Plum Crazy

Two thoughts on Biden. First, he hopefully will be forced out of the race immediately and have the dubious distinction, I would assume, of having the shortest-lived Presidential campaign in history. Second, his words only underscore the importance of Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith becoming the first African-Americans to coach in the Super Bowl. There clearly remains a perception that African-Americans do not have "the necessities" for positions of power. It still seems like we're stuck back in the days when slavery and segregation were acceptable because African-Americans were seen as generally inferior. To this day, we obviously live in a racist society, and anytime an African-American can break through the stereotype is hopefully another step towards shattering these stereotypes. Yet sadly, when you read the remarks of Biden, knowing that they represent what a lot of whites are thinking, you wonder if these stereotypes can ever be broken.

I found this blog Googling Sigourney Weaver but I'll be back for the Yankees news and good writing.

Biden's comment was certainly no surprise... if not expected, with Obama in the race.

What genuinely killed me the other day, however, was to see someone like Dawn Trice acting as apologist for Biden, and using that apology as a platform for racist comments of her own. Very sad. Equally sad to see the same basic attitude here, i.e., assuming what a white person is thinking, simply because they're, well, white. Sorry. That's racist in its own right.

No one would label it "racism" if I called Thomas Sowell or Alan Keyes "articulate". Why? Because they're conservative.

No one would label it "racism" if I called Thomas Sowell or Alan Keyes "articulate". Why? Because they're conservative.

Well, you're wrong about that. I would. Sorry. And that's how most blacks would hear it. Chris Rock did riff about whites reactions to Colin Powell and how "well-spoken" he is. Which, I believe, also counters your point. Powell is not a liberal. He may not be Alan Keyes, but he's not Barack Obama.

Look, at a minimum, Biden is a naif, because he's too politically unaware to recognize the subtext to "articulate" when used as a "compliment" for blacks. Taken in conjunction with other remarks he's made, however, I don't see that he gets the benefit of that doubt. I just don't. He's said enough things that are racially charged that I think we get to call "pattern" on him.

"Well, you're wrong about that. I would."
You made that clear in your post. That's you.

Regardless how insightful Chris Rock thinks he is, or how clever Dawn Trice thinks she is, neither of them knows what I'm thinking when I use a particular term any more than you do. And making an assumption about it simply because I'm white is racist. Period.

All that aside, I wholeheartedly agree that Biden is a flaming racist. Most militant liberals are, just like Jesse Jackson. They would be nowhere if not for the race card, fomenting class warfare and all the other political rhetoric aimed at grabbing power that passes for leadership amongst most of the Democrats these days. And don't even get me started on the other guys.

But if you really did visit my site, you know what I think about all this already. :-)

Sorry, the word "no one" confused me. I've always thought of myself as someone. And Chris Rock is a famous someone.

Now, you might mean "most people." However, most people don't think Biden's a racist either, even with all the crap he's said, so what does that prove? That's got nothing to do with conservative vs. liberal.

And, yes, I did visit your site. I did not, however, read everything you wrote. I was trying to figure out how likely you were to vote for Edwards. If I seriously thought that having Amanda and Melissa on board was likely to negatively impact Edwards' chances, that would be one thing. So far, though, the vast majority of the outcry against having them on his team has come from people who won't vote for him no matter what he does. In which case, so what? I've seen no indication that the vast majority of voters who might actually vote for John Edwards care one bit about this whole situation. I imagine that the majority of people who have even heard of this (already not that many) are thinking "Amanda who? Blogs? What?" If I'm wrong, I'd like to see some actual evidence of that.

Shorter me: "People who weren't going to vote for John Edwards are still not going to vote for John Edwards. Film at 11."

"Sorry, the word "no one" confused me."

You're right. I guess we're even now. :-)

My intent was to say "no one could reasonably label it racism" because, well, you'd have to have an actual reason - other than the aforementioned racist assumption about what whites "think". So far I'm not convinced by the reason you've outlined. That's all.

As for Edwards, I'm sorry to say that even as a registered Democrat I would never have voted for a hypocritical ambulance chaser who got wealthy driving up the cost of health care and who's "leadership" comprises taxing the "rich" (more) for the benefit of the "po' folk" ... on his way back to the largest mansion in Orange County, NC.

But that's just me. :-)

I find it quite ironic that someone chastising me here for assuming I know what they might think just did the exact same thing to me over at Shakes. You're totally wrong about what I meant. I've now told you that twice. My point is what it was at the very beginning of that comment thread. I have no use for a candidate who panders to people who won't vote for him no matter what he does at the expense of supporting his base. If he's going to roll over on an issue as minor as this, I have very little faith he wouldn't roll over on an issue of much greater import. If my choice in an election is a candidate whose policies I don't support vs. one who is likely to sell out on the policies I do support, I'll vote third party again. I don't vote for people whose basic message is "Sure, we'll sell you out, but we're not as bad as the other guy."

"I find it quite ironic that someone chastising me here for assuming I know what they might think just did the exact same thing to me over at Shakes."

Gee whiz, I would too. However, the fact is that assuming what a person thinks because of their skin color (that would be you doing the assuming) is markedly different from mistaking someone's point in a comment post (that would be me being confused, apparently). Just like before: apples and oranges. As such, the analogy - and the irony - breaks down irretrievably, I'm afraid.

"I have no use for a candidate who panders to people who won't vote for him no matter what he does at the expense of supporting his base. If he's going to roll over on an issue as minor as this, I have very little faith he wouldn't roll over on an issue of much greater import."

I feel exactly the same, and have said as much (e.g., let's see if he shows he's really a leader). Either way, that judgment criterion works horizontally AND vertically. And that's precisely why (at least some) folks have a problem with Edwards' "small" choice of Amanda as his online campaign manager: in their opinion, it's a bad portent for his larger choices.

"I don't take advice from people who don't have my interests at heart. Do you?"

In the interest of clarification, I think this is the point where our conversation diverged. I read your question too concretely, didn't realize you were referring to Edwards here. So it sounded like I should shut up and not advise you on your candidate's lack of sound hiring skills, and the ensuing outcry... simply because I never planned to vote for him.

My bad. :-)