Comments on: Obama Cabinet Chess

By: nedlum

nedlum — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:41:54 +0000

"And, on a separate note, where's Al Gore...?" Making billions of dollars and saving the planet. Call me crazy, but I don't think Al Gore is really in the market for a new job at the moment. He now has a degree of non-partisan cachet, and freedom to focus on his passions, both of which he'd lose if he accepted a job at the EPA or something. It's possible he'll join up; I just don't see it happening.

By: shepherdwong

shepherdwong — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:43:45 +0000

""who they wanted"? why? And consumer behavior is rarely THAT rational." Rationally, politics is always the choice between the lesser of evils. Personal motives are irrational but they are also irrelevant when consumers make the right choice.

By: shepherdwong

shepherdwong — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:40:56 +0000

By: cfukara

cfukara — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:09:18 +0000

shepherdwong Says: " .. had better have voted for Barack Obama because that's who they wanted to be the next POTUS, not for any other political reward. .." "had better" - agreed. "who they wanted"? why? What were the motivations? We are tempted to surmise that (female) voters who clung to the dream/nightmare of Hillary's candidacy long past its due date expected certain (political, perceptual/psychological, monetary, enfranchisement/"coat-tails rides" etc) rewards accruing from a Hillary administration. In 2008, the American voter became the consumer of the most expensive hype and brand marketing in the history of USA presidential campaigns. And consumer behavior is rarely THAT rational. Have you sent in your 63-point questionnaire to the Obama group? [I wonder: Where is Mike Murphy?]

By: shepherdwong

shepherdwong — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 20:12:11 +0000

cfukara says: "We are talking of "no taxation without representation" while you would suggest "live and let live" with our ancestors' WASP criteria - a la Bill O'Reilly. Americans don't agree with you." No, I'm suggesting that Latinos (along with everyone else who voted for him) had better have voted for Barack Obama because that's who they wanted to be the next POTUS, not for any other political reward. Most Americans most assuredly voted for Obama for that reason alone. The rest can be pissed-off for whatever stupid reason they wish, ego-driven identity politics included.

By: cfukara

cfukara — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 08:28:06 +0000

Dee in Columbia MD Says:
" .. that doesn't mean since 13% of his vote were black voters for that his cabinet should be 13 percent blacks .."
Why not?

Suppose Obama's cabinet turned out to be 90% African-Americans, would you become suddenly quizzical? Would you sufficiently rationalize a predominantly African-American US cabinet to the hard-working, very hard-working Americans, the white Appalachians?

OK. Since you brought it up, we may then ask:
What percentage of Obama's vote came from the loud Jewish-American demographic?
Can you guess how many Jewish-Americans we will end up with in that Obama cabinet? [Pray, suspend any notions of racial supremacy for the moment.]

By: Dee in Columbia MD

Dee in Columbia MD — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:26:46 +0000

cfukara Says:
Saturday, November 22, 2008 at 5:51 pm Dee in Columbia MD Says:
(Obama) couldn't have done it would a huge number of twenty somethings"

Boy did you ever take my statement out of context. I was saying that since a significant portion of his overall vote which was approximately 18 percent 00 and this cohort voted for him 2 to 1, did that mean that he should appoint students to reward this groups for their vote. Obviously I know black and Latinos voted for him in huge numbers. In fact not enough has been said about the near universal turnout or support among black voters -- but that doesn't mean since 13% of his vote were black voters for that his cabinet should be 13 percent blacks

By: cfukara

cfukara — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:01:33 +0000

Paul Dirks Says: ".. deciding who he wants based on their talents and not their demographic? .." Oh. And when did we begin to think that that demographic of females had any useful talent outside the home? In business? In the military! And have they suddenly become intelligent? If it is so sudden, can it really be innate/evolutionary or is it just a flash in the pan - to disappear soon as Obama leaves the stage? Are 'talent' and 'capability' and 'intelligence' are primarily or to some extent, in the eyes of the beholder?

By: cfukara

cfukara — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:51:04 +0000

shepherdwong Says: " .. I gave money, blogged and voted for Obama. Word is I'm not getting a pony. " And word is - you won't be president nor will you be Mrs. Obama #2 either. We are talking of "no taxation without representation" while you would suggest "live and let live" with our ancestors' WASP criteria - a la Bill O'Reilly. Americans don't agree with you. --- Dee in Columbia MD Says: (Obama) couldn't have done it would a huge number of twenty somethings" "couldn't have done it"? Look at the many analyses of the polls and the voting demographics. If you mean that the vote of that demographic of the 18-to-30-year-olds was a significant in Obama's victory - wrong! But they sure were excited about the election and Obama got a majority of THEIR vote. Obama did not get a majority of the white vote. But his candidacy garnered about same as (or slightly more than) Kerry did in 2004 and Gore in 2000. But Obama could not have succeeded without the overwhelming majority of Latino and African American voters. So far, the whites are reaping the benefits. What is new? [The primaries were more than enough. I shall believe in 'passover' - if the omnipotent Unumbotte does not saddle the land with the curse of Clintons in government one more time. What did we do to deserve a repeat punishment?] ---- Paul Dirks Says: ".. deciding who he wants based on their talents and not their demographic? .." Forgive us, if we seem to be preoccupied with the nagging flashback of the times that the 'black' demographic was considered to be devoid of talent. The primaries served to remind us that many of those Southerners and the Appalachians still subscribe to that notion. Come to think of it, many in Europe would swear that Europe's 'godless' (WHITE!) Gypsies, or rather the Roma, have only one despicable 'talent' - thieving. The issue is: Do you believe that there is a demographic, a race, lacking in talent? [ Warning: The Nobel prize people seem to ferret out now and then and triumphantly parade around fellow Caucasian 'scholars' (like James Watson and William Shockley) who subscribe to white supremacist notion. :-) Occasionally such creeps embarrass their benefactors by 'proving' that Asians are superior to the Caucasians. "DAMM! Perish the thought!" you can almost hear those hard-working, very hard-working Americans, white America Appalachians swear.] "suggestion of the development of racism as a justification of the slave trade misses the point about the quotidian horror of slavery. The definition of slaves as private, alienable commodities and their definition by race were two aspects of the parallel and interconnected emergence of capitalist social relations and racism in the 17th and 18th centuries .. " Williams, E. 1944. Capitalism and Slavery. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

By: shepherdwong

shepherdwong — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:58:48 +0000

"Word is the Latino community is not very happy that right now it looks like they won't get 3 of the second tier." I gave money, blogged and voted for Obama. Word is I'm not getting a pony.