National Review on Obama victory
A good comment on Obama winning the caucus vote in a state which is 90% white:
Obama’s immense victory. Yes, it’s early, yes, a lot could happen. But a man who could not have used certain restrooms forty years ago is in the center ring, not as a freak in the manner of Alberto Fujimori or Sonia Gandhi, nor even as a faction fighter in the style of Jesse Jackson, but as a real player. One of our great national sins is being obliterated, as the years pass, by the virtues of our national system. I don’t agree with Obama and I don’t particularly like him, but I am proud of this moment.
It is somewhat staggering that indeed just 40 years ago there was segregation in the US, and now Obama is a very serious candidate for the presidency.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
An internal choice made by the US left between a black and a woman.
Naughty fascist misogynists.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Sounds like a porn title……
January 4th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
The tide against Bush is so strong, this is when they can do it.
The inadvertant legacy Bush is leaving is the repair and healing of US race relations.
Does anyone know any Black political links to get some black feed back on Obama’s win
January 4th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Yeah yeah, but can he sing like Dennis Kucinich?
January 4th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
It is amazing how far the US has come but in the long run I’m betting political expediancy will win the day and it will be Hilary + a white male for vice president. Perhaps next time for Obama.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
“…now Obama is a very serious candidate for the presidency”
In name only DPF.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
If Hilary wins, Obama certainly won’t get in her cabinet
January 4th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
“The inadvertant legacy Bush is leaving is the repair and healing of US race relations.”
Was it inadvertant hinamanu? New Orleans for example has never been repaired, despite the best economic conditions.
The Deciderer.
Morons who believed in him.
Ever.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
The city hasn’t been repaired but a vast majority of the people have thanks to Oprah and the support she garnered raising millions and homes.
Besides which, is there a corelation between New Orleans and Iowa ?
January 4th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
hinamanu, I was referring to staunch Bush supporters over the years (how could one be so stoopid????), from your comments I know you’re not one of them.
Can you clarify NO and IA?
January 5th, 2008 at 12:01 am
as in…
January 5th, 2008 at 12:10 am
gods
January 5th, 2008 at 12:10 am
io
January 5th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Wrong original question hinemanu, and badly worded reply, sorry.
I was seeking your thinking on a correlation between the New Orleans inaction and the effect of that if any on Obama’s vote.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:43 am
No, no, you’re looking in the wrong direction.
Three names came up immediately from New Orleans
fema, george bush, condelisa rice.
all these names were associated with serious action deficiency and procedural responsibilty.
No names what so ever were targeted within the democrats.
Obama and New Orleans have no distinction at all.
The Republicans cannot bring New Orleans up for the above reasons and I find your line of questioning bordering on the bizarre and definitely irrelevant.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Last week the Dems have an interesting choice, a shelia or a nigger. I cannot see this being acceptable to the USA at present. I reckon their best choice will be a white male (probably Edwards) with probably Obama being his 2IC. Edwards will have learned a lot from John (I am reporting for duty) Kerry’s inept charge at the Whitehouse 4 yrs ago being his 2IC.
Overall I do think that the Republicans will be quite hard to beat despite being in charge for the past 7 years, the Dems have got a soft underbelly which will make them weak in the new World Order. The Repubs will exploit this.
Peter
January 5th, 2008 at 2:08 am
And eight years ago, conventional wisdom had it that America wasn’t ready for a kike being a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. Well, it sure seems like a majority of voters weren’t particularly fussed.
And forty eight years ago, then Vice-President Nixon couldn’t lose — especially if the Democrats were stupid enough to nominate a Mick Papist.
And how many people were confidently predicting a certain Margaret Hilda Thatcher wouldn’t last a year as Tory leader, because the British people would never, ever put a woman into Number Ten.
Funny how often conventional wisdom is none of the above.
Look, I don’t want to over-estimate the importance of Iowa, or under-estimate the formidable organisation and money Clinton has behind her. But I’ll put it bluntly: I disagree with Obama on pretty much everything, but the more I see of him the more he looks and sounds like someone ready to play in the big leagues. The more I see of Clinton, the less I like.
As for the Republican slate – McCain is looking more and more like the only candidate who isn’t some combination of 1) a pathological liar, 2) just another big spending Nanny Statist, 3) someone who doesn’t really get what Teddy Roosevelt meant by the ‘bully pulpit’ of the Presidency or 4) stark raving bonkers.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:27 am
this “sheilla nigger” shit has to stop. what a bunch of fucking dwarves. Get over it. America has.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:35 am
Craig, maybe McCain is “stark raving bonkers,” but nevertheless I think he will win the Repub nomination. Maybe – like Homer, he got a stamp that says he’s OK. I just wish Bush 43 could obtain the same, but maybe he doesn’t qualify.
Hinamanu, based on a previous comment you made on this thread, I was actually asking if you had any reading at all on the extent to which reaction against what has happened in New Orleans might spill into the IA and future votes. I certainly wasn’t conflating the Dems in any way, sorry if you took it that way.
January 5th, 2008 at 4:29 am
Reid:
As I said, McCain is the only Republican candidate I find even remotely palatable – and even then, I’d like him to just once tell the TheoCon Nanny Statists to sit down, and STFU until they’ve memorised the Constitution. I’ve given up any hope they can have even the rudiments of conservatism dunned into their heads.
January 5th, 2008 at 7:38 am
A bunch of Iowa hicks who spend most of their time getting romantic with the backends of livestock and collecting fat federal farm subsidies just like their fathers, fathers, father in a form of intergeneration welfare are about as likely to correctly pick the next leader of the U.S as the average citzen of Pyongyang.
January 5th, 2008 at 8:04 am
That’s a bit harsh Richard. It’s not supposed to be a lottery where you get lucky if you pick the right choice, it’s supposed to be a democracy where you cast your vote and the majority view prevails. just like in NZ.
January 5th, 2008 at 8:04 am
McCain is an old anti-Bush media beat up from yesteryear.
Giuliani will piss in.
Obama is another more recent media beat up who might make it. Watch the Clinton machine go nuclear on him, its gonna get nasty.
January 5th, 2008 at 8:14 am
I’d like to see Obama vs McCain but I doubt it will happen.
January 5th, 2008 at 8:27 am
I was interested to hear Obama campaign “that we are all one people”
It’s a pity some of our NZ politicians don’t feel the same
January 5th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Its not only blacks who faced legally sanctioned discrimination
The Texas Constitution
Article 1 – BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 4 – RELIGIOUS TESTS
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
Atheists need not apply for public office in Texas ( and a few other states)
[DPF: But that clause is never enforced, as if it was it would be found unconstitutional under the US constitution which trumps it. That's the great thing about having a national constitution and bill of rights]
January 5th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Yes, Lee C I know its not a lottery. What I meant was the Iowa result does not in anyway give a good indication of who will actually end up being the Dem, or Rep candidates on election day. The hayseed, farm subsidies parasites of Iowa do reflect the wider U.S electorate.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:06 am
The US Constitution only bars a religious test ( no ifs and buts) for FEDERAL office.
You are incorrect that the US Constitution “trumps it” as you say.
The bill of rights has no effect either.
The courts have used the due process and equal protection clauses(14th amendment) via legal doctrine to overule the states in the religious test matter.
This was what was used to stop Florida doing a recount and put George Bush in the Whitehouse
[DPF: Article Six does not refer to federal office. Please don't invent things. It says "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States".
You are also wrong on the recount. You are good at being wrong.]
January 5th, 2008 at 11:18 am
In League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006), the Court ruled that Tom DeLay’s Texas redistricting plan intentionally diluted the votes of Latinos and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause. In both of those cases, however, the Court refused to interfere with partisan gerrymandering, as opposed to racial or ethnic gerrymandering, seeing it as within the valid scope of state authority.
So much for legal doctrine guaranteeing anything, remember that ‘separate but equal’ was used for 50 years to get around the equal protection clause, in spite of the evidence that the black education system wasnt equal
[DPF: Again you lie. The Court found that one district breached the EPC and instructed the boundaries for that district be redrawn. They just didn't throw out the entire redistriictricting plan, but where it was found to breach the EPC it did have to change to comply. You really are a compulsive liar]
January 5th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
The article above is mostly from Wikipedia, as is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_United_Latin_American_Citizens_v._Perry
Ordered by the justices to remedy this situation, a federal panel on Aug. 4 adjusted the lines of the 23rd and four other districts — the 28th (represented by Democrat Henry Cuellar), 25th (Democrat Lloyd Doggett), 15th (Democrat Ruben Hinojosa) and 21st (Republican Lamar Smith)
So they had 5 districts redrawn , which proves I was correct.
Anyway my point is that ´legal doctrine’ not some actual words of the constitution only stop the discrimination against atheists in some states.
Your interpretation of the religious test clause is backed only by yourself
The “no religious test” clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3, and states that:
“ …no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. ”
This has been interpreted to mean that no federal employee, whether elected or appointed, “career” or “political,” can be required to adhere to or accept any religion or belief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_religious_test_clause
This is obvious as the clause before it, to give an oath to protect the Constitition as the extended wording
“both of the United States and of the several States”
meaning:
f the United States ONLY
oath to protect the constitition :required of United States AND the States
religious test
You are being a bit silly claiming you are infallible
January 5th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
“In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that such language in state constitutions was in violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution in Torcaso v. Watkins. In 1997 the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution requiring an oath to God for employment in the public sector was unconstitutional.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_religious_test_clause
January 5th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Can’t say I agree with much of Obama’s policy but surely he is much more preferable to hillary. And man can he speak! If only any NZ politicians had his oratory ability.
Have a look at his acceptance speech – magnificent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqoFwZUp5vc
January 5th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
GWW, you are a waster. Waste of time, waste of bandwidth.
Obama is certainly interesting and I think could have legs. I don’t believe he really has an integrated set of policies – there are some really weird things in there. So far as I can tell that hasn’t been a barrier before, so I guess it wouldn’t be again.
On the right, I’d be very happy to see McCain through. RedBaiter is, I think, wrong on this. Yes, McCain is more centre than Bush was (but look at what a ballsup Bush made of core Republican values such as low tax and small government). But Republicans need to realise that most of the other candidates cannot win, and that McCain can. So given a choice between McCain and Clinton/Obama, I think the Republicans should choose McCain. Choosing anyone else is choosing to lose the presidency.
January 5th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
The Tocaso case was NOT decided on the VI Clause( no religious test)
The Court unanimously found that Maryland’s requirement for a person holding public office to state a belief in God violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
How much clearer is that FIRST AND FOURTEENTH
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins
In fact Justice Black explicitly excluded the VI clause
The Court did not base its holding on the no religious test clause of Article VI. In Footnote 1 of the opinion Justice Black wrote:
“Appellant also claimed that the State’s test oath requirement violates the provision of Art. VI of the Federal Constitution that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant’s contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices.”
Any others want to stand up and get smacked straight down again