I mentioned before how Roseanne Barr was talking smack about Oprah Winfrey endorsing Barack Obama, calling Winfrey a closeted Republican who plays the gender and race card to endorse "a flashy man with small credentials over a seasoned politician with over 35 years of experience".
Now, in her March 7th article in the Huffington Post, Barr is offering Barack Obama advice on how to wade through the torrential rains of this election season:
Note: Oh.my.goodness, this woman writes like she's been eating lead paint and asbestos fritters since childhood and it has left her slow, dumb and without the ability to use spelling and grammar check.
"Barack Obama: Bow to the woman, and take the vice presidency. Let our country heal. You will run in eight years and be unstoppable as a visionary world leader. You must pass through this filter first though: bow to the woman."
Read the rest of the article here... (greatly entertaining)
Clearly, Barr is in love with the idea of having a female leading the free world and nothing more. Roseanne sees her sister Hillary drowning in the deep end, so her solution is to threaten to the water in hopes it recedes out of fear.
For the moment, I'd like to focus on the main idea of Barr's rant which advises Obama that if he wants to survive this election season with a shred of dignity and credibility, he must "be a man" and "bow down to the woman", essentially telling Obama that he must submit to the will of his opponent Hillary Clinton.
Why would Barack Obama need to cede defeat to Hillary Clinton, who he is beating in the popular vote and the all-important delegate count?
If Obama is such a detestable candidate, as Barr poorly tries to illustrate in her essay, why would he be a suitable second-in-command to "Premiere Clinton"?
It's a completely ridiculous idea and here's what Obama had to say when Senator Clinton hinted to the idea that she'd make Obama her vice presidential running mate:
"Well, you know, I think it's premature. You won't see me as a vice presidential candidate — you know, I'm running for president. We have won twice as many states as Senator Clinton, and have a higher popular vote, and I think we can maintain our delegate count.
"What I am really focused on right now, because all that stuff is premature, is winning this nomination and changing the country. I think that's what people here are concerned about."
Roseanne Barr has taken the cue from her Senator Clinton and is using desperation and veiled threat tactics in order to intimidate.
"You are a spoiler and your campaign is alienating the Clinton vote. Many of Clinton's backers are turned off due to the shrillness of the attacks your campaign has let loose on your opponent. You can't fight back dirtier than she can -- it will bury your message of hope and change. It obscures the message of the people in this party!"
In the parts of this passage that did make sense, she is right. The mud-slinging tactics of Clinton's campaign make the devil's apprentice himself, Karl Rove, very proud. If Senator Clinton is as upstanding and seasoned as you'd like to portray, why is her fighting so dirty? Why does she have to flail so hard against a "rookie" like Obama?
Barr fails to provide examples of the shrill attacks that the Obama campaign has launched against Clinton and how he's destroying the Democratic party as a result. Half of the "facts" in this article are completely made up. Why would Clinton backers (funders) being "turned off" from supporting her campaign be a bad thing for Obama? She says it like its a horrible thing.
I'm sorry, I would love to argue points in this Roseanne Barr article, but the more I read it, the more I am utterly amazed at her unmitigated gall, ill-prepared logic and sexist notion that this grown man should "quit his bitching and moaning and whining" and bow down to the woman. This would not fly on any level at all if the roles were reversed.
The Opinion of an American Voter
Failed Presidency May Hurt Future Black, Women Candidates
[The Southtown Star]
As a political junkie, it is fascinating to see two people on the threshold of breaking a shameful political barrier. There either will be a woman or a black candidate representing the Democratic Party at the top of its presidential ticket in November.
Lost in the excitement of either prospect is the fact that a colossal failure by whomever represents the party will be a major setback for one group of Americans. Why? Because there has been so much historical resistance to a woman or a black president that a failed candidacy or presidency will provide fodder for naysayers for decades. Such is the small-mindedness of bigotry and its ability to infect the public psyche.
Keeping that in mind, Democrats will be wise to nominate the candidate they feel most likely to win in November. I have no idea who that will be, although voters clearly are trending toward Barack Obama. I just want to see a spirited, informative and issues-oriented race between Republican and Democratic candidates, whomever they may be.
May the best candidate for America win, with voters informing themselves in such a way as to be guided by wisdom rather than emotion. And may they do so in droves.
Frank Williams
Tinley Park
Bullshit.
"Because there has been so much historical resistance to a woman or a black president that a failed candidacy or presidency will provide fodder for naysayers for decades."
More than the fodder than the naysayers have been using for centuries to try to demean women and blacks by implying that they are less than and/or undeserving of such a title as president?
VOTE, dammit! To hell with what detractors think of the underdog. They'll ridicule them if they lose or if they win. Nothing will change if you fall in line with their thinking.
You Do Know That Barack Obama Won the Texas Primary, Do You?
I'll post the words of LiveJournal Blackfolks community user stopsnitchin to explain this one because they perfectly sum this up:
Hillary Wants To Sue Texas Because She Lost
The Clinton campaign may go to court. The Obama campaign wants to take its delegates and get out of town before sundown. The Texas Two-Step is overheating an already fired up Democratic presidential contest.
[NPR]
For those who thought Clinton won Texas, here is why she lost. The popular vote was very close, giving Clinton 65 delegates to Obama's 61. But Obama is overwhelmingly leading in our caucus. When the votes are all counted, it looks like Obama will have 98 delegates from Texas to Hillary's 95. Meaning that all that talk about "CLINTON WINS TEXAS" was bullshit spin by the media to make it look like Hillary is "back."
This race isn't about who gets the most votes per state; it's about who gets the most DELEGATES per state. Obama will be picking up the most delegates in Texas. Therefore, OBAMA WON TEXAS. Yet Hillary wants to sue because...well, the media said she won Texas, so technically, she should just be the winner.
[Blackfolks]
Who says the job market is destitute? Desperation is a work, ya'll.
Studies: Iraq Costs US $12B per Month
[Associated Press]
So please, John and Jane Q. Flag-Waving-My-Tis-Of-Thee-Uber-American, please continue your bitching about your tax dollars paying for the lunches of a fraction of school-age children in public schools whose parents cannot afford to purchase.
In Some Encouraging News:
There are black people in Wyoming!
That's all I could find in the photos. Hell, I'm excited just to know they're there. I hope they can get their hair care products without much hassle.
