Stupid White Man of the Week: Tom Sullivan
FOX News Radio bloviator Tom Sullivan wins this week's coveted SWMW Award for his prediction that there will be "riots in the streets" by blacks if Obama loses. Way to transcend the old racial paradigm there, you jackleg!
Dishonorable mention goes to former Virgina Governor and current Richmond Mayor Doug Wilder for his insulting suggestion that the 2008 Democratic Convention will be worse than the infamous 1968 Chicago Convention and "police riot" if the superdelegates intervene to nominate Hillary Clinton. Great job, Governor! Way to reassure people! You, uh, may recall that the Democrats LOST in 1968?
Labels: Stupid White Man of the Week
posted by The Local Crank | 8:56 PM
9 Comments:
Ummm... I'm not sure that Wilder is far off here. If Obama has more real delegates and they try to choose Hillary instead, it could get real ugly at the convention.
(Btw, is Wilder "stupid black man" of the week, to you, for his statement? Perhaps he should be, or the "stupid white man" label starts to look more racist. Stupidity knows no color, after all)
The coveted title of "Stupid White Man of the Week" is available to all, regardless of race, gender, creed or national origin. Truly, stupidity known no color.
I'm not so sure that he's so far off the mark either. I don't think you'll approach the levels of civil unrest *outside* the convention- we as Americans would now much prefer to play a video game simulating civil disobedience than actually doing it. But if Obama has more pledged delegates, has won more states, and had more people vote for him (all of which are currently the case by significant margins) but the national party nominates Hillary ANYWAY, I think you'll see chaos on the floor on a truly grand scale.
Okay BUT the turmoil in Chicago was NOT on the inside at all. Humphrey had the nomination more or less sewn up after RFK's assassination and he controlled the party apparatus. It OUTSIDE that there was a brutal police riot. Wilder should have known better than to use a metaphor like that, especially in light of moronic comments like Sullivans's (and similar words made by that human canker sore Glen Beck); he did nothing but play right into the hands of the RWHMMC, and (unintentionally) invoked racist stereotypes in so doing.
There has been some protest problems outside conventions in recent years, for both groups. However, I support the right of protesters AND conventeers to their 1st Amendment rights of free speech and assembly. The best way for the two groups to hold their meetings, unhindered by the other and without any interference by the other, is to keep the two groups very much separated. But that is another subject.
So why haven't rank-and-file Democrats (of which I am one) been rioting in the streets for the past fourteen Democratic conventions? Since, you know, that's how long the Superdelegates have been in place.
God, I am so tired of this line of "pledged delegates" are some how more "democratically" elected: They aren't, particularly in caucus states. I know, I ran the largest caucus in the Northeast in 2004. Compare the votes-per-delegate ratio needed to secure delegates in tiny, low-participant caucus states with large high-participant primary states such as California. At least most superdelegates were elected by large number of Democrats - in regular elections (Democrats should recognize when they vote for Congresscritters and governors, they're electing superdelegates too.)
And, Patrick, I agree with the Stupid White Man goes to all non-Indians equally. Remember what Indians called Buffalo Soldiers - "black white men".
mbw: Well, for most of those 14 elections... or is it all? haven't the superdelegates followed along with the actual delegates?
The riot question only comes up here because of the question of Hillary pulling some strings or doing some dirty trick and the superdelegates end up going againt the will of the actual delegates and the rank-and-file.
"The riot question only comes up here because of the question of Hillary pulling some strings or doing some dirty trick and the superdelegates end up going againt the will of the actual delegates and the rank-and-file."
Oh, you mean like Bill Richardson? Or John Kerry and Ted Kennedy? Last I checked, the primaries/caucuses of those states went for the Senator from NY.
If the "super-delegates MUST vote the way their states went or it's stealing" theory holds true, then Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts, superdelegate and Obama's campaign co-chair, must also endorse Hillary. Anyone see that happening?
Post a Comment
<< Home