The "Overeducated" and Barack Obama

Anyone who goes on to learn something about politics (in college) will undoubtedly understand why the president does what he does rather than complain without knowing anything about politics.

Yes, indeed. And over 90% of the black vote was for Obama. Would you call that prejudice too? And would you say that increased Obama's plurality, and more than made up for the prejudice against Obama, whatever there was of it? (At the start of the campaign Obama told the Democrat chieftans that he could guarantee the electoral votes of states that had heavy black populations. That was Obama's non-racial pitch to get himself nominated to run for president. (And he was (shamefully) right, too).

Al gore got 90% of the black vote, like most democrats do.

Yes, indeed. And over 90% of the black vote was for Obama. Would you call that prejudice too? And would you say that increased Obama's plurality, and more than made up for the prejudice against Obama, whatever there was of it? (At the start of the campaign Obama told the Democrat chieftans that he could guarantee the electoral votes of states that had heavy black populations. That was Obama's non-racial pitch to get himself nominated to run for president. (And he was (shamefully) right, too).

I did not say that it is absurd to believe that there are people other than those you have met who also dislike Obama because of his race. I said that you have insufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that most of the people who oppose Obama do so because of his race. See the difference? It might be true that most of those who oppose Obama do so because of this race. But your evidence for that is nugatory. Do you think that most of the blacks who voted for Obama (over 90%!) did so because of his race?

Placing yourself in a black mans shoes after centuries of oppression, he was the Messiah. You may see it as prejudice, I see it as vote for change that no white man has ever delivered. Do you not think a right wing whitie would not have expressed the same certainty about certain states renowned for their white historic conservatism. After centuries of white presidents , this is an opportunity for America as a nation to express itself in the 21c. If your not careful your politics will divide you as much as they did when father fought son.

The cause you gave of the prejudice is, no doubt, correct. But how does that make the bloc voting not prejudice? I agree with most of what you say. But bloc voting is still bloc voting. What you say explains it. It does not excuse it. And it certainly does not erase the fact.

Its not a negative vote , its vote for change, its a vote for the man they believed understood their problems. If a white man had stood up and voiced their concerns more distinctly than Obama, then Obama would have lost votes. Look at what they had to vote for instead, he hardly inspired the black voter. Be honest as black man with history as your guide, who would you have voted for.

I did not say it was a "negative vote" whatever that means. (What does it mean?). I said it was understandable that blacks would vote in a bloc for a black candidate. But that does not mean that it is a good thing for democracy that people vote in blocs. They should vote for a person, and for what he says is his program, and not because of his race, or religion, etc. I am sure you agree.

Im not saying its right just to vote for a man because of his colour but it was not his colour it was his understanding of the black mans perspective. If he had stood for everything they despised and they still voted for him, that would be prejudice. I have to be honest, I cant stand a politician telling me of his religious persuasion, something that happens in the US but not in the UK. God does not get my vote its the man. I think the Obama election was a bigger step for mankind, than man walking on the moon. To us, from an objective view point the daggers are out much too soon.

People are. I guess, legally, and morally, if not intellectually, entitled to their own opinion, but not, of course, to their own facts. Whether Obama does, in fact, have an understanding of the black man's perspective is something yet to be seen. And whether he really cares about the black man's interests, is another matter entirely. Sometimes he talks a better game than he walks, it seems to me. I agree with you about religion in politics, but, again, lots of people in the United States do not. And they are entitled to their own views too. Whether Obama's election was as important as you claim it was, also remains to be seen. But I happen not to think that the moon-walk was all that important anyway.

Wheather he is a success or not is for history to decide , the promise was sufficient for many. I must only repeat the rhetoric emanating from certain sections of the American right goes beyond just plain disagreement with his policies. Its determined, nasty and racially inspired.

the promise was sufficient for many.

Now that is sad. That was true about Hitler too, and so many other tyrants.

You really would have to give some evidence (examples) or racially inspired rhetoric to convince me. Can you?

You dont get it, do you? even your remarks are tainted with an attempt at comparison. I showed the proof and you have forgotten already.

The American Dream is a Nightmare for others. We Europeans wondered what happened. Remember 9/11? That's why European soldiers are dying in Afghanistan?

Why not buy the stuff from the Afghans and produce natural painkillers?

And the proof is?????

Your incapable of accepting any proof I could provide. You obviously dont see a problem or any racial inclinations in the attacks on him. I wont waste any more time giving you any more links. You've adequately shown your colours.

There may have been "racial inclinations". But proof is needed. People in American are presumed innocent until proven guilty. I believe that is true in the UK too. Now, you think I am guilty of racism too. But the only "proof" you have is that I disagree with you. I think this conversation is at an end. I must admit that I think you sound as if you have those "inclinations" as well.

By the way, the word you want is spelled, "you're" (a contraction for "you are") and not "your" which is a third person possessive pronoun.