0
   

Indications are that we'll win, but there's one little thing

 
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 01:44 pm
Been away traveling the last several weeks, and a bit rusty at the keyboard, so here goes.

Nice topic, Snood!


A black man working in the Oval Office in 2009? Only to vacuum the rug and dust the furniture.

There is still too much racism in white America towards people of color to allow them to subdue their gut reaction with their brain.

I would like Al Gore to run, but if he doesn't I am all for the top three potential candidates; especially Edwards who can articulate a populist message that crosses regions, and color.

I think that is why the media has attacked him more than any other potential candidate.

As to Obama, I just don't see what all the fuss is about. He gave a rousing speech at the 2004 convention, but I don't see him articulating the message Edwards has for elevating communitarian efforts to public policies. And with his pigmentation I do not believe he would draw the interest of most Democrats. But he would get my vote over any Republican unless the GOP would unearth Abe Lincoln and run him.

As the days proceed with the layers of incredible mendacity peeled away from the Bush reign of terror on the civil rights of Americans, I think that even Hilary Clinton would be fine. I may not like her husband and what he did to poor people with his signing of the welfare reform act in the mid-90's, but Bill Clinton, with what he did with NAFTA has always smelled like a closet republican to me and a political chameleon.

Senator Clinton is smarter than her husband, and more liberal than she projects. Unlike her husband she does not have his weak spot of wanting people to like him, and she will not compromise her principles as he did on a consistent basis.

I want the smartest SOB in the land running my country; a person who knows what they are doing ten moves ahead of the crowd. If the security of the nation is at stake, I want that person to be the best to play the hand dealt.

Other than Al Gore, I have to admit that person would be Senator Hilary Clinton. After all, haven't we had enough incompetence in the White House to last America for the rest of the century?
0 Replies
 
HokieBird
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 01:45 pm
sozobe wrote:
[ In both cases, in sum it's an ADVANTAGE to be a woman or to be black.


Which was my point - which disproves Snood's point that America is not ready for either - woman or black as president.

Apparently that wasn't clear.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 01:46 pm
hear hear Kuv....
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 01:48 pm
Oh, OK. Sorry. The (-11) and (-4) notations made me think you were just looking at the "less likely" parts.

Yeah, that's what I keep coming back to. 1.) Polls indicate Americans are ready. 2.) Even though there have historically been differentials between who people SAY they'll vote for and who they will actually vote for when it comes to minority candidates, in the last election the advance polls and actual votes lined up very closely.
0 Replies
 
HokieBird
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 02:17 pm
My mistake - forgot to edit out the negative symbols when adding the parentheses.

Obama actually comes out pretty well in that poll, though.

Black, in his 40's, Harvard Law grad. Has he quit smoking, do you know?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 03:58 pm
Last time I heard, he had.

See, BPB? Kuvasz said it, and nary an accusation of racism is a-flyin'!
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 05:23 pm
Snood, I think your whole premise is ill advised. If the woman or minority would run as simply a Democrat or a Republican, or as a conservative or a liberal, in other words, run on the policies they advocate, then they can win or lose based on those policies and based on their character evaluation as a person, not as a white, black woman, or man. When a candidate suggests that if they win, they deserve it based on policy and as a person, but if they lose, it will be because they are a woman or a minority, then I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways.

I would vote for a Margaret Thatcher, but Hillary aint no Margaret Thatcher. I would highly prefer to vote for a conservative or Republican black, instead of Obama. I would possibly vote for Obama before a Hillary or a John Edwards.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 05:58 pm
Okie, I understand why you would say my "premise is ill-advised".

You talk as if human beings in the US can go into the voting booth and shed all conscious and unconscious prejudices - as if they can suddenly become race and gender blind. I understand the notion - its the same kind of notion that is causing the rightwing to try to dismantle all vestiges of affirmative action and state-led diversity.

(It's usually spouted by the same crowd who tries to act as if the "free market" would take care of things like housing and job discrimination all by its lonesome - if the bad ole government would just stop trying to regulate anything.)

I understand it. And you're entitled to your opinion. I'll just add this to the interminably long list of things about which I think you're "ill-advised".
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 09:23 pm
I think you are wrong, but I hope, within the context of the 2008 elections, you are correct.

Yes, I know this is somewhat tantamount to celebrating bigotry, but I am more concerned about who actually runs the country than what symbolism we might display in our election of a woman or an African-American.

Unfortunately there are no female or African-America candidates on the Republican side of things. This might be indicative of some dark side of the Republican Party, but then again it might not.

Let's not forget that while, in the confusing and twisted framework of racial perceptions in the US, Obama is widely considered "black," he is also widely known to be "half-white."

When was the last time the Democratic party got behind a "black" the way it has gotten behind Obama?

I do find it hard to believe, however, that there are voters who are aligned with the positions of Obama or Clinton will not vote for them because of their skin color or gender. In order for your dire prediction to come true it will require a relatively large number of people who are, politically, aligned with you to allow some inherent bigotry to overwhelm their judgment.

If the country elects Clinton will it have revealed its inherent racism? If it elects Obama, will it have revealed its inherent sexism? If it elects a Republican will it have proved its rigid intolerance?

Considering the politics of Obama and Clinton it would be the epitome of sour grapes to blame Republican bigotry on their defeat in 2008.

Somewhere along the line, positions and records matter.

If Ken Blackwell, Colin Powell, Michael Steele, JC Watts, Condelezza Rice, Linda Chavez, Christine Whitman, or Phyliss Schafly were running against any Democrat, I would vote for them.

As against the current lineup of Republican candidates, I might prefer, Rice, or Chavez.

As it happens, all of the Republican candidates are white males, and unless something changes in this regard I will be voting for a white male and not feeling the least a racist or a sexist.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 09:39 pm
Good for you, Finn.


Obama is "widely known as half-white". Laughing
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 09:56 pm
snood wrote:
Good for you, Finn.


Obama is "widely known as half-white". Laughing


For someone who wishes to be seen as intelligent enough to discuss race in an open-minded way, you consistently disappoint.

What is laughable about my comment?

Are you suggesting that pointing out the fact of his racial heritage is somehow, in itself, racist?

Emoticons notwithstanding, Obama is bi-racial. He is the son of a "black" man (and an African black man at that) and a "white woman" (and a white woman from Kansas at that).

Perhaps it troubles you that the Democratic party has gotten behind Obama in a way it never did for Jackson, Sharpton, Mosley-Braun or Chisholm, and the reason may be that the man is seen as representing positions and interests that extend beyond racial confines.

At what point does a blind assertion of racism become racist?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 11:13 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
snood wrote:
Good for you, Finn.


Obama is "widely known as half-white". Laughing


For someone who wishes to be seen as intelligent enough to discuss race in an open-minded way, you consistently disappoint.

What is laughable about my comment?

Are you suggesting that pointing out the fact of his racial heritage is somehow, in itself, racist?

Emoticons notwithstanding, Obama is bi-racial. He is the son of a "black" man (and an African black man at that) and a "white woman" (and a white woman from Kansas at that).

Perhaps it troubles you that the Democratic party has gotten behind Obama in a way it never did for Jackson, Sharpton, Mosley-Braun or Chisholm, and the reason may be that the man is seen as representing positions and interests that extend beyond racial confines.

At what point does a blind assertion of racism become racist?


I can't help it Finn - you're just funny. Maybe it's just in the sense that one must either laugh at you, or be saddened. You speak as if you are somehow a judge of what does and doesn't pass as "intelligent" discourse on matters of race, but your words reveal you over and over as retrograde and provincial.

The statement that Obama is "widely viewed as half-white" is just funny? What the hell does that even mean? Widely viewed by who?

I won't fit into any of the pigeonholes you're trying so pitifully hard to put me in - I simply think this country ain't ready for a black or a woman president, period. Twist it, pervert it, put it in your pipe and smoke it. It isn't getting any more complicated.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 11:38 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
snood wrote:
Good for you, Finn.


Obama is "widely known as half-white". Laughing


For someone who wishes to be seen as intelligent enough to discuss race in an open-minded way, you consistently disappoint.

What is laughable about my comment?

Are you suggesting that pointing out the fact of his racial heritage is somehow, in itself, racist?

Emoticons notwithstanding, Obama is bi-racial. He is the son of a "black" man (and an African black man at that) and a "white woman" (and a white woman from Kansas at that).

I think you should be made aware of the prejudice recently transplanted native black Africans receive from the native American black population.

But regardless, if Osama had the skin color of John Lewis he wouldn't even be talked about other than a curiosity. It isn't just about color, it goes deeper, into what shade you are. Bill Cosby was a far greater talent than Diane Carol but her light skin made her more palatable to the white majority of TV viewers and she not Cosby was the first African American to star in her own weekly tv show.

So I commend you for being close to the target, but not too close.

btw, Bob Marley was "half-white" too, and the son of an Englishman.


Perhaps it troubles you that the Democratic party has gotten behind Obama in a way it never did for Jackson, Sharpton, Mosley-Braun or Chisholm, and the reason may be that the man is seen as representing positions and interests that extend beyond racial confines.

On the other hand American blacks who live their "blackness" in White America every day might look at that as selling out.

At what point does a blind assertion of racism become racist?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but linguistically speaking blind assertions of racism without proof are ad hominum, not racist.
[/color]
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 08:40 am
snood wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
snood wrote:
Good for you, Finn.


Obama is "widely known as half-white". Laughing


For someone who wishes to be seen as intelligent enough to discuss race in an open-minded way, you consistently disappoint.

What is laughable about my comment?

Are you suggesting that pointing out the fact of his racial heritage is somehow, in itself, racist?

Emoticons notwithstanding, Obama is bi-racial. He is the son of a "black" man (and an African black man at that) and a "white woman" (and a white woman from Kansas at that).

Perhaps it troubles you that the Democratic party has gotten behind Obama in a way it never did for Jackson, Sharpton, Mosley-Braun or Chisholm, and the reason may be that the man is seen as representing positions and interests that extend beyond racial confines.

At what point does a blind assertion of racism become racist?


I can't help it Finn - you're just funny. Maybe it's just in the sense that one must either laugh at you, or be saddened. You speak as if you are somehow a judge of what does and doesn't pass as "intelligent" discourse on matters of race, but your words reveal you over and over as retrograde and provincial.

The statement that Obama is "widely viewed as half-white" is just funny? What the hell does that even mean? Widely viewed by who?

I won't fit into any of the pigeonholes you're trying so pitifully hard to put me in - I simply think this country ain't ready for a black or a woman president, period. Twist it, pervert it, put it in your pipe and smoke it. It isn't getting any more complicated.


I happen to think you're wrong, for two reasons:

One, the polling supports high numbers voting for either a woman or a black man.

Two, the media angle is going to be astounding. It's going to be woman/black man vs. old white guy. One side is historic, the other is the same-ol. The media will have a field day with this.

Combine this with a situtation in which the Dems are polling far, far higher then the Republicans, and the anger over the Iraq war (which still will be going on by then, I wot) and you have a good recipie to get either one elected.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 09:08 am
snood said...

Quote:
I simply think this country ain't ready for a black or a woman president, period


I must disagree.
I think this country IS ready,if the right candidate came along.

Right now,I would vote for a black man or a woman IF I agreed with their policies and positions.

I think you are not giving the voters enough credit.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 09:12 am
Snood,

I think you are wrong about Obama. If Obama wins the Democratic nomition, I have little doubt that he will be president. I understand your reasoning about the discomfort of society at large with the idea of a black president ... but I think you overestimate this effect.

There are many reasons that in this election (and I think this is a unique election year) Obama can win.

1) The stronger a persons "discomfort" with a black president, the more likely they are to vote Republican (or conservative third party). America is very polarized. This minimizes the effect of prejudice in an election.

There is about 35% or 40% of people who aren't going to vote for a Democrat no matter what. The outright racists are in this group... most of the people with predjudiced attitudes are also in this group. My theory is that most of the people who wouldn't vote for Obama, wouldn't vote for Edwards, Clinton or even a reincarnated JFK.

2) Obama is a great candidate.

To win the election, he needs get his base excited while speaking to the middle. Obama can do this.... he has already excited the core progressive Democrats (I am in this group) and I think his speaking ability and the skill with which he is running his campaign so far show that he has what it takes to win.

3) Who is going to beat him? The Republicans have the most pathetic group of candidates ever assembled. The Republican base can't even get excited about any of the candidates.

Many of the core Republican voters are promising to vote third party.

4) The media loves a good story. It is in the media's best interest that Obama wins the primary, and then goes on to win the election. It is a great story with an underdog aspect and another first.

The Republican candidate running against Obama will have a disadvantage since every single comment made, every add and ever slogan will be searched by the press (and people) for racism. The normal attack ads run by Republicans are going to be very difficult to pull off.

Obama comes with free, good press that already has a personal narrative that most Americans understand.

5) There is a war going on.

This is not a normal election. This election is about the war. All other issues will be minor compared to this-- and the Democrats win.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 09:15 am
The biggest weakness in the Obama candidacy is inexperience, especially in foreign policy. He will be attacked for this, and it is somewhat valid given that he will be the one to end the war.

I am sure Obama understands this and I hope he addresses it quickly.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 09:18 am
Quote:
There is about 35% or 40% of people who aren't going to vote for a Democrat no matter what. The outright racists are in this group... most of the people with predjudiced attitudes are also in this group. My theory is that most of the people who wouldn't vote for Obama, wouldn't vote for Edwards, Clinton or even a reincarnated JFK


I must disagree with this statement.
I once read a quote about this (and the speakers name escapes me at the moment),and I found it to be fairly correct.

About 40% of the voters will vote repub,and about 40% will vote dem.
That holds true no matter what the election is or who is running.
And yes,there are outright racists in both parties who wouldnt vote for a member of the other party for any reason.

Its that other 20% that all candidates are trying to appeal to.
And that 20% will vote for the person that they think is being honest with them,irregardless what party thet person is from.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 09:25 am
I agree with Finn.

Further, running with race or gender on one's sleeve can be in itself racist or biased. Constantly pointing out that you should vote for me because I am black or white, or woman, or whatever, is a turnoff. When can we start running and voting based on policy and character. Isn't that what MLK said, base things on the content of our character instead of the color of our skin.

Going back to the last election, Michael Steele was far more inspiring to me than Obama at the conventions. Obama's popularity seems to be based on his convention speech, and more importantly media hype following the speech, yet in my opinion, Michael Steele was far superior to him in substance of his speech, and I would enthusiastically vote for him, not because of his race, but because of the principles he spoke about and apparently believes in.

Snood, I am very weary of the people that continue to perpetuate race problems, that constantly frame every issue around race or gender, and frame an election as if we are voting for a woman or a black. Maybe you need to realize that some people have gotten over it and wish everyone would. Constantly picking at a scab only causes it to not heal over.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 12:58 pm
okie wrote:
I agree with Finn.

Further, running with race or gender on one's sleeve can be in itself racist or biased. Constantly pointing out that you should vote for me because I am black or white, or woman, or whatever, is a turnoff. When can we start running and voting based on policy and character. Isn't that what MLK said, base things on the content of our character instead of the color of our skin.

Going back to the last election, Michael Steele was far more inspiring to me than Obama at the conventions. Obama's popularity seems to be based on his convention speech, and more importantly media hype following the speech, yet in my opinion, Michael Steele was far superior to him in substance of his speech, and I would enthusiastically vote for him, not because of his race, but because of the principles he spoke about and apparently believes in.

Snood, I am very weary of the people that continue to perpetuate race problems, that constantly frame every issue around race or gender, and frame an election as if we are voting for a woman or a black. Maybe you need to realize that some people have gotten over it and wish everyone would. Constantly picking at a scab only causes it to not heal over.


While you, Mysteryman, and Finn may not be racist and for that I am entirely thankful, the point is that it exists in America and it has and will be a factor in elections.

Being "weary" that someone points out the affects of racism effectively blames its victims.

Perhaps without experiencing racism it is difficult to recognize it, as my sig line would predict.

Walk in a man's shoes before being weary of his gait due to its burden. Or stand beside him when he gets tripped up by it.

I don't think a white person in America has much of an idea of the institutionalized racism blacks face every day.

My own experience has produced recognizable truths about racism in America. Within the last decade I have been stopped by a state trooper in Georgia with several black friends as passengers, the former who questioned me and admonished me why a white man was associating with them, I was not allowed to hire two outstanding black scientists because the president of a company I worked for didn't want blacks working anywhere but in the chemical plant and I was jeered by several people calling me a "n***** lover" while out on a dance floor with my African American girl friend.

Again, experience drives home truths unrecognizable without it.

BUT I do believe things are improving each day, our children play together and overt racism has become a social taboo, but covertly it will take another generation, or two to disappear.
Quote:
The race problem in America has always been, in part, a class problem and it remains both a matter of economic deprivation and color prejudice.

Affirmative action has never been solely a race matter. It included gender and in schools it also included region. I believe the issue of class or economic status is important in regard to affirmative action alongside race, and gender, and region.
Dr. Cornel West


I hope you are who you say you are and will show your own personal reprobation towards racist remarks by friend or foe. America needs it, your own children, black, brown, or white need it. Make your world a place where your children will find it easier to be good, and content of character will usurp color of skin. America can be, as William Bradford wrote nearly four centuries ago, a city of light shining on a hill for all mankind.

We have come a long and at times bloody way since the Selma boycott and Greensboro sit-ins, but we are not there yet.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 09:10:44