"She's saying that Barack did not identify himself as black when applying to HLS- contrary to the assumptions of many-- and got in anyway."
No I get that. But there are several problems with that claim, only one of which I mentioned originally. I'll mention all of them now:
1. Legacy admissions occurs when a parent was a student at the university. That's the "affirmative action" she was referring to in McCain's case. I simply pointed out that the exact same situation obtained for Obama so he's not on a higher plane there.
2. Graduate level admissions always requires letters of recommendations from undergrad professors. Any one of them could have -- and probably did -- mention his race. Most admissions require a photo. That would have indicated his race as well. Chances are 99% the HLS knew his race before admitting him.
3. How does Maureen Dowd know what was on his application unless the info came from the person who completed the application? That person being, of course, the same person who benefits from this laudatory tale.
No doubt you're an expert on embarassing nonsense, but are you an expert on legacy admissions?
I know for a fact that at Stanford my grad degree constitutes 'legacy' for my daughter as an undergrad. Legacy is more about contributions to the alumnae fund than qualifications. They want to encourage brand loyalty.
So prove to me it doesn't work the other way around. While you're at it, prove that no one in admissions noticed the name and inferred anything interesting about it.
She's kidding right? Obama's father, Barack Obama, went to Harvard. It is one box you check to indicate 'legacy', and maybe a text field to write in the name. He didn't need to say he was black. And of course he's not black, there's that too.
a) it is tiny; Obama's is gigantic
b) it says "for president"; Obama's says "for America"
c) it uses the actual presidential seal; Obama's redesigned with his own looney iconography
d) it does not try to elevate a campaign slogan to religious text; Obama's translates 'yes we can' into latin. Oh please.
The Senate is a venerable institution of the U.S. Government, created by the U.S. Constitution, composed of hundreds of public servants over two centuries of this country's history. In what universe is that comparable with one guy running for public office?
"Feeling blue" is a dismissive way to put the kind of fear, panic, and depression a woman might be going through at that point.
Obama's position is that these feelings aren't enough, but rather she would need to prove she's a nut case.
Granted, late term abortions are a difficult area, but it's crystal clear that Obama is saying it's ok to put limits on a woman's right to choose.
"As others point out, it's quite common to have imitation Presidential seals."
-- Not like this one. It was a laughing stock among the political media.
"Virtually every candidate for President is routinely introduced as "the next President Of The United States". Referring to candidates as President is extremely common."
-- Two different things. "The next president" versus "president McCain." Find me a case of someone saying the latter.
"Many candidates refer to themselves as symbols of America's greatest traditions. Stories about rising from humble beginnings, how everyone can become President, etc, are stereotypical for a reason."
-- No candidate has spoken the words "I am a symbol..." They just haven't. If you think they have, link to it.
"As far as I can recall, the only people who have referred to lights shining down from heaven have been Obama's opponents."
-- Wrong. McCain's "The One" video shows Obama saying it.
"Obama actively works to attract every class of voter you refer to. He's been very clear in that."
-- He literally said he won't try very hard to get Hillary's voters. They can come around on his own. His proxies (Donna Brazile, Howard Dean) have said "We don't really need those traditional democratic voters any more. We are building a new coalition."
-- Obama also told a group of African-American voters, just last week, that if they don't like what he's doing they can vote for someone else, or run for office themselves. In other words "Go take a hike."
"On the other hand, show me McCain's outreach to African-American voters."
-- He spoke to the Urban League (an AA group) just last week, right after being accused by Obama of racist campaigning.
"As far as I can tell, the entire thesis of your post is that if Obama does it, it must 1) have never have been done before, even if there's ample evidence to the contrary, and 2) it must be arrogant and therefore wrong."
-- You aren't reading the news much, are you? I'm not making this stuff up. Go to www.realclearpolitics.com and catch up.
McCain arrogant? Sure, you probably have to have a healthy dose to run for President. But on the other hand, Obama has taken it to a level never before seen. And yes it is a historically verifiable fact that no previous presidential candidate has: 1) developed and used a 'presidential seal' before being nominated, yet alone elected; 2) been referred to by his campaign staff and supporters as 'president' before being nominating, let alone elected; 3) claimed to be a symbol of America's greatest traditions; 4) referred in speeches to lights shining down from heaven and urging folks to vote for him; 5) dismissed whole blocks of voters as unnecessary to him ("bitter" working class people, women, hillary supporters).
You can drop the subtle allusion to my being that thing that starts with an 'R', ok? As a person who voted twice for Jesse Jackson and have a pretty good history of race relations both personally and in my public and voting life, and as someone who lived through a time when the 'R' word meant something very very bad, I can only consider the hurling of such an epithet as the desperate act of someone who has nothing else to say.
"What you should be writing about is "why we should change the primary system", or "Why caucuses are terrible (or great)" or whatever."
-- You're right on this one. I could be writing something more informative.
"BTW, please explain how voting against Obama and helping to cause his loss, would not affect Hillary in A) the Senate, or B) if she were to be the VP pick, or C) her ability to help with drafting of a National Health Care Plan, or D) stunt if not reverse the the carved out women rights but appointments to the SC?
What? I didn't hear you"
-- Personally I am unconvinced that Obama can be trusted to push through a significantly more liberal agenda than McCain would. First, his positions are not that liberal to begin with (he's now for NAFTA, against privacy rights, against gun control, for offshore drilling, and against permitting abortion to protect the mental health of the mother). Second, his track record shows he has a tendency to 'cave' even on issues that he claims to support (nuclear power plant regulation in IL, where he gutted his own bill to satisfy Exelon a Nuclear contributor). Third, even in the most central core of progressive belief and practice (the protection of the poor and minority citizens) he's got no record to be proud of. His IL Senate district in the south side experienced NO improvements while he was in office, and while he got big contributions and house payments from Tony Rezko, the residents of Rezko's buildings froze in the winter and fought off rats in the summer.
You will glibly announce that these are republican talking points. Maybe, but they also happen to be true. Voting for McCain is not something any democrat can relish. Though there is precedent, in that back in the George McGovern days there were plenty of democrats who wished that Nelson Rockefeller could get the Republican nomination as he was liberal enough to consider voting for.
Sorry, I have no pat answers for you. But as an Obama supporter, maybe you can answer a question for me: Why should I trust Obama to do what he says he will do? I'm serious. Give me some evidence that he has principles he stands up for no matter what. Some evidence that he does what he says he will do, for the citizens who elected him.
McCain won the REP primary by winning the number of pledged delegates required to be nominated. Obama won nothing. He does not have the pledged delegates required to be nominated. LIke it or not, his nomination depends on what the SDs do at the convention.
"It's posts like yours that make MyDD a complete waste of time. 'He's not the nominee yet' -- wow!"
Devalue my concern for electoral rules if you want, but it is that exact thing that has so severely alienated many democrats this year. The "sit down and shut up" treatment that Hillary and her supporters have received from people like yourself has angered not only us little people, but at least one very intelligent and politically savvy former President (see Bill Clinton's recent "Good Morning America" interview).
If you really believe that you, JoeW, are smarter and more tuned into reality than those who, like Bill Clinton, smelled a major rat in this year's primary process, then I suggest you not only abandon mydd for better blogging worlds, but heck get on a ballot and get yourself elected to public office! You really are 'too good' for the likes of us.