Obama makes smart people dumb

Or, to put it more precisely, his candidacy seems to bring out some idiotic comments about race from seemingly intelligent people, cf Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton. The latest is Ralph Nader, who has accused Obama of "trying to talk white." Yeesh. Ok, granted, what he was really saying was that, by not talking enough (according to Nader's standards) about inner city poverty, etc., Obama was trying to "talk white." That's still pretty dumb. Yes, there is some truth to the idea that Obama doesn't want white voters to think of him as the "black" candidate only concerned about issues pertinent to black people. Can you blame him? Does Nader understand what campaigning for president really means? It means attracting a broad coalition that will give you the votes to get in office, and get some good things accomplished. Talking up inner city issues now would do no one any good--it would marginalize Obama and rob him of the power to actually do anything about those issues. On the other hand, once elected, Obama could use the bully pulpit to give a lot more attention to inner city issues that have been ignored by previous presidents.

What does Nader think Obama would accomplish by focusing on these issues during the general election? Does he really think it would lead to anything getting done about them? Of course it wouldn't. My point is, even if you give Nader the benefit of the doubt, his comment not only sounds stupid, his broader point doesn't even hold water.

clearly...

I know nothing about basketball (see my previous post). But, I'm glad the Celtics won, anyway. Good series, great team play, great to see so many different members of the team play well in different games. The comeback game was a lot of fun to watch, and it was really great to see Paul Pierce exceed expectations so thoroughly. I get it that sports is overdramatized and made to seem more important than it really is--but, still, it's pretty great when you get to see someone perform much better than anyone ever thought him capable of, when someone who was always just pretty good becomes unexpectedly great right before your eyes.

Celtics-Lakers

So, I was thinking I was going to make this a political blog. But, basketball has become much more interesting than the Democratic primary of late, so I'm going to talk NBA.

In a hyphenated word: Celtics-Lakers. I am actually kind of embarrassed at how excited I am about this. This is going to be awesome--but one thing could ruin it: The Lakers could sweep Boston. It could happen. This LA team is ridiculous. They have a ton of talent, they have great coaching, they have a solid bench. And they have a guy with a pathological need to win and amazing skills (Kobe). The Celtics, on the other hand, have kind of stumbled their way to the Finals. I hope it goes 7, and I'd really like to see the Celtics win (partly because I always root for the Eastern Conference teams--look, sports allegiances are ridiculous no matter what, this one no less; but also because I like this particular team and the players--esp. KG and Pierce.)

Here's my thoughts on 'strategy': Rivers should give his regular starting lineup a shot in the first game. See how it goes. Based on that, he should consider benching Ray Allen and relegating him to free-throw/three-point shooting help. Kobe will devour him, at both ends. Bring in another big and put either Pierce or Posey on Bryant. It's their only chance. KG will more than handle Odom or Gasol. Perkins can take the other one reasonably well. Allen's already playing poorly. Against Kobe, it could get ugly. And it could mean the series.

yay, fourth parties!

I admit it, I'm one of those square killjoys who "blames" Ralph Nader for George W Bush's "election" in 2000. I know, I know--it was Gore's fault, really, for running a poor campaign. It was Florida's fault, for fucking everything up. Third parties are necessary for a healthy democracy, of which, this country of ours is not the most shining specimen. I've heard it all before. The points have some validity. But, if there had been no Nader, it would have been President Gore--a man who went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Instead, we got a likeable guy who mispronounces things amusingly. But, I digress...my point is here, that I have no problem with challenging the two party system--in principle. But, in practice, it fucks things (things meaning the country, the world, the economy, things like that) over royally when it's one sided. Look, Ralph Nader wasn't really running as an alternative to the two parties--i.e., someone with moderate compromises or new solutions to old gridlock. He was running as a "pure" liberal, someone who appealed to the far left of the Democratic base. He wasn't a third party, he was an extra Democrat. To avoid simply skewing the election results, you need something more balanced. You need a genuine third party that appeals to people from both sides--or, two extra parties who appeal to the "purists" from either side. (Or, all three, wouldn't that be lovely?)

Weeeellll...looks like we might just have something workable this year. Nader is running again. But...so is this guy, and it has Republicans worried. Good. Karma for all of their cheering on (and, sometimes, it's rumored, outright assistance) for Ralph Nader's runs.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24582429/

Four parties is great. I love four parties. It's three that gets me down. See, I'm not square--I'm just anti-triangle.

boo

So, now Hillary's argument boils down to this: don't vote for Obama, because there are a lot of white people out there who won't vote for a black guy. Echh...You know, a few months ago, I went to watch one of the debates on TV with the Obama people. A lot of them, when Clinton was introduced, booed. I thought it was obnoxious and immature. Really, her positions are pretty mainstream Democrat--except for the Iraq vote. Were they booing over that? I doubt it. They were booing, I felt, because she was opposing their guy. But now...I was thinking, what's the reaction going to be at the convention when Hillary gets up to speak? (I would be shocked if she didn't get a speaking spot, and a prominent one at that.) Will there be people who boo? I hate to say it, but I think she might actually deserve it now. Based on those comments, I might do it myself.

i doubt...

...that Hillary Clinton is losing much sleep over the possibility she'll damage the likely Democratic nominee enough that the Republicans hold onto the White House and she gets to run again in four years...I just really doubt that keeps her awake at night for too many 3 a.m. phone calls. But that's just me.