If Tiger Woods were white, would he be where he is today?

[scheming daemons]

What about Michael Jordan?



It's about talent people. Obama's loaded with it.


There have been other African-American candidacies that GOT NOWHERE. Jackson, Sharpton, Mosley-Braun.... even Alan Keyes.


*THIS* African-American is doing well.



I want to turn the Ferraro question on its head:

Would Harold Ford Jr be Junior Senator from Tennessee if he were white?

You know damn WELL he would.



Obama's race and name... on balance... are a DISADVANTAGE for him, not an advantage.

He's overcoming that disadvantage because he is SUPREMELY TALENTED.

[hedgehog]

1. Shhh - if we mention that Obama is black, we're paying the race card.

Geraldine told me so.

[Grown2Hate]

2. A WHITE golfer?!

That'll be the day... what's next, white rappers? Oh yeah... ;)

[wndycty]

3. My simple answer: You beat who you play!

Tiger beats his competition.

Michael beats his competition.

Obama beats his competition.

[busymom]

4. I don't know...

I don't want to get into a discussion of race...Obama is a good public speaker and I think that is where his *talent* lies. He doesn't have a lot of experience and that is my biggest problem with him. We do seem to want to elect rock stars in our country. The latents of Biden and Dodd (who I loved) were completely overlooked. Americans want charisma, charm and yes....controversy. Obama and Clinton both provide us with that.

If this were an election where people didn't see the candidates or listen to them speaking but only looked at their records, I don't think either Clinton or Obama would be on top right now. Call me racist...call me sexist...but I think it's got some truth to it.

[scheming daemons]

6. Charisma and Charm *ARE* political talents... If RECORDS alone mattered....

George Bush would've never been elected over Gore.


Bill Clinton would've never been elected over GHW Bush.


Kennedy would've never beaten Nixon.



Biden and Dodd were lacking in some VERY key talents that Obama has: Charisma, Charm, Organization


RECORD is only ONE talent.

[katsy]

22. Once upon a time, experienced boulder

movers roamed the earth, moving rocks manually from point a to point b.

They had thousands of years of experience moving these huge boulders.

Then the wheel was invented with some combination of vision and experience.

IMO, the experience factor is what an administration's cabinet and staff brings to the table. Leadership doesn't come from experience alone. It requires vision.

[krkaufman]

66. I only wish that Hillary weren't vocally supporting ...

... the one guy who still wants to keep moving those rocks manually, with the wheel sitting at the ready.

[FredScuttle]

45. What's Hillary's talent?

ordering some washed-up hag to race-bait for her?

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[burythehatchet]

14. I finally had to put that ignoramus on Ignore.

[Occam Bandage]

5. Obama has more experience than John Edwards. Obama is more talented than John Edwards.

If Obama were white, he'd be the nominee by now.

[MethuenProgressive]

7. Yes. Because no one votes on a hole-in-one.

:eyes:

[northzax]

11. would you know his name?

who are the second and third ranked players in the world? no googling. who are they?

[MethuenProgressive]

15. It's golf. Who cares?

[northzax]

24. you know the name Tiger Woods

why do you think that is? sure, he's a great golfer, but there are a lot of great golfers. why do you know that name?

[calico1]

27. Because he WINS a lot of tournaments?

Years ago a lot of people were familiar with the name Arnold Palmer for the same reason. He won a lot and was in the news a lot.

[calico1]

23. Avid golf fans would know.

Not all of us like golf. I think it's boring. I know Woods name because he wins a lot.

[northzax]

29. you know his name because he attracted enough fans

to the sport to make it a major thing in the US. So you see him on TV and in the papers more often than previous winners. if Tiger wins a tournament, it's on the front page of every sports section in the country. if Phil Mickelson (the number two in the world) wins, and it isn't a major, it's on page e7.

so do people know the name Tiger Woods because of Golf, or because of marketing? Why did Nike sign him at 18 to such a lucrative contract? everyone thought they were stupid, until they attracted a younger, more diverse audience to the game. did all those people all of a sudden start loving golf? or was it the powerful minority with the great backstory taking on the country club white guys? what do you think?

[calico1]

39. I already said what I think.

And by the way, if Tiger started choking and losing tournament after tournament and some other person started a winning streak, THEY would be on the front page and he'd be off. You sound as though you aren't old enough to remember Chris Everett or John McEnroe in their heyday.

[northzax]

48. if you say so

not nearly the same status, especially financially. Tiger Woods will be a billionaire by the time he is 35, from playing golf. think about that for a minute. a billionaire.

[calico1]

49. You are correct. However,

back in the days of McEnroe, Everett and others there were no huge endorsements. And the athletes themselves didn't make nearly as much as top athletes do today. It doesn't mean nobody knew them.

And as far as status you could hardly open a magazine or paper without reading about them. They were huge stars and had lots of fans. I wasn't a tennis fan either but they were very popular and well known by everyone. The fact that in those days people like that didn't get multi million dollar contracts to push this or that product has nothing to do with how popular they were. Things are just different now for athletes. If Woods had been playing back then, he wouldn't have had a big contract nor be making as much money.

[Recursion]

55. I think he'd be as famous as, say, Andrei Agassi

You probably have a fair point; he was a half-black golfer winning in an historically all-white sport, and that's a big part of the story.

However, I do think that he would be famous, about on the Agassi level (I imagine most people would hear that name and at least make a tennis connection), just because of the extent to which he dominated the game (this was kind of a perfect storm: a black golfer not just competing in an all-white sport but absolutely dominating it).

OTOH, Kournikova has won exactly 0 pro tournaments and seems to be pretty famous :)

[scheming daemons]

Garnering votes is a TALENT....

Obama has a god-given talent that other AA candidates didn't have.... the ability to garner votes from people who otherwise wouldn't vote for him.


Charisma, Charm, Organization, Ability to read the pulse of Americans..... THESE are the talents of a politician in the same way that swing speed, balance, green-reading, and shot-making are the talents of a supreme golfer.


Tiger is where he is today because of his talents.


So is Obama.


If "skin color" gave him such a big advantage, we'd all be talking about the Jesse Jackson presidency of 1988 to 1996.

Obama has succeeded where other AAs have failed because he is a talented politician.

[cindyw]

8. Kick

:kick:

[northzax]

9. no

simply put, no. Tiger Woods is an icon in large part to his story. could he have been the same golfer if he were white? of course. would he be pulling down a hundred million a year from Nike and one of the most marketed people on the planet while playing a sport overwhelmingly populated with white people? Ask Roger Federer. he's doing ok for himself financially, but he's not Tiger Woods.

Would Jordan have become the same global icon if he was a pasty white guy? ask Larry Bird.

[Blue_Roses]

10. and to add to that...

while he is very talented, Obama shows a compassion that extends past racial boundaries. He doesn't see "color" but human. THAT--is his winning talent. My 88 year-old conservative mother (Democrat all her life, but southern bred roots) is voting for him. And yes, I was stunned. Glad, but stunned.:)

[Igel]

51. But, you see, he can "prove" it.

If he were Jewish and had the same policies and same outreach, his compassion wouldn't be seen as "extending past racial boundaries".

Your very post presupposes something about race and identity politics in the US, something that can't really be applied to everybody in the same way.

The "other-centeredness" of his campaign has often had the effect of also praising others for "extending past racial boundaries." Do you think that a white guy could get up there and make people feel that not only is *he* post-racial in outlook, but that his supporters are also post-racial in outlook? Look at some of the punditry: The US will be post-racial when it can elect a black to high office ... not just *show* that it's past race as an issue. In confusing showing with being, the pundits make a mistake in logic, but it's a common one, and one that you hear rank-and-file dems blunder into from time to time. Why? Because they want to be proven to be post-racial, to have their self-image validated.

A minister I worked for once said that he'd read something in a pastoral magazine about how to grow your congregation: When somebody new walks in the door, shower them with attention, make them feel special--if they want to feel like they're part of a pack, make them feel like they're part of a pack; if they want to feel like they're specially chosen by God, make them feel like they're specially chosen by God. Find what's they want to be and tell them that they are what they want to be. Once they've bought in, it's harder for them to back out--they've linked part of their identity with the minister's--and they'll both overlook the church's and minister's flaws, and defend both long past the time it's reasonable to do so. It's a tribal thing at that point: You defend your group against any outside attacks, and attacks on your group leader are attacks on the group honor and, consequently, on your personal honor. As I've said before, I don't support HRC; I have anti-support for BHO, and that's entirely due to listening to him. He's that minister; he's learned from his minister. I don't do tribal any more than I do team sports.

To his credit, the minister was far from sure he wanted such in his congregation. He was happy with 70 people. What he didn't realize is that he did precisely what the magazine said with a narrow range of people, even as he said he rejected the "advice" out of hand. In other words: "I don't realize I'm manipulating you, but I assure you, you're not being manipulated." Many gifted speakers fall into that category (not that this particular minister was a gifted speaker).

Answer me this: When I got a call from the BO campaign exhorting me to 'make history' by voting for him, what kind of history was he calling upon me to be special, to be on the winning side of history, to make? And don't just say "by electing him", because that's the kind of history made by electing any president. If he was referring to race--it was his voice, recorded, so it wasn't one of his 'surrogates'--then he's not post-racial.

Moreover, think about his speaking style. It's homiletic. It's exhortatory. It resonates in one of two or three ways. From some politicians it's expected; however, he knocks off the rough edges, so when it's homiletic while not being accusatory. Altar calls without the hellfire and brimstone. I suspect that if I tried to pull it off, I'd fail miserably (even if I hit the inflections and style perfectly). In fact, I would be decried as racist, as vaguely mocking either Baptist oratory (and that of allied faiths) or somebody like MLK or Jackson (both of which were, well, preachers). It's also a kind of rhetorical style he consciously adopted: He didn't grow up listening to it in church; he didn't grow up in the 'community', he grew up in a fairly white, liberal, middle-class family. He became part of that group, but it was a conscious decision.

[Blue_Roses]

65. Some of what you say resonates,

"he knocks off the rough edges, so when it's homiletic while not being accusatory."

This is what our country is starving for after eight years of divisive politics, however, I'm not saying Obama is the "fix-all," in fact, just the opposite--and I quote Obama: "I'm not perfect."

But with that said, his words of hope speak to a country that has been neglected and abused. I work in Social Work and it's like that child that hasn't had parental love. Our country is starved for attention and many cling to the idea that one person can fix it. Obama wants everyone to do their part. That's what I like about him. He's just providing the leadership, but he's saying he can't do it by himself. This country has been "enabled" by Bush telling us what to do for so long many don't know how to think for themselves anymore. But many are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel and it's in the form of hope. I suspect this is how many feel in America today. They feel that there is a reason to hope. And hope isn't something we've felt here in a long, long, time.

I honestly feel for Barack Obama because he is a very talented man with great oratory skills, however, he is just that--a man--who wants to lead by alot of ideas and alot of hope and there's nothing wrong with that. He does have the experience for dealing with the social issues facing us and I suspect when thrown into a crisis he can handle that too--can't be any worse than Bush. So when you speak of "speaking style" and the "persuasion to vote for him and make history," yeah, sure, those are "selling points," but ALL politicians use them to sell their product---themselves.

While I like Obama, voted for Obama and will campaign for him if he gets the nomination, I'm humbled and reminded by Spitzer's stupid (there is no other word for it) actions and many other politicians who thought there were above the law. Obama is just a man. He's not a "messiah" and he knows that. We as Americans have to empower ourselves with the knowledge and discretion to see the difference and not get caught up in the hype. Hope is a solid message, but it has to be grounded in reality. Obama has said it won't be easy. He, HE is saying this so NO ONE has an excuse to be disappointed.

[Fovea]

12. John Coltrane

Major Taylor, Paul Robeson, Jessie Owen.

None of them would have amounted to a hill of beans if they had to struggle under the burden of being white.

Their lives would not have been half so carefree.

Talent is gift plus work. It matters not a tiny bit what race you are, unless you are a white man trying to jump.

[MNDemNY]

13. He certainly would not be the ..

revered African-American athlete that he is today if he was not an African-American.

[Tom Joad]

16. actually, Obama would not be where he is if Hillary had not sold herself to the warlords w/ support

of the IWR. Obama is simply the smarter candidate. not by much, but smarter.

[Catherine Vincent]

17. "It's about talent people. Obama's loaded with it."

I wouldn't go that far.

[scheming daemons]

19. He's single-handedly taking down the most powerful political machine this country has seen in 50 ...

years.


That's called "loaded with talent".

[Catherine Vincent]

25. Oh please!

[northzax]

31. he's taking down the Bush Machine?>

oh, I forgot, Hillary is much worse than Bush, right?

[scheming daemons]

32. They're next.....

...

[northzax]

35. but obviously you consider that machine weaker than the clintons

right?

[scheming daemons]

38. No... the schedule maker put them second in the elimination playoffs.....

And I should have stated.... he's taking down the most powerful DEMOCRATIC machine.....

[Igel]

60. "Single-handedly"?

What are his supporters and donors, chopped liver?

[sniffa]

18. No he wouldn't. Same with Jordan.

Thanks to the NBA's, and the PGA's Affirmative Action programs, they both took the place of more deserving white guys.

[calico1]

20. Tiger Woods is a phenomenal golfer.

That is why he is where he is today. There is no argument as to how excellent a golfer he is.

And this is a guy who keeps mostly to himself and doesn't exactly drip with charm. But you cannot argue his talents as a golfer.....

Obama's "talent" to many people including myself is his great charm and gift of public oratory. Does that translate into being a succesful and gifted public servant? Not everyone would agree with that.

In other words, no one who knows anything about golf can argue about
Tiger Woods. But with Obama things are not that clear cut for everyone.

[scheming daemons]

26. The point is that his SKILLS are why he is where he is today.... otherwise....

Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Carol Mosley-Braun would all be there.



"Politicking" is a skill..... and there hasn't been a more skilled one (on the Dem side of the aisle, anyway) since RFK was assassinated.

[calico1]

41. Well, if we are talking just about "politiking" as in

schmoozing a crowd then I will give you that Obama is talented.

[roguevalley]

50. politics is the art of getting people to do what you want and what

they need. every great politician had that ability: FDR, JFK, etc. To denegrate this man without giving him a chance to prove himself is crap. No one is born to be president. They acquire skills, hopefully (the bushes ... oy) and they work out the path. Some of them do it because they love the country and want to make it great and others do it for greed and paybacks (the bushes ...oy)

No one is 'entitled' (the bushes ...you get the picture) but some feel they are. The fact that Clinton didn't have a game plan past Super Tuesday makes it clear that she felt it was her turn, she was entitled and it would be put away. Just because Obama is a better political operator than her isn't his fault. His background in lawschool and as a community organizer and his talents as a persuasive figure have put into place a machine that is mowing down Clinton's jerryrigged process post super tuesday. She shouldn't have been so sure. Nothing is sure in politics. Having Ferraro out there demonizing people for race and discounting their work and talents is shameful.

[Voice for Peace]

33. But how does true talent as a politician manifest?

How does a person accomplish anything in the political arena?

It seems to me that ability to motivate, to unite, to find common ground, to inspire people to vote, to move people... that's key to success in politics.

Without that kind of talent, as we see everywhere, politicans turn to corrupt dealings, lame compromises, constipation & stalemates.. or for excitement: war & stuff like that.

Sometimes when I listen to CSPAN all I can imagine is the first thing those guys want to do at the end of the day is get high, get laid, start a war, anything to break the boredom of listening to themselves all day long.

[calico1]

44. Well, if Obama's talent in rousing a crowd also

works to rouse Congress into passing a lot of important laws and measures for the country then that will prove his success. Right now, I can't say he is a succesful politician because I don't know what he can accomplish in office based on how he works a crowd or on his speeches. That remains to be seen. On the other hand, no one can argue that Tiger Woods is a great golfer. There is nothing to argue about there.

[AlinPA]

21. Limbaugh's statement on MNF about the Eagles' QB McNabb is close to what

Ferraro said about Obama.

[TahitiNut]

28. Clearly, if the golf balls he hit were black they wouldn't drive as far or go in the hole.

(Yeah... that's snark.) :eyes:

[1776Forever]

30. Sen. Obama has an exciting and fresh attitude and intellect

that excites a lot of his supporters in a way not seen since the days of JFK. I am 61 and a woman and I lived through those days. It is ridiculous to say the only reason he is where he is was the result of his race!

Sen. Obama is bringing in thousands of new excited Democratic Party members. We will lose this vision if he is cut short by a negative campaign run by the Clinton machine. Make no mistake they know what they are doing and what they are saying.

I am grieving today for my Party. As Carville said - "It's just politics". Isn't this what Obama came into the race to change?

:cry:

[elixir]

34. Yes, he would. As I've always said, if Colin Powell were running I'd vote for him...

experienced, principled (until he sold himself out at the UN) not afraid to run away from the GOP talking points...

Yeah, I would have voted for Colin Powell. Many times I thought about what a terrific running mate he would make, even if I'm not a republican. I believe he transcended party lines. But that's just me.

[jody]

36. Difference is athletes get to the top by performance, not talking about doing something. n/t

[scheming daemons]

40. "talking" *IS* performance in a campaign..... organizing an impressive ground game *IS* talent in .

..a campaign.

[jody]

42. Agree "'talking' *IS* performance in a campaign" but that's not even close to executive performance.

[calico1]

46. I don't understand why this is such a difficult

concept for some people to understand.

A lot of people have the gift of gab. Doesn't mean they should all run for office or would be great leaders if they did and won.

:shrug:

[Rageneau]

37. Today, yes. But not in times past. Ask Jack Johnson.

[bigtree]

43. why did you need another thread on this?

[Major Hogwash]

58. To make the point twice.

That was easy enough to answer.

[HYSplease]

47. Agreed!

[CreekDog]

52. simple: he would be John Daly

:think:

I am on a roll! :rofl:

[Medusa]

53. Two routes to success in this world: talent, hard work, dedication

and some luck of course always helps, or you can do it the easy way if your talent-free: through family & friends (connections) or a good (connected) marriage.

[mathewsleep]

54. boosh!

[nolabels]

56. Perhaps the obvious question is should we care?

Maybe flippant and i don't know about Harold Ford Jr but the other two are of mixed race. Which is often a harder cookie to crack. When are we going to start looking at people as people instead of objects of use :shrug:

[Major Hogwash]

57. Exactly. Blacks have to be two times as good as people who just marry into these positions.

If Hillary hadn't married Bill, there would be no Senator Clinton.

[walldude]

59. LOL, if Tiger Woods were white

he'd be even further today considering that golf is probably the only sport left where they have courses that black men aren't allowed to play on. or am I wrong and did Tiger finally break the last of those BARRIERS.

[Igel]

61. I suspect that those barriers fell.

I vaguely remember some GPA nonsense about it.

He'd be no better a golfer if he were white (if you hold his family's SES steady). But part of what captured the public's imagination wasn't just that he was a superb golfer.

Part was that he was young, and introduced a new generation of golfers to it.

Part of it was that he was multiracial, and could pull black and Asian kids into it. Not "Jewish kids" or "Latino kids". And why would he pull minorities into the game? Because he showed that not only could a non-white be good, but a non-white could be stellar, and overcome a poor background and adversity ("poor" and "adversity" also playing into the "non-white" theme) to become stellar without becoming bitter. And, of course, "adversity" had two meanings--the first was simple economics, the other was racial bias.

Part of it was his personality: He played down race, he played down any racial animus against him, and let a winning smile and great personality carry the day. Had he come out and complained about how hard it was being multiracial, it would have been a downer. He made people feel good, not guilty, about the game, let them look forward and not dwell on bad decisions. Had he kept his winnings and been a golf-hermit, he'd also have lost people; he was a golf-activist, and preached golfing to the unconverted in a nice way.

He'd have been famous, like Nicklaus was famous, had he been white, had a sucky personality, been born to a rich Nigerian family in New York, or been in his late 30s. Remove any of the elements and he'd almost certainly have become less of a celebrity.

[Perry Logan]

62. He would. But he would probably be wearing dorkier clothes.

[leveymg]

63. Jim Hendrix had a similar unfair advantage --

GENIUS.

[LWolf]

64. A talented speaker

is not necessarily someone with the talent to get things done, although it helps; it certainly convinces more people to support him. When all of that talent for rhetoric is used in support of a too-centrist/conservative platform, it's a misuse of talent. In my opinion.

Smooth talk doesn't trump issues with this voter.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

67. a very poor analogy

[Asia Expat]

68. nt

:popcorn: