Given the discussion you and I have been in about government and force, it appears California may be making people divorce at the barrel of a gun. Horrible.

I find it somewhat disturbing that there is so much “if you agree with me or do what I want, you are good, but if you disagree with my position or do what I want, you are bad” in the US.

In reality, though, not much of a barrier was crossed tonight. Why do I say that? Because race played a HUGE part in the election. Not in who got elected (the black vote has always been overwhelmingly Democrat from what I understand), but on what the focus was. Perhaps it is just because I live in Canada and am not exposed to the day to day rhetoric, but in the media it seemed Obama’s skin color and McCain’s age were more important than anything else. So if race played a huge part I do not see how people say a barrier was broken.

That’s just my perspective. If, in fact, policy, ideas, etc. had a stronger part to play than race, then disregard what I am saying. After all, I am only a dumb Canuck who really couldn’t care less about a person’s skin color and have never understood anyone who does.

I disagree with you strongly that race was much of a factor (though I agree that many in the media paid disproportionate attention to it) — to the extent that it was a factor, it would have been racist white Democrats and independents not voting for Obama because of his color, and they proved not to be much of a factor. I don’t think African-Americans voted for Obama at a substantially different rate than they historically have for Democrats in general, although I wouldn’t doubt if turnout was unusually high among them. But then, why shouldn’t it be? You see the same phenomenon with a candidate’s home state, and that has nothing to do with race.

As for McCain’s age, it only really became an issue when he tapped Palin for the VP position. Here’s a woman who even many conservatives acknowledged wasn’t even remotely qualified to be president, and you have a guy with a history of health issues running to be the oldest president ever? That “one heartbeat away” cliche took on special meaning.

Those issues aside, and setting aside the negative campaigning that always seems to crop up (especially on Palin’s stump speeches), this was actually one of the more substantive presidential campagins in recent memory — especially during the Democratic primaries. Sure, there was a TON of room for improvement, but still, it was a lot better than what we had in 2004 or even 2000.

As for the abortion and homosexuality issues, I’d be glad to debate this with you [again] on the merits, but I don’t think human rights are or ought to be negotiable.

if race played a huge part I do not see how people say a barrier was broken

I’m sorry, Big U, but I’m having real trouble following the logic. You say “race played a HUGE part in the election” (it actually played a lot less of a role than I expected, but that’s beside the point right now). To the extent that it did, it would work against Obama: As T. notes, Democrats traditionally get 80-90% or even more of the black vote. Bill Clinton did and early in the primaries, Hillary was getting the vast majority of those votes.

The problem every black candidate for national (or even statewide) office in the US has faced is that too many white people would not vote for them because of their race.

In light of that, I’m utterly mystified as to how you can say that the election of the first US black president is not “breaking a barrier.”

The question though, Larry, is whether Obama actually did win because fewer of those white voters who refrain from voting for blacks refrained from doing so in this case. If his win can better attributed to new (black?) voters, then the issue gets messier.

They probably covered that question in the deep demographical breakdowns they were doing on CNN. They had a lot of cool graphics and data going there; I mean, I haven’t tried to slice data that thin since last year’s fantasy baseball draft…

All in all, I don’t really care that much. The question is bullshit anyway because it is strawman. One, we don’t know to what extent individual voters are voting FOR candidate A, as opposed to AGAINST candidate B (not do we know the extent to which race affects either decision paradigm). Two, only black people are generally accused of supporting a candidate because of shared race. Of course, there’s a good reason for that, you usually can’t isolate variables, as both candidates are usually white.

The nasty underside of this otherwise commendable day in race relations is that now we get another exception to be touted as the rule. Oprah became the black female version Horatio Alger myth, and now we have a male counterpart. Obama’s ascent will no be used as fodder for those who promote their self-serving agendas and alleviate their sense of guilt by claiming racism is dead. Obama will, indeed, be an inspiration to many young, poor, African Americans. He will also, unfortunately, be used a crutch in the campaign to blame victims for their own failures.

Hooray for California (and Florida)!! An otherwise bright spot on a sad day for our great country. This vote was in many ways almost as critical as the Presidential race, and is a major victory against the culture of death.

How exactly was breaking up marriages in California a victory against “the culture of death [sic]“?

Digg -

The question … is whether Obama actually did win because fewer of those white voters who refrain from voting for blacks refrained from doing so in this case. If his win can better attributed to new (black?) voters, then the issue gets messier.

Actually it doesn’t because the question I was asking was how you can say both that race was a big issue AND Obama broke no barrier.

In any event, according to exit polls, he did win more of the black vote than Kerry (or even Clinton) did but even counting the greater number of black voters doesn’t add up to victory: The numbers just don’t match.

Meanwhile, he got only 43% of the white vote – but that was more than, again, Kerry or Gore or Clinton did.

It seems to me that no matter how you slice the numbers, Obama did break a barrier. And that was the point.

According to some experts on The News Hour tonight, African-American turnout was unusually high, which helped Obama. But what’s promising is the fact that while white voters who considered race an important issue broke overwhelmingly for McCain, those voters now only make up about 8% of white voters. That’s a Very Good Thing.

Okay, this is where I start getting confused with you guys in the US. As I made pretty clear in my comment, my perspective was driven largely by the media reports as I was not present in the US. Even Tgirsch said the media had disproportionate coverage race. Also note that I had no problem retracting my statement if there had been substantive debate on topics and I will take Tgirsch at his word that that was the case.

Now, to clarify, here is where my thinking went:
If blacks voted in significantly higher numbers, voted overwhelmingly for Obama, and media reports were accurate in saying race was a factor for a large number of the new voters, then race played a part. If it did play a significant part, then race is still a significant issue in America (at least for blacks) meaning that barrier was not broken.

If white voters that consider race an important issue only make up a small portion of white voters as tgirsch says, then racism in politics on the main streets of America as far as voting goes was removed as an issue long before this election. (again my perspective)

If race was not an issue, then how is electing a black president breaking a barrier? Would it not make sense that it is a natural progression of a society looking more for substance than old-school politics? In my mind, the barrier was broken when Rosa Parks did what she did. From that point on, in my mind, it was just a matter of time until a black president was elected. Just like it is just a matter of time until a female will be elected.

It takes an incredibly long time to build a base, develop networking and rise to the top. As non-whites get more representation, better education and better opportunities, more become leaders. I can understand the symbolism that many people want to attach to this election, but I would say the barrier was broken many years ago and this was just a natural progression.

Now, as I said before, I say this as a Canuck living in a city where, for the most part, skin color does not matter. So it is highly likely that I do not fully grasp the psychological importance of what has happened. Actually it’s almost a given that I don’t.

Unfortunately for Obama, he will be labeled as the first black president for a chunk of his (presumably) first of two terms and that will be a huge burden to overcome because he will have expectations placed on him that are unfair. My thoughts are that people (especially the media) need to forget the color of his skin and focus on his skills. Then, and only then, will he be respected as the leader he appears to be.

I don’t think I know anyone under the age of 40 who opposes gay marriage. Even my brother-in-law, who was a popular star athlete at his suburban high school, had a token gay friend. Most teenagers today couldn’t care less. Attitudes are changing. Minds and hearts are opening up. Frankly, a lot of the old farts who oppose gay marriage are going to be dead in a few years, and the new generation of voters will overturn Prop 8. But it still sucks for now. You’d think that California of all places would be a little more progressive.

Big U,

Let me make a few points.

1. The fact that black voters voted overwhelmingly for Obama, and came out in higher numbers is not prima facie evdidence of race being the predominant factor in why they voted the way they did. This is especially true when you consider that blacks vote overwhelmingly democratic basically across the board in the first place. This also touches on my point about (over)zealously attributing black voters support for Obama to race as opposed to politics. Chris Rock has even been on this tip in some of his recent performances – when a white guy decides to vote for McCain people assume it is on the merits of his proposed policies and political careeer; when a black guy chooses to support Obama it is assumed the impetus is that Barack is a fellow brotha. If common race between a voter and candidate is sufficient grounds for claiming race plays a substantial role in elections, then just about every election in history has been decided on racial grounds (an argument I’d actually be more likely to indulge than you, ironically).

2. You’re also playing a little chicken and egg game in your fourth ‘graph. So, if race wasn’t an issue, then no barrier was broken… because it was already broken. Practically speaking then, such a difference would be largely a technicality. But, the barrier being broken by Rosa Parks?… Shit, what she did was quite illegal, though it may have played a part in galvanizing people to fight – but for that matter, we might as well claim the barrier was broken when Dred Scott bounced (late hint to Palin: that would have been a very simple Supreme Court case you could have cited as one whose ruling you disagreed with)

3. You last paragraph is something I generally agree with, but that takes time. Chris Rock (again) has this other bit where he talks about baseball, and how it wasn’t really integrated until the 70’s. He says that it wasn’t until then that you started seeing black bench players; early on a large amount of the black players were stars. Integration is meaningful when a minority has the freedom to fail and that failure represents him/herself, not the entire race. The “first” anything doesn’t have that luxury. These are trying times for America, and Obama is carrying a race of people on his back. For both reasons, he can afford to be nothing less than exceptional, a Hall of Famer caliber player, just like Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella, Larry Doby, Frank Robinson, Willie Mays, etc. were.

Big U:

Adding to what digg wrote, you seem to have an odd definition of what it means to break a barrier. It seems to me that you’re setting up a false dichotomy: either something puts race completely to bed as an issue, or it isn’t “breaking a barrier.” That’s silly! By the standard you’re applying here, Jackie Robinson didn’t break any barriers!

Also, a point of clarification here: nobody here is arguing that race wasn’t an issue at all here. We’re just claiming that it wasn’t the defining issue. Obama’s race certainly drove turnout among the African-American voting population, but it didn’t change how any of those voters would have voted, just whether they made the effort to get out and vote. In other words, it didn’t impact their politics or their decision; it merely impacted their enthusiasm. Frankly, I don’t see how this is a negative.

Recycling my previous example, the USA has never elected a president from my home state of Wisconsin; I guarantee you that if a candidate from Wisconsin got the nomination, voter turnout in Wisconsin would be unusually high in that cycle, because of voter enthusiasm (both for and against the local guy). There’s nothing at all nefarious about this.

So, to sum up, Obama absolutely did break a barrier by being the first African-American to win the presidency (and, notably, he did so without engaging in racial pandering); and this absolutely does not put racism to bed as an issue. That’s going to take a lot more time and a lot more work.

I think the fact that you’re Canadian does change your perspective here. Race relations up there, while far from perfect, are generally a hell of a lot better than they are down here. And with good reason. Recall that in the US, we’re barely 50 years removed from institutionalized segregation, and barely 30 years removed from de facto segregation, riots in South Boston, etc. Think about that. There are a lot of African-Americans still alive today — including close friends of mine — for whom this is no history lesson: they lived through it. One friend of mine tells stories about going out to eat and “having a picnic” because the restaurant would gladly sell them food, but wouldn’t let them eat inside. And this was during the 70’s late 60’s. His father fought in a segregated unit in WWII, and my friend always struggled with why his Dad would volunteer to fight for a country that treated him as a second- or third-class citizen. (Sadly, his Dad died a few years ago, and didn’t live to see this. Were he still alive today, he would say that what happened Tuesday vindicates his decision to fight for this country 65 years ago.)

I hope that helps explain why African-American voter enthusiasm is what it is. As Jon Stewart brilliantly put it, this was America’s first real “show, don’t tell” moment. We’ve always said that “anyone” can become president, but this is the first time we’ve really put that into practice. It’s a proud day for this country, a fact that even some of my most partisan Republican friends — who despise Obama on policy — acknowledge.

Nice post, TG.

Let me also be clear; I’m lukewarm on Obama, personally. Though I am somewhat optimistic that his presence at the negotiating table will improve our international standing. Regardless of my personal feelings, I think it is important to recognize that we did a little practicing of what we preach, and that has its own merits, independent of personal political beliefs.

We kinda just got a cosmetic makeover. The potential there is that although it doesn’t change who you are, it may change the way others perceive you. If others begin to perceive you in a new and better way, it is possible that the self-actualization of those perceived changes follow. That’s what we should be hoping for. We haven’t recently given the rest of the world much reason to take our self-righteous, aggrandizing, horn tooting as anything other than cheap bullshit – despite how blindly most of our citizenry believes and parrots it. Perhaps, this is an early step to putting our money where our mouth is.

That’s as much optimism as I can muster, fellas.

Oh, and Bob,if you’re gonna spam this bitch, at least run up in the correct thread.

“How exactly was breaking up marriages in California a victory against “the culture of death [sic]”?”

Culture of Death: abortion, euthanasia, contraception, homosexuality, so-called gay “marriage”, embryonic stem cell research, in-vitro fertilization, etc..

Homosexual acts are sterile by their nature and cannot transmit life. When you examine contraception, homosexuality, and abortion, you see that they all stand on a continuum and share one common theme: My body is my own to do with as I please. It is a self-absorbed worldview which causes society to shrivel up and die. Hence, the term, “Culture of Death.”

Thanks, bob!

As it happens, I’m making a presentation on the right-wing’s obsession with “the culture of death” at Columbia University this Wednesday. You’ve just become Exhibit #1!

Well I’m flattered, but I’d recommend reading the encyclicals and writings of Pope John Paul II, who first warned against this growing culture of death.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/JP02/index.htm

I agree totally Bob – from my desk I can see several women who aren’t actively trying to become pregnant right now. Such a shocking lack of disregard for their role in life is surely part of that same culture of death.

Fuck what the Pope has to say… and his Emelda Marcos-esque collection of Prada loafers. I have as much interest in reading that shit as you would if I asked you to read bell hooks before opening your (virtual) mouth.

Your beliefs are your beliefs, and you’re free to believe whatever you want, and to practice those beliefs within the boundaries of the law. Don’t wanna marry a dude, or get head (from a man or woman), do ya thang, playa. But personal religious beliefs (opinions on subjective matters) should not be codified into law, as per the expressed founding principles of this nation (or so it is said…).

Personally, I’d rather my fornicating habits be sterile, than my thought patterns.

By the way, anybody see those pictures of Halle Berry about a month ago in Esquire? Forgive me Father, but if those flicks don’t drive you to partake in some good ole one man, sterile, Culture of Death rituals, then I think your ding dong might be broken.

But, whatever, it’s Friday, the beginning of the weekend, time to relax and knock back a box of Blood of Christ and revel in the concomitant sins of progressive intellectualism.

By the way, as well as pointing out how broken the right-wing view of the world is, we really should welcome bob here. He’s been fairly civil to us, and it can be nice to have some opposition. Moreover, if he’s quoting popes, he’s pretty unlikely to be an incarnation of Fred (a toll who’s gotten himself banned repeatedly for abject assholery), so let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and treat him well.

Welcome, bob.

Sorry, Dan. Regurgitating intolerant, bigoted talking points through the guise of self-righteous religiosity does not register to me as meaningful contribution to this thread or site, civility aside.

One can question the civility and overall taste of my discourse here, but at least I don’t parrot merely the empty platitudes associated with my general worldview.

Blah, blah, speak truth the power, blah, blah, “the man,” blah blah, from each to his ability to each according to his need. How’s that?

“The Culture of Death, ” yeah, like the Inquisition, right… Save that shit for a bumper sticker on an El Camino.

Welcome, Bob – now step ya game up!

Well I’m flattered, but I’d recommend reading the encyclicals and writings of Pope John Paul II, who first warned against this growing culture of death.

Oh, the whole Fool’s Chorus will be well represented. There’s no lack of reactionary horseshit.

Digg -

I agree with your observation (at comment 12), or at least what I take away from it, that it often requires the superstar to actually “break the barrier” and open the path for others to follow. So much so that I said pretty much the same thing just the other day.

Bug U -

I still have trouble following the logic. Race was a significant issue in the campaign: It was discussed, analyzed, critiqued, clucked over, and teased apart. But in the end, in the actual voting, it did not prove to have a significant effect on the outcome. How is the standard-bearer of that outcome not breaking a barrier?

Did Jackie Robinson break no barrier because racism continued to plague this country? Did Rosa Parks break no barrier? Did neither Thurgood Marshall nor Colin Powell break barriers because racism has not disappeared?

Like the old song says, “every victory brings another.” Those victories along the way are not the final victory, but they are victories nonetheless. So it is with Obama.

Re the barrier issue:

Jackie Robinson did break the barrier in major league baseball. But who was the first black pitcher? (Dan Bankhead, by the way). Bankhead was a first, but his arrival as a pitcher was not seen as breaking a barrier.

Rosa Parks broke a barrier (I already said that earlier) and it opened the floodgates to a world of change.

I guess my perspective is different than the majority of people on here when it comes to what constitutes a barrier. From my perspective, there are a significant number of black politicians. As their numbers increase at all levels of politics, it was an inevitabiity that at some point a president would be black just as it is almost as inevitable that a president will someday be a female. I don’t view it as breaking a barrier because breaking a barrier seems to indicate an opening of a floodgate.

Robinson opened the floodgates to black players in baseball, Rosa Parks opened the floodgates to the civil rights movement and accompanying changes. What floodgates will be opened by Obama becoming president? I agree that it is a significant achievement but I just do not get the breaking the barrier idea. From my perspective, the politician barrier was broken when Carl Stokes was elected mayor of Cleveland in 1967.

Big U:

Did Frank Robinson break a barrier in 1975? There were plenty of black players in baseball by then, and even a few black coaches. But none of them ever got to call himself the boss.

I would say somewhat. Gene Baker was the first black manager of an affiliated minor league team and he was even the first black manager in the minors (albeit only on a temporary two game basis). Frank Robinson did get the major publicity and he did open the floodgates for other blacks to become managers so in that way he did break down a barrier.

Tell me. What actual barrier did Obama break? What has he opened the door for in the future? I would not consider it a barrier broken unless it opens things up for more of something. I’m not trying to be sarcastic or ignorant. I just don’t see it as breaking a barrier as much as I see it as the natural conclusion to a long process. For me, a black man (in this case Obama) is the end result of a long process. A group of people having an opportunity to maximize their potential and a country being willing to take a chance on a young intelligent man who just happens to be black.

Big U:

As to what barrier Obama actually broke, that’s easy. Every time an African-American runs for president, there’s a bunch of coverage surrounding the question “is America ready for a black president?” And “Will America elect a black president?” No future African-American candidate will ever have to face those questions, because we now know that the answer is “yes.” For other minorities, and especially for women, that barrier still remains firmly in place, unfortunately.

But I disagree that it has to “open floodgates” to constitute “breaking a barrier.” By that standard, it’s impossible for a president to break any sort of barrier, what with elections coming only once every four years, and only one possible winner. Heck, in the 220 year history of presidential politics, Obama is just the 44th person to hold the office.

But, if you disagree with describing it as “breaking a barrier,” how about calling it “an exceptionally important milestone?”

Big U -

This will be my last on this because I think that by now we’ve all given this question as much attention as it deserves from us.

What barrier did Obama break? That of winning a national election. T. has already made that point by noting the questions that will never again need be asked.

To say in essence that Obama broke no barrier because there had been black politicians before is simply not a forceful or convincing argument. Did Jackie Robinson break no barrier because there had been black pro ballplayers before (just not in the major leagues)? Did Thurgood Marshall break no barrier because there had been black judges before? Did Colin Powell not do so because there had been black officers before?

The argument that because of the increasing number of black office-holders it was “inevitable” that at some point there would be a black president and thus no barrier was broken is also unavailing since by that logic a dam bursting would not be a breakthrough because it was the “inevitable” result of a slow buildup and wearing down over time.

The phrase “glass ceiling” is closely associated with the attempts of women to advance in the business and political worlds. Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, even though it fell short, was aptly described as “breaking the glass ceiling” for women presidential candidates – even though she wasn’t the first woman to campaign for the nomination of a major party. (I believe Shirley Chisholm was in 1972.) The point is, it’s no longer possible to deny that a woman can be a major contender for the presidency.

Barack Obama not only showed that it was possible for a black man to be a serious contender for a major party’s nomination (which Jesse Jackson had already shown in 1988) but that it was possible for a black man to win that nomination and then win the presidency. If that’s not breaking a barrier – at the very least in the sense of breaking through a different sort of glass ceiling – I’m not sure what would be.

I’ve already stated that it was an incredibly important event. And Larry E, if you had read what I have posted, you would never have asked your Jackie Robinson question in your last post. I guess we will simply have to agree that it was a significant event while at the same time disagreeing on whether or not it was breaking a barrier.

I will agree, though that something was broken. And that was the idea of institutionalized racism throughout the US. There is still racism(from all colors to all colors), there are racist individuals, but in the biggest decision where race had a chance to play a part, according to the left on these boards, race was ignored by the vast majority of voters. That means that from this time on, race can not be used as a crutch for a group not succeeding.

That means that from this time on, race can not be used as a crutch for a group not succeeding.

Overreach much?

Look, the fact that someone has successfully overcome an obstacle tells us that the obstacle can, in fact, be overcome, not that the obstacle no longer exists. I’d expect you to know better than to conflate the two.

We’re a nation making tremendous progress on race, as evidenced by Obama’s win. But that simply does not mean that race is no longer an issue at all, or that racism is completely dead.

Okay, I guess I will say one more thing:

if you had read what I have posted, you would never have asked your Jackie Robinson question in your last post

I did read it, quite obviously, since I directly responded to the argument. The Jackie Robinson question was relevant because by your own argument that Obama broke no barrier because of the “inevitability” of a black president due to the prior existence of black office-holders, the emergence of a black major leaguer was equally “inevitable” due to the prior existence of black professional baseball players. That undid your own claim about Robinson and re-raised the question of breaking a barrier in his case.

As for the rest, the assertion that Obama’s election put paid to “the idea of institutionalized racism throughout the US” is just silly. No one here said (I won’t argue no one here believes, because I don’t know) that “race was ignored by the vast majority of voters.” Rather, it’s been argued that race was ignored by enough voters, that demonstrable progress has been made, that the barrier between black candidates and the presidency is not longer impenetrable – that is, it has been broken.

That doesn’t turn into, as T. (again) already noted, that the barrier no longer exists at all. As someone recently asked, suppose Barack Obama had been exactly the same person, same background, same beliefs, same eloquence, except that he looked and sounded like Al Sharpton. Would that have made a difference? And if it would have, would that be because Sharpton looks and sounds “blacker” than Obama? Or just because he’s not as good-looking? (Suppose, on the contrary, someone the same as Obama except who looks like a young Harry Belafonte.) One’s answers to those questions, I suspect, reveals a lot about just how significant and pervasive you believe considerations of race still are in this matter.

TG,

I simply meant that Obama’s accomplishment will be used, disingenuously, manipulatively, and nefariously, by those seek “evidence” to bolster the false contention that racism is dead, and by those too ignorant to know better. This shit happens with Oprah all the time – it’s an updated tweak of the Horatio Alger myth.

Now, I am NOT saying that is a reason to wish against the type of progress that produces the anecdotal exceptions that some will spin as norms. But, I am saying, that we should expect it. And, I’m saying that we should be careful to temper the type of pronouncements that may unintentionally feed that rhetoric.

Big U,

I’m going to take myself out of this debate over what really amounts to semantics. But, I will throw this out there: whether Obama opened a floodgate or not is something debatable, I guess, but I’d posit that a poor performance as President could do a lot to shut that floodgate.

Obama would not have won this Presidency without the almost complete backing of the MSM (CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, MSNBC, NYT, WashPost, LATimes, and on and on…). It was the most despicable and dishonest display of journalism and media coverage this country has ever witnessed. It will not be forgotten.

It was the most despicable and dishonest display of journalism and media coverage this country has ever witnessed.

…since 2004, when SBVT smears went reported unchallenged, and “flip flopper” accusations were aired freely and without context.

“…since 2004, when SBVT smears went reported unchallenged, and “flip flopper” accusations were aired freely and without context.”

t wasn’t the media exposing the truth about Kerry’s service record, it was men who had actually served with him. There is no way the biased mainstream media was somehow in Bush’s back pocket the way they are/were for Barry.

You have an interesting idea of what “the truth” means, apparently.

Ok first of all Obama did obviously break a barrier. Previously race was a big reason why a minority never won the presidency and in some cases still has an impact. The term breaking a barrier is exactly what it means. With all of this talk about race there was obviously a barrier in Obama’s way. Well guess what he broke it.

Second, Obama did not win because more black people voted, he did not win because more white people voted, he won because of his character.

It seems like everybody thinks there the president because everybody seems to know what’s best for the country. WE NEED TO FIX ALOT OF SHIT!!!!!! This nonsense has to stop.

Oh and bob all those networks that were so called backing Obama, its obvious that you like fox news so stick with that one dude.

Obama would not have won this Presidency without the almost complete backing of the MSM (CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, MSNBC, NYT, WashPost, LATimes, and on and on…). It was the most despicable and dishonest display of journalism and media coverage this country has ever witnessed. It will not be forgotten.

How so? Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. What was so reprehensible about the journalism/coverage – what made it “despicable” and “dishonest?” Are you saying the supported Obama in their product, but not in their hearts (not an absurd argument, BTW)? Because that would make it dishonest.

If they simply disagreed with your opinions; that’s not despicable or dishonesty. To support those claims you have to offer specific examples of deliberate misrepresentations of the candidates’ proposed policies, pasts, positions, personalities, political preferences (and pecks of pickled peppers).

The media is certainly not above manipulation. It certainly isn’t above repeating absurd notions in the form of talking points at face value without even cursory attempts to determine their veracity. But, to prove that it was done here, and done disproportionately (and disingenuously) in favor of Obama, “because I said so” isn’t going to clear the burden of evidence bar.

Jimmy Rollins would not have won the 2007 NL MVP without the backing of the national sports news media. Where they empirically incorrect about the choice, abso-fucking-lutely. Were they being dishonest and despicable? No. Without substantial proof it’s hard to argue what happened was anything beyond the spectrum of simple difference of opinion and ignorance.

And, before you get all reactionary about me being an Obama Stan, I prefer Obama to McCain kinda like how I’d rather fuck Blanche than Dorothy.

That’s a “Golden Girls” references, bitches!

OK, so who should have gotten the 2007 NL MVP?

Out of curiosity, with the way the Prop 8 went in what has to be the most gay-friendly, anti-religious-establishment state in the country, how does that bode for the rest of the country?

the most gay-friendly, anti-religious-establishment state in the country

That would actually be Massachusetts. From what I’ve read, it seems that the high minority turnout that helped Obama ironically also helped Prop 8 pass. African-Americans and Hispanics tend to be more socially conservative than other traditionally democratic voting blocs, and that seems to have been the difference.

Still, I suspect that in 10 or 20 years, we’ll look back on gay marriage bans in pretty much the same way we currently look back on interracial marriage bans — it will be viewed as a moment of national shame.

Glad you got the key takeaway from my post, TG. To indulge real quickly, if you use the player had to be on playoff or playoff-contending team criteria, Matt Holliday, David Wright and Chase Utley were legit contenders. (Wright went .394/.516/.657 in August and .352/.432/.602 in Sept., clearly not the reason the Mets collapsed in 2007!). If you just go with best individual player, Hanley Ramirez is in the discussion too. Rollins won on the novelty of the 20/20/20/20 thing – his OBP was .012 pts higher than Utley’s BA and five guys on his own team with > 300 plate appearances out OPS-ed Rollins.

But to add to the more substantive discussion here, are the minorities really more socially conservative, in general, TG? Or, is homophobia just more prominent? Also, I’ve heard progressive blacks complain that those who advocate for gay rights issues rarely, if ever, reach out to the African American community. Perhaps there is also an element of self-fulfilling prophecy at play too.

The tragic irony is that while a strong minority turnout helped America take a big step forward in terms of civil rights, they simultaneously helped it take a big step back too!

digg:

I don’t go by either of those two metrics, but by a “who meant the most to his team” metric. Who was, literally, the most valuable player to his team, in the sense that if you subtract that one player, the team is considerably worse. So by that standard, the MVP may not be the best individual player, if the best individual player happens to be on a team with a lot of really good individual players. And since MVP is a judgment call, I think it goes beyond just the numbers. You can have a Griffey or Bonds style player who puts up HOF-type numbers, but isn’t a leader in the clubhouse (and is, some could argue, a cancer in the clubhouse), and that player might be less deserving of MVP than a player who puts up very-good-but-not-HOF numbers, but is able to motivate his teammates and leads both by word and by deed.

As for minorities being more socially conservative, I think that with the notable exception of the abortion views of African-Americans, it holds up to scrutiny. Minorities tend to be socially conservative on a number of religious issues, are more likely to engage in politics from the pulpit (especially African-Americans on this count), are more likely to have “social conservative” views on things like immigration, homosexuality, abortion and stem cell research (among hispanics, anyway), interracial relationships, etc. Those attitudes are changing, but I still think it’s largely true.

You may be right, TG. In fact, you probably are. I guess, though, the root cause is really devout worship of religion, in a prescriptive, not allegorical, fashion.

Re: Our tangent-

Value is subjective. What does it mean to be “the most valuable to your team.” Hypothetically speaking, say Bill James perfected his Win Shares system so that you could calculate with perfect accuracy how many wins each player on a team contributed – that still wouldn’t settle the argument. If A-Rod were to be responsible for 15 wins, and the Yanks win the division by three games, then he’d be it, right? But wouldn’t there be the same argument for any Yankee responsible for at least four wins? Also, what if the best player in the league is on the last place team. He’s responsible for the most team wins, but the team is in last with or without him. My thinking goes like this – the award is an individual award by nature, it’s given only to one player. Under that pretense (and empirical observation) it makes no sense to conceptualize the award in a which you could vote for, say, Kevin Youkilis this year, but in a way in which he could have the exact same season on the Indians and you would not vote for him. The most objective (literal) way you can perceive the award is to determine whatever criteria you choose to identify the best player in the sport that year, and vote for that player, regardless of affiliation. In cases where it’s close, I can see bring external factors in. The Rollins case wasn’t close enough.

Agreed on religion.

On baseball, I guess we have a problem with semantics. To my mind “best” does not necessarily equal “most valuable,” is all I’m saying.

I could really set you off and launch into a “clutch hit” argument as to who’s most valuable, but I’ll spare the readers that particular flame war!

Yeah, you can view it however you want. My main objection in the previous post is to the idea that your approach is more literal. I think there’s inherent subjectivity no matter how you view it.

Ironically, I’d actually indulge the clutch argument in this very limited context. Clutch hits certainly do exist, and they should be worth more than normal hits. They add real value, so depending on how you want to define coming through in the clutch, I could be receptive to an argument stating that should be component of a player’s MVP candidacy. BUT, those outcomes are more luck than skill. They are statically unlikely events occurring at the statistically most beneficial time for them to occur. So, what I object to is branding players as “clutch” or non, as some sort of inherent trait.

And when it comes to that argument, there really is none. It’s passion in the face of hard, cold, data. From a pure data point of view, you might as well be arguing against climate change – and we know how seriously you take those arguments.

I won’t belabor this any further TG. Just know my position; it’s not that “clutch” doesn’t exist, it’s that it is not a discernible skill. Nobody has ever been able to prove it as such, to my knowledge.

How so? Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. What was so reprehensible about the journalism/coverage – what made it “despicable” and “dishonest?” Are you saying the supported Obama in their product, but not in their hearts (not an absurd argument, BTW)? Because that would make it dishonest.

Oh good grief, how about injustice and a lack of integrity? Would that be more suitable to you than dishonesty? The MSM media is supposed to report objectively on the candidates in any election and save the bias for the op-ed section. (Surely you know that?). The press behaved disgracefully during this campaign, and America will likely be damaged by it for years to come.

If they simply disagreed with your opinions; that’s not despicable or dishonesty. To support those claims you have to offer specific examples of deliberate misrepresentations of the candidates’ proposed policies, pasts, positions, personalities, political preferences (and pecks of pickled peppers).
The media is certainly not above manipulation. It certainly isn’t above repeating absurd notions in the form of talking points at face value without even cursory attempts to determine their veracity. But, to prove that it was done here, and done disproportionately (and disingenuously) in favor of Obama, “because I said so” isn’t going to clear the burden of evidence bar.

I have something even better, the Washington Post even ADMITTED their reporting was in favor of Barry, and by a large amount:

Deborah Howell, the Ombudsman of the Washington Post, admits the Post’s coverage was biased for Obama:
“The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.”

“…From what I’ve read, it seems that the high minority turnout that helped Obama ironically also helped Prop 8 pass. African-Americans and Hispanics tend to be more socially conservative than other traditionally democratic voting blocs, and that seems to have been the difference.”

Then why aren’t California gays out protesting in front of black neighborhoods, businesses and churches?
Blacks don’t equate their struggle for civil rights with the homosexual agenda. Quite the liberal conundrum…

One, I actually do not believe it is the job of the media to report with optimum objectivity. I believe it is the job of a media outlet to make clear its purpose and behave in a manner that is consistent with it. For example, this blog, does not purport to be an unbiased source of news and opinion, and for that reason I think this blog has a lot of integrity. The three current authors (and Ted, RIP) are pretty consistent in their positions, and predictable in their reactions. They are certainly not “unbiased,” but I don’t believe anybody can ever truly be. So, with true objectivity as an impossibility, I advocate forthright and honorable subjectivity. I don’t have an issue with a paper supporting a candidate; I have issue with a paper supporting a candidate only because of the business interests of the paper, or purporting to support a candidate that it really does not for the purpose of sales. Our own idealism is partly to blame, as we are foolish enough to believe the idea of news free from bias.

Still, the vast majority of your last response was a meandering series of platitudes. Preference is not tantamount to dishonesty.

“But nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign……Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass — no, make that shameless support — they’ve gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press.”
-Michael Malone

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188

Can’t believe I’m even going to respond to you or Michael Malone… shoulda known when this asshat’s faith in journalism was shook to the core because he found international news coverage biased…against Israel? Reality check, just because we exalt Israel doesn’t mean the rest of the world does. We’re not very well liked in the rest of the world, and Israel is viewed very much as an extension of us, an annoying kid who misbehaves as much as the next, but is not held accountable because her father is the principal of the school. Hezbollah’s atorocities have been well covered and documented; Israel’s often aren’t. Don’t blame CNNi for the difficult to resolve interaction it had with your cognitive dissonance. Anyway, I digress, let’s go…

1. It is the job of credible outlets to vet attacks before deciding whether to call in the hounds. The Bill Ayers thing was ignored because it wasn’t a credible accusation and the same exact charge could be levied against any major player in the Chicago business community. The media does not have an obligation to legitimize nearly libelous, blindly thrown haymakers by a combatant in the last round while unanimously behind on the cards. Now, if there are credible, directly-relevant, proven accusations that go under-reported, that’s a different story. Cough, Troopergate, cough, cough.

2. Not all gaffes are created equal. “Job is a four letter word” or whatever is a MALPROPISM. The inability to name a fucking Supreme Court decision is a STUNNING DISPLAY OF IGNORANCE.

3. It was Camp McCain that thrust Joe the Plummer into the national spotlight. He was ripped apart (not by Obama, but by the media) because he was an unlicensed plumber, who owes back taxes who either misrepresented himself when asking his question or mistakingly thought a policy applied to him when it didn’t. None of which are capital crimes, however Camp McCain didn’t properly vet him before they hitched their wagon to him. The “story” wasn’t about JTP himself, it was about the JTP affair as yet another example of hasty, and poor judgment on the part of the McCain campaign. Though I will grant that the media did go a little overboard on Joe himself. But, he went for the ride too, hiring himself an agent and appearing on Morning Shows and shit. All things considered, he actually seemed happy enough to get his 15 minutes of fame, even if he didn’t realize that the joke was on him.

4. The piece cited was an editorial itself. So, when I asked you to prove bias with stronger evidence than “because I said so,” you responded with “because this guy said so.”

For what it’s worth, Nate Silver disagrees with my assessment of why Prop 8 passed.

The damn elderly. I heard they’re voting next to outlaw vijay-jay waxing.

Wouldn’t that be a colorful variation of the “when I was your age I had to walk 5 miles in the snow” story…

“The Bill Ayers thing was ignored because it wasn’t a credible accusation and the same exact charge could be levied against any major player in the Chicago business community….”

Thanks for proving my point:
attacks on Obama/Biden = libelous
attacks on McCain/Palin = justified.

I suppose even the Washington Post admitting bias is still not enough for you. Speaking of ignorance, lets take a look at Obama’s track record that most people don’t remember or even know about because the press gave him a free pass:

-Last May, he claimed that tornadoes in Kansas killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.

-In Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

-In front of a roaring Sioux Falls, S.D., audience, Obama exulted: “Thank you, Sioux City. … I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.”

-Explaining why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

-Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Ala., he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement: “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”
Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was “speaking metaphorically about the civil-rights movement as a whole.”

-In Cape Girardeau, Mo., Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by homing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them, and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.

-In Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multibillion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear-waste cleanup: “Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.”

I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he’s voted on at least one defense-authorization bill that addressed the “costs, schedules, and technical issues” dealing with the nation’s most contaminated nuclear-waste site.

-Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama’s Dreams from My Father: “Then, there’s the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don’t exist, say the magazine’s own historians.”

-And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us” — cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm — and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”

Holy shit… O-D-ing on the copy and paste function with little vetting, I see. But, that’s not a shock – apparently you think that’s what credible media outlets should do as well… Let’s go through some of these gaffes, shall we.

First of all, I’m going to make my last comment on the Ayers thing. It was not a big deal! The worked on education reform together, served on a board of some charity together and moved in political and business circles in Chicago. Barack Obama was not a member of the Weathermen, as much as you wish that was the way the story was reported. Obama was learning to shave at the time Ayers was letting mofos know which way the wind blows…

On to the gaffes, I’ll only address a few of them.

Most of geographical stuff is nitpicky, or not a big deal. Sioux Falls, Sioux City… it’s silly, and not doesn’t endear him to the residents of the area, but it’s not materially relevant to his qualifications for office. Ditto Arkansas/Kentucky/Illinois. This isn’t a fucking geography bee, and I would not jump on Palin/McCain for those types of brain farts either. I didn’t see the 57 states thing, from the quote though, it looks like it could have been an attempted joke, referring to a grueling travel sked. But, I never actually heard that one myself, so I do not know.

Re: The Selma March, possible gaffe, possible (slightly awkward) metaphorical speaking about civil rights movement.

Re: Translators. Legit gaffe; and relevant to qualifications/aspirations.

Re Life Magazine: incorrectly recalled detail from one’s childhood – not a gaffe, and maybe or maybe not intentionally deceptive. If I thought I hit second and played short in the game in which my Little League team some big tourney, and then it determined that I actually played second and hit lead-off, would that make me a liar?

Re Iran: That’s not a gaffe either; that’s different messages to different audiences. It’s troubling, sure. Most candidates choose to pander for votes instead of asserting their true heart-felt opinions on matters. That’s unfortunate indeed. But virtually all candidates do it. Also candidates are forced to forward two somewhat conflicting messages. To massage the ego of our woefully average citizenry, they have to talk about how we are the biggest, baddest, toughest, smartest, biggest-dick having thing the world has ever seen, and nobody can fuck with us. At the same time, they have to sell us on all kinds of threats to sustain the huge defense budgets and the M.I.C. (and to make sure the kids don’t start thinking xenophobia is uncool). It’s easy to take remarks made along one angle, place it next to remarks made on the other, and create a moderate contradiction. I’m certainly not saying that’s what happened here; I didn’t hear the speech(es) and don’t know; just sayin.

But, you are just like Fred – thinking I’m some liberal and Obama fanboy. Truth is, the battle for the presidency is much like the yearly preseason battles for the Dolphins QB in the post-Marino era… pardon me if I curb my enthusiasm either way.

bob:

Thanks for proving you’re unserious. The validity of attacks is based not on who the target is, as you seem to obsessively believe, but on the substance of those attacks. Everybody with two brain cells to rub together knows that the “57 states” attack against Obama is completely spurious — the context is deleted, because in context it’s abundantly clear that he started to say “all 50,” caught himself, and was revising the count to 47; he just misspoke and didn’t say the “forty” part. See, for example, here. But, of course, you don’t care about that. You just care about cheap political jabs, whether or not there’s any “there” there.

And, of course, it’s amusing to hear you criticize Obama for his middle east knowledge when you backed a candidate who consistently confused Shia and Sunni…

But if obvious gaffes and misstatements are the best you can come up with, I guess that tells us you just don’t have much of value to say.

“First of all, I’m going to make my last comment on the Ayers thing. It was not a big deal! The worked on education reform together, served on a board of some charity together and moved in political and business circles in Chicago. Barack Obama was not a member of the Weathermen, as much as you wish that was the way the story was reported. Obama was learning to shave at the time Ayers was letting mofos know which way the wind blows…”:

It was and is a HUGE deal. That fact that you seem to agree with his terrorist activities says a lot. He is emblematic of Chicago politics, from whence Obama comes and is a damning indictment of both. The fact that his presence would be tolerated anywhere in positions of authority demonstrates what a the moral wasteland that is American liberalism. Liberals love to attack Bush for his supposed immorality of war yet they have no problem with this unrepentant terrorist. Obama is not guilty by association but rather because he sat on a board with Ayers, politicked with Ayers, and even wrote a book blurb for Ayers, he is guilty by participation. With Ayers, American liberals have conceded any moral high ground they thought they might have gained in this election.

It was and is a HUGE deal.

Suffice it to say that a substantial majority of Americans disagree with you.

As digg already pointed out, the allegations being made against Obama with respect to Ayers could just as easily be made against any number of politicians from both parties, lots of prominent businesspeople, and a whole host of college and university professors and students. (Not all of whom are from Chicago, by the way.)

So, we’re left with two choices:

Either Ayers’ radical past isn’t terribly relevant to his modern-day associations, such that the literally dozens of prominent people who have had assocations with him (and even their enemies) didn’t think there was anything terribly controversial about them;
or
It’s a vast conspiracy/cover-up in which anti-Americanism runs rampant not just among the Chicago political machine, but also among prominent Pennsylvania Republicans, the academic community, and the business community.

Occam’s razor tells us pretty handily which one of those is the more likely possibility…

“Suffice it to say that a substantial majority of Americans disagree with you.”

You can say it all you want but it doesn’t make it true. Only if you substitute “the radical left” for “Americans” do you have a case. As far as others associating with Ayers, oh I’m sure there exists more than dozens of liberals who have hung out with this unrepentant terrorist. The thing is, none of them were running for the presidency.