Intrepid and gracious reader Mondak sends this:
Obama's latest win of 56% to 42% over Clinton in North Carolina shows that the controversy surrounding his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has had literally no effect on his campaign to become the next President. This is based in part on the North Carolina GOP's effort to demonize Mr. Obama with their commercials tying him to Wright before the primary took place. Despite the racist overtones cited in those commercials, Obama went on to defeat his opponent, Ms. Clinton, by a huge margin in the double digits.
I cannot agree. Obama did beat Clinton by a wide margin, in a state where the Black vote comprised about a third of the total and the Black vote went by well over 90% for Obama. Of those two key facts, one will be true in every state during the general election, and the other will never be true. Furthermore, Obama support among White voters in general, and White males in particular, has plummeted over the course of the primaries. He won White males in Iowa and California. Obama lost White males in North Carolina by the same percentage that he won the state. It is likely that the Wright controversy had something to do with this.
Clinton is leading in polls in Kentucky and West Virginia by gargantuan margins. Race no doubt something to do with this, but the Wright stuff gives voters another good reason to vote against Obama. That may indeed affect the outcome, and especially in November if the contest is close.
Intrepid and entertainingly sharp reader BB is also keeping me on my toes with regard to Israel. He has this:
"In prosperity, civil liberty and, let us not forget, military power, she puts her neighbors to shame." Israel only exists because of US aid. As far as civil liberty I would recommend touring the West Bank and seeing what a ghetto is really like. You really need to do a little bit of reading (OK lots). Fox News is rotting your brains!
I reply: If I need to do more reading (you are surely right about that), you need to do at least a little thinking. America's role in keeping Israel afloat doesn't tell us whether the existence of Israel is a good thing or not. But to ignore the courage of the Israelis in fighting their enemies, and maintaining their state, suggests a lapse in judgment. As for the "West Bank ghetto," the only thing worse might be Gaza in the hands of the Palestinians. My point stands: Israel's Arab citizens enjoy more prosperity and civil liberty than Arabs do in any other country in the region.
BB also has this delightful comment on my post on the Anti-Genetic Discrimination bill:
"A tear dries quickly when it is shed for troubles of others." Cicero. Your argument is all nature and no nurture. Apropos considering the topic but being genetically predisposed to a disease one can take measures to mitigate it. One may have the correct genetic make up to be a concert violinist but without the right conditions in the upbringing all is for naught.
I reply: Yes. But all the favorable conditions in the world wouldn't put me on the mound or in the NBA. Some genetic diseases can be mitigated. Others cannot. Nature is unfair, and no amount of crying over equality will make it so. But keep the Cicero coming. I admire good ole Chick Peas as much as you do.
Recent Comments