree neither is particularly compelling, and the points highlighted are very simple.

But for me they are important things to consider: empty rhetoric/grandstanding, and anger issues.  I dislike both.  It's important to get to the heart of issues and get practical, and it's also important that a president isn't too unstable emotionally.