DISQUS

Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/us/politics/2...

When I read the story, I didn't get the sense that Obama was trying to be disrespectful or stubborn, and I also didn't get the sense that Cantor was angry or cried after the meeting because of the President's comments, but read for yourself to see if you agree.

I agree, I have heard the President talk consistently about these things for the past two years---but I am talking about the local level. I just wish that instead of hearing people say the President should focus on X, Y, Z to address this issue, I heard more from our local communities that --- we can expand on some of the President's ideas and focus on X, Y, Z to address specific problems within our community. It all goes back to the line that all the pundits thought was meaningless and cheesy---"we are the ones that we are waiting for." I really love that line. My whole point was instead of keeping all the focus on the President--and heaping these big expectations on him, what are people doing at the state and local level to make things happen?

Actually, I think that both sides are making a bigger deal about this story than it was to the people involved. From the reports that I read, the President was pointing out philosophical differences with Cantor about a tax issue and both agreed that there were differences--and then the President said that, well, I won, or I'm president, so I think that my viewpoint will prevail. Based on this quip, people thought it was a light hearted comment--including the person it was directed too--Cantor--and they started laughing.

I think this is the problem with politics. Everybody is looking for a fight. I think there will certainly be some in the near future--but the way this quote has been played up and characterized in the media (and by some on the left), doesn't square with what was said by the person who it was directed to (who didn't think it was combative at all apparently), and the other people in the room who felt the president was making a point, but also making a good natured joke about it. It's like people are either looking for a reason to be offended or looking for an opportunity to put a stick in their opponent's eye. I think both sides need to grow the heck up.

That being said, I find it interesting that people on the right took this story and ran with it as Obama playing King, when according to numerous reports, Obama has done more outreach pre-inaugaration and now in his first week to Republicans than Bush did in years.

So do I think that Obama should put down dissent, no, but everyone needs a little perspective. Barack Obama is not Bill Clinton and he is not George Bush. People are either going to give him a chance to lead, or they are going to continue to look for these petty fights.

I'm definitely with you on your point that I think some people are WAY to caught up in the euphoria of the President's election. I mean some of the hyperbole that I have heard from some people just makes me really uncomfortable. That being said, it also made me stop and think that maybe we are chasing ghosts? When people keep reminding me that Dr. King's dream has yet to be fulfilled, I really want to ask, what will it take to make it happen? I think that the dream that he talked about is certainly the ideal, but in realistic terms, I don't see it happening. I don't see a world where racism and prejudice don't exist. I just don't. And to a certain extent, I'm fine with that. I really don't care about other people's prejudices against me based on my skin color as long as it doesn't effect my safety or my status as a citizen in this country. I don't know, I just find this dynamic interesting. I have heard the whispers that Black people need to be on their guard because of the surge in White supremacy, but in my mind, you have a greater chance being hurt or killed by another Black person--not a Klan member. So why don't we focus on that?

I keep hearing these abstract terms like keeping up King's legacy with a war on poverty, but what does that mean? Does that mean that people are going to start taking some personal responsibility and having more discretion and restraint in their sexual practices so they wont have unintended pregnancies that they cannot afford? Does that mean that instead of focusing on giving everyone a college education, we refocus our efforts and promote technical training and technical skills? Or does that mean that we demand more parental involvement in their children's lives and education--to me, all of these things might alleviate some of the issues related to poverty--so why haven't we heard more about them?

I think it is fine to celebrate this moment, but on the one hand I think the hyperbole about reaching the finish line in terms of race is ridiculous, but on the other hand, I really hope that we can refocus our efforts when it comes to racial matters.

Not only that...I have read several post-campaign stories where several Black ministers requested "funds" to get volunteers for the Obama campaign, and Obama balked. He basically said thanks but not thanks--- people need to keep their eyes open, just because people call themselves Christian doesn't always mean that they are right.

I agree with what Chavous (sp?) was saying. I think that it is fine that Obama has set a very high profile example of what hard work and discipline looks like for young African Americans, but why do we need examples? It places an unthinkable burden on a single individual, when really, it is up to the parents, students, and administrators to get the results.

Two previous presidents have had to retake the oath privately for similar reasons--Coolidge, and Arthur. And as pointed out by Jeff Toobin, their mistakes happened before the passage of the 20th amendment so it was very important that they retake it whereas for Obama he automatically became the president at noon. I really don't think it's that big of deal. They both were suffering from a case of the nerves and extreme pressure--it humanized them both.

Maybe it's just me, but when it comes to Michelle and fashion, she can do no wrong in my book. I mean the woman can literally wear a brown paper sack and I would give her two snaps. I LOVED the yellow/gold/green ensemble for the inauguration. It made her skin glow. And the white? LOVED it. It made her look twenty years younger...maybe it's not the clothes, it's her. She always looks comfortable in what she wears and she wears it with extreme confidence. LOVE her.

Absolutely flawless. I mean, they were just beautiful. They made me tear up, and then Beyonce started tearing up, so that made me more emotional.

Wow. really? I just came back from Baltimore and I was on the mall. Look, I understand that many don't want to feel they are being dissed, or shunned from the festivities, but I also find it quite hard to believe that this was some conspiracy to "insult the gays." I thought it was a great concert, and everyone was in a good mood, laughing and dancing. People really need to learn how to pick their battles. This ain't it.

I realize the significance of doing this. And Lincoln certainly deserves the honor and respect he has received for being a tremendous president during extremely difficult times, but the people that created this site do realize that he in fact DID NOT believe in the equality of Black people right?

Okay, who would that person be (the person who has ties to the Blk community but also broad appeal to the rest of the state)?

And in line with your last statement, why would it not make sense for Reid--or Quinn--the person with the appt power and actual knowledge of Chi-town politicians--to appoint Seals and let Seals work his butt off for two years as Senator while also reaching out to the Black community?

Don't get me wrong--Seals could be the devil himself for all I know. But so far, the biggest argument against him--and the argument for the apparent race baiting of Reid--is that Seals has no ties to the Black community. My whole thing is, what qualifies as sufficient "ties" to the Blk community, and why wouldn't Seals be able to engage in more active outreach while in office?

Wait, so you're saying that putting Dan Seals into the Senate, assuming that was their (i.e. Reid and/or Durbin's) suggestion, is analogous to allowing HRC to win the Democratic nomination? That doesn't jibe with me at all.

I'm not from Chicago, so you obviously know more about Chi-town politics than I do, so can I just ask, what do you consider "not ties to the Black community"? What should be the prototype for Black politicians that want a chance to run for statewide office? What checklist do they need to fill to pass the smell test? What kind of ties do White politicians need to have to the Black community to gain their vote?

Basically, I just don't buy into this argument. The way that you have framed it insinuates that Reid suggested Seals just because he apparently has no ties to the Black community, not in spite of that (and I'm assuming here, since, as I noted above, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "no ties to the Black community"). But the converse argument can be made that Reid, and other Dem leaders in the Senate, want to groom future Senators that have an appeal to a cross-section of voters--similar to the strategy that Obama employed after he lost to Rush in 2000. And if that's the case, picking candidates with a broad appeal--what is wrong with that?

And can you explain the "Handpicked Negro" reference. I'm assuming that it has a double meaning--a) that Reid wanted to "handpick" the Black person he wanted for the Senate; but also b) that it is also being used as a slam and/or insult against Seals, and if that is the case, what is the beef with Seals? seriously. What has he done that he should be excluded from the Senate?

And going back to my original question---doesn't your "no ties to the Black community" argument basically cut both ways. Isn't this the SAME argument that the old guard civil rights leaders were making against Obama--that he didn't have enough experience in the Black community and/or the civil rights movement to be President? It seems that way.

First, I didn't "find out" that Reid vetoed anybody from consideration. We have the allegations from Blago and Reid's denials--without the transcripts to read for myself the context of those conversations, i assume that they are both lying.

Second, even if Reid DID encourage Blago not to appoint Rush, Triple J, and Jones....So? Rush has clearly illustrated the reason why he shouldn't be appointed to the Senate seat in the last couple of weeks (and even before then, but I digress), Jones--really doesn't have a negative against him except his age, his deep ties with Blago, and his reputation for machine politics--so Reid could have legitimately thought that he wouldn't be competitive for re election and/or preferred someone that was newer to the scene, and Triple J, I actually don't know about this one. I'm sure the electability argument would have been made because of his father's last name, but other than that, he is young, intelligent, and dynamic so he could have been okay. This type of logic (I'm assuming of course) means that Reid thought there were better candidates--it doesn't mean that he wanted to bar Black people from the Senate. So as of right now, no, I don't think Reid has done any race baiting. But I am quite sure that Blago (indirectly) and Burris and Rush (directly) have, and I think that is unacceptable.

All that being said, Obama himself excluded two of those three people from his list as well--was he race baiting too, or was he, just like Reid, trying to focus more on up and coming public servants that might have a shot at reelection?

And, I find the second part of your argument confusing---you say that Reid was race baiting by possibly expressing doubts about three AA candidates, but then go on to say that he was just trying to block them so he can put in a "handpicked Negro"? Which one is it? Who is this anonymous Negro (I think it might be Dan Seals based on other posts where I thought you mentioned him with this argument, but correct me if I'm wrong)

If it is Dan Seals---And? You might not think he is right for the job, but at some point in time, he received support from none other than Barack Obama himself (and others) in his run for office in 2006--so he is probably seen as a young up and comer that can make a name for himself if given the opportunity. He has an interesting back story. He might not have enough "ties" to the Black community in your mind, but that doesn't mean that he can't double his efforts to reach out to those in that community that doesn't know his stance on the issues. So what's the problem? Are you arguing that only certain Black politicians that do certain work that directly effects the Black community should be "shoved" into the Senate? Because otherwise I don't understand this argument.

And why is it so offensive that Reid made his arguments possibly pro/con against certain candidates in this instance? He has done it in NY and Colorado--why wouldn't he do it here? Again, his logic may be flawed, but that doesn't mean that he was trying to race bait.

But the Powell case can be distinguished because he was elected, not appointed and according to legal scholars, the spirit behind that case is that he couldn't be excluded after he was picked by the people. The decision was/is interpreted by some to protect the people's rights to vote. I think we just see the precedent differently. But does that mean that because I believe there is a legitimate argument to be made about case precedent that you don't agree with I don't want to uphold the constitution? No. And it should not be said about Reid and Durbin. I doubt the case will get to federal court. I really believe the matter will be settled before there is litigation because who has the time and resources for that with so many other things on their plate.

But I wish people would calm down with the racial innuendo and the arguments that Reid and Durbin want to disregard the constitution. I don't think that is the case.

That's my whole thing. I don't understand why everybody thinks that this is an open and shut case. Other than Powell, there really is no legal precedent for a situation like this, so the Senate would be well within their rights to find out if they have the authority not to seat Burris based on their own standards of qualifications. What is no nefarious about that?

I agree. I don't like what this episode says about black constituents or black politicians. I find it quite interesting that many that were all over the Clinton camp for their race baiting during the primary, are now silent when it has been done here by black politicians. I just have a bad feeling about this. Burris will probably be seated in the near future. And he very well maybe a good Senator over the next two years. But I have a strong feeling that this whole thing is going to blow up in people's faces come re-election time.

But I guess as long as we have a Black man in the Senate for two years, everybody should just shut up, nod and smile like nothing is amiss.

But that's my thing though. I get the legal arguments for the appointment, but does that make it right? Senators are responsible for representing millions of people--we have just seen the wheels fall off the bus of our economy because people were too greedy, corrupt and/or lazy to do their jobs. Why can't we raise our standards? We deserve better than this.

Burris shouldn't have accepted this appointment. To me, it's that simple. Even if Blago is never convicted, those transcripts reveal that he didn't give a rat's ass about the people of Illinois, he was looking out for himself and how he could leverage more power and/or money. Why would you want to your legacy as a Senator to begin that way? It's ego pure and simple. And while everybody keeps reiterating what a "fine public servant" Burris is, this makes me skeptical and/or cynical about him. The same thing with Richardson. The Obama team should have told him we would love to have you, but as long as there is this cloud over your head, we don't think we can move forward. I get that he hasn't been arrested or accused of anything, but again, people in public office need to raise their standards. So yes, appointing Burris was legal and him accepting the appointment was legal, but that doesn't make it right under these circumstances.

Maybe this is being naive about politics.

I'm sick of all of these clowns. The one thing I can count on from the players in this saga is that if I wait a day or two, they will completely change their tune about what they previously said.

1) Burris: The Govenor isn't fit for office, he needs to resign, anybody he appoints will be "tainted" by the appointment. A couple of weeks later, he goes on a publicity "tour" to announce that the governor made a legal appointment that was "ordained by God."

2) Rush: the allegations against the Governor are so "heinous" he shouldn't appoint anyone to the Senate seat. A couple of weeks later, his "prayers have been answered" from God because Blago appointed a Black man to the seat.

3) White: Before appointment was made, promised to reject any appointee by Blago. When the appointment was made, White said that he could not sign off on the Senate papers because of his ethical standards. Now, suddenly he claims he was made a "patsy" by the Senate and is A-Ok with signing off on the Senate seat.

At least Reid and Durbin have TRIED to be consistent and stand by what they previously said. But yet, they are the bad guys in this whole thing? It's like black is white and up is down. Does nobody have any type of standards or moral compass? This whole episode gives me serious doubts. I feel bad for the people of Illinois. They deserve better than this.

Jimmy Carter---he is a smart man, but gag me with a spoon. After this whole debacle, I have officially sworn off the Democratic party. Nobody has a spine. Everybody has been talking out there necks so much these past couple of weeks, I don't believe anyone anymore. Burris is a joke. Rush is a disgrace. Reid is a spineless wimp. And the CBC has become what Coates correctly coined the "Civil Rights Industrial Comlex." I am even disappointed in Obama because of this whole episode, though I realize that his hands are tied.

What a disgrace. I am ashamed of the Democratic party right now.

That's your opinion. I just find it silly this whole notion that Burris is a "victim" of the Senate Dems. That's nonsense and he knows it. I just can't take it seriously. One week, he is supporting going to the IL Supreme Court to get Blago removed and saying he should resign and that any appointee would be "tainted" (his words), and the next week he is just "accepting" an appointment "under the law"...yeah, okay. It's crass opportunism, and while that certainly isn't illegal, it doesn't make me think very highly of him.

And while it may not be that "serious" to you, I am personally tired of this shenanigans. I really do want our politicians to raise their standard of behavior, and I think that Burris should have done so here, he didn't. And Reid put his foot in his mouth?--again, your opinion. He is in uncharted waters, so he may let Burris in to avoid a headache, or he may stick to his gun and let the courts decide. He certainly can do both--I hope he let's the courts decide the issue.

That is my issue. Look, I didn't know anything about Burris before all of this went down, but since he has accepted this appointment, I can't even respect him. EVERYBODY heard what the Senate Dems said about not seating a Blago appointment--he said himself that the appointee would be tainted. Now, when he gets the appointment, he doesn't see a problem. Yeah, Okay. He knew the Secretary of State didn't sign his documents that he needed to be seated at the Senate, yet he went there anyway and created this circus. This is not what the country needs. This is a spectacle. Burris may end up being seated, it is highly likely. But the way that this is going down could have been avoided and he knows it. He is not a victim--he has contributed to this mess, and I refuse to play into this foolishness. He has undermined his credibility and reputation because of his ego, which is sad, because it wasn't necessary at all.

Question D, on the merits, what is the difference between Blackwell and Steele?

Not to be smart alecky, but why wouldn't he understand that? People act like the man grew up with money. He didn't. He went to private school on scholarship. His mother had to use food stamps at times to keep food on their table. I am sure that he is more aware, than any other President in recent memory (except for maybe WJC) the challenges that low income families face sending their kids to school

If you are not "mobbing" Reid okay , but I do get a sense on this blog and others that with just a couple of news stories, all of a sudden Reid is the devil himself--and I have a feeling that many are not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because he is a weak leader. I just don't see how the recent stories make him suspect. He said before the appointment he wouldn't seat anyone, he said after the appointment he wouldn't seat anyone. He spoke to Blago about potential candidates and *possibly* made flawed electibility arguments, just as he spoke to other Dem senators about potential candidates as well. Where's the beef?

And the reason I don't think Reid's defense against the racism charge falls under the same tired "I have Black friends" nonsense, is that he does in fact have a point, which is why, I don't think it was offensive--at least I wasn't offended by it.

But for now, my argument, as well as everyone's else's is speculation.