Lash
 
  1  
Sat 3 Mar, 2007 01:17 pm
That was weird. You know me--it's meaningless--but it may screw with the black vote.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Sat 3 Mar, 2007 02:28 pm
Lash
The BS about him being descended from slave owners will have no impact upon the black vote. IMO he will capture the majority of the black vote simply because he is black.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Sat 3 Mar, 2007 02:30 pm
I initially thought the same thing--but polling and conversation with the homies doesn't bear that out....although he's made recent gains.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Sat 3 Mar, 2007 02:35 pm
Lash wrote:
I initially thought the same thing--but polling and conversation with the homies doesn't bear that out....although he's made recent gains.


When push comes to shove color will win out.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sat 3 Mar, 2007 02:39 pm
Eh, I don't agree with that at all. ("Color will win out.")

I just don't think that this is likely to have a big impact, as it's not actually anything that much bigger/ different from what was already known about him. He's half-white. The fact that American white people are very likely to have a slaveowner at some point in the family tree is axiomatic in terms of the civil rights struggle/ Black Power movement, etc.

But I dunno. We'll see.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sat 3 Mar, 2007 05:25 pm
In tomorrow's Observer (page 3, not online yet):

http://i12.tinypic.com/47jpyeh.jpg

Basically, the same as already published elsewhere.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sat 3 Mar, 2007 09:49 pm
This "shocking revelation" should be jarring not at all for Obama, or any black person who's spent more than 5 minutes thinking about who his forebears were a couple generations back. I have relatives who still live on the area in NC where the plantation was that housed my slave ancestors, and my last name can be found on the Declaration of Independence - it is a proud English slaveowner's name, with a coat-of-arms and everything. I remember reading about how the bloodline of slaves' descendants was forcibly altered by the regular rape and otherwise use for sexual convenience of female slaves by slaveowners, and realizing how much "white" was in all of us for that reason.

So the "revelation" that some of Obama's ancestors were slaveowners doesn't strike me as anything that should "shock" anyone who's thought about the whole phenomenon of slavery in the US at all. The subject will be co-opted by the same people who will try to make hay out of all the other meaningless things like his middle name and the elementary school he attended, and the drugs he admitted to doing when he was a lost youth. It is gutter stuff - unworthy of anyone who wants to keep the discussion on a level above the gutter.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Sat 3 Mar, 2007 10:03 pm
snood wrote:
This "shocking revelation" should be jarring not at all for Obama, or any black person who's spent more than 5 minutes thinking about who his forebears were a couple generations back. I have relatives who still live on the area in NC where the plantation was that housed my slave ancestors, and my last name can be found on the Declaration of Independence - it is a proud English slaveowner's name, with a coat-of-arms and everything. I remember reading about how the bloodline of slaves' descendants was forcibly altered by the regular rape and otherwise use for sexual convenience of female slaves by slaveowners, and realizing how much "white" was in all of us for that reason.

So the "revelation" that some of Obama's ancestors were slaveowners doesn't strike me as anything that should "shock" anyone who's thought about the whole phenomenon of slavery in the US at all. The subject will be co-opted by the same people who will try to make hay out of all the other meaningless things like his middle name and the elementary school he attended, and the drugs he admitted to doing when he was a lost youth. It is gutter stuff - unworthy of anyone who wants to keep the discussion on a level above the gutter.


Well that certainly explains Darius Rucker and Wayne Brady....
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sat 3 Mar, 2007 10:42 pm
Good one. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sun 4 Mar, 2007 01:43 am
The above mentioned Observer report online.

I suppose, there'll be lot more coming .... for all candidates.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sun 4 Mar, 2007 05:42 am
snood wrote:
This "shocking revelation" should be jarring not at all for Obama, or any black person who's spent more than 5 minutes thinking about who his forebears were a couple generations back. I have relatives who still live on the area in NC where the plantation was that housed my slave ancestors, and my last name can be found on the Declaration of Independence - it is a proud English slaveowner's name, with a coat-of-arms and everything. I remember reading about how the bloodline of slaves' descendants was forcibly altered by the regular rape and otherwise use for sexual convenience of female slaves by slaveowners, and realizing how much "white" was in all of us for that reason.

So the "revelation" that some of Obama's ancestors were slaveowners doesn't strike me as anything that should "shock" anyone who's thought about the whole phenomenon of slavery in the US at all. The subject will be co-opted by the same people who will try to make hay out of all the other meaningless things like his middle name and the elementary school he attended, and the drugs he admitted to doing when he was a lost youth. It is gutter stuff - unworthy of anyone who wants to keep the discussion on a level above the gutter.


Finally someone says something intelligent on this vacuous talking point. Thanks snood.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Sun 4 Mar, 2007 08:43 am
sozobe wrote:
Eh, I don't agree with that at all. ("Color will win out.")

I just don't think that this is likely to have a big impact, as it's not actually anything that much bigger/ different from what was already known about him. He's half-white. The fact that American white people are very likely to have a slaveowner at some point in the family tree is axiomatic in terms of the civil rights struggle/ Black Power movement, etc.

But I dunno. We'll see.


Pollsters also say that Mr. Obama's candidacy has hurt Mrs. Clinton's campaign among black voters, who were among her husband's most loyal Democratic supporters during his two terms in office.
Mrs. Clinton had led among black voters in January by 60 percent to 20 percent, but the latest ABC/Washington Post poll shows Mr. Obama leading among blacks, 44 percent to 33 percent.
"Of course, 44 percent is a far cry from the 85 percent of the black vote he will need to win, but it's quite a turnaround in the past month," former Clinton campaign adviser Dick Morris wrote Friday on the Townhall.com political Web site.
Mr. Obama's surge in the polls was especially impressive in Georgia, where increased support from a large black vote has helped to push his approval numbers higher.
"Obama has gone from 18 percent support to 25 percent. Hillary has fallen from 35 percent to 28 percent. He's really surged in that state," Mr. Johnson said.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sun 4 Mar, 2007 08:57 am
blatham wrote:
Finally someone says something intelligent on this vacuous talking point. Thanks snood.


Oh, and I'm chopped liver then?

I agree that was well said though, snood.

au, there was a lot of talk on this thread quite recently about how Hillary had much more support than Obama, precisely when Obama was little-known except for the color of his skin. If it was about that, people would have supported him from the get-go. But no, people are learning about him -- his positions, his personality -- and deciding to support him. That goes for a whole bunch of people, black and white.

It's not color will win out. It's strongest candidate will win out.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Sun 4 Mar, 2007 04:00 pm
snood wrote:
This "shocking revelation" should be jarring not at all for Obama, or any black person who's spent more than 5 minutes thinking about who his forebears were a couple generations back. I have relatives who still live on the area in NC where the plantation was that housed my slave ancestors, and my last name can be found on the Declaration of Independence - it is a proud English slaveowner's name, with a coat-of-arms and everything. I remember reading about how the bloodline of slaves' descendants was forcibly altered by the regular rape and otherwise use for sexual convenience of female slaves by slaveowners, and realizing how much "white" was in all of us for that reason.

So the "revelation" that some of Obama's ancestors were slaveowners doesn't strike me as anything that should "shock" anyone who's thought about the whole phenomenon of slavery in the US at all. The subject will be co-opted by the same people who will try to make hay out of all the other meaningless things like his middle name and the elementary school he attended, and the drugs he admitted to doing when he was a lost youth. It is gutter stuff - unworthy of anyone who wants to keep the discussion on a level above the gutter.


Just because you have almost zero tolerance for frustration doesn't mean this isn't an issue.

The voters, for whatever reason who don't think Obama is black enough will use this. Slave ownership is the primary reason that many blacks harbor negative attitudes toward whites. Those who were already questioning Obama's "blackness" (crazy, I think, but an existing issue) will REALLY latch on to this as proof.

It is laughable that you consider these issues off limits. The head in the sand approach is passe.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sun 4 Mar, 2007 05:31 pm
Nobody said it was off limits, and nobody said it was not an issue. I said those who try to exploit it are bottom feeding trolls. You read things that aren't even there, and I ain't responsible for that.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Sun 4 Mar, 2007 05:38 pm
I may have overreacted.

I brought the article. Some of your negative characterizations appeared to be directed at one who would bring such an article. Notably your last sentence: "It is gutter stuff - unworthy of anyone who wants to keep the discussion on a level above the gutter."

However, my response was un poco assumptive.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sun 4 Mar, 2007 05:39 pm
...and I'm sensitive...
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Sun 4 Mar, 2007 05:41 pm
Today, you lose the sensitive sweepstakes.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Sun 4 Mar, 2007 06:32 pm
snood wrote:
Nobody said it was off limits, and nobody said it was not an issue. I said those who try to exploit it are bottom feeding trolls. You read things that aren't even there, and I ain't responsible for that.


I'm not sure how this can be exploited by anyone.

If there are people out there (black or white) who will not vote for Obama because his ancestors once owned slaves then they are idiotic enough to get turned off by just about any charge made against him, including whether he prefers Pepsi or Coke. I really find it hard to believe that there is any sizeable segment of the black community that would hold this against him.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sun 4 Mar, 2007 07:27 pm
Well, I would agree that anyone who'd hold slaveholder ancestors against him would probably hold almost any ridiculous thing against him.

I would just stop short of saying that this kind of story has no weight at all. It has the same kind of weight as the other "shocking facts" about Obama (his youthful drug use, his ill-advised real estate deal, his smoking, his elementary school). It has attraction for those who probably wouldn't support him under any circumstances, as talking points to convince others that they shouldn't support him either.

This kind of thing will be picked up and carried only by those who don't care how Obama gets smeared, only that he gets smeared.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 165
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/27/2025 at 03:47:58