Obama '08?

CalamityJane wrote:

Hahaha I do understand though, Lola. I probably would do the same,
if the tables were turned.

I'm confused. Which part of what I wrote was a cheap shot? Has my unconscious been at work without me catching it?

0 Replies

Lola, you wrote : "Obama will be much harder to defeat because of his skin color. Sexism is more acceptable to more Americans than racism......."

It's a cheap shot as you make it a "skin color" and "sexism" issue only.

0 Replies

CalamityJane wrote:

Lola, you wrote : "Obama will be much harder to defeat because of his skin color. Sexism is more acceptable to more Americans than racism......."

It's a cheap shot as you make it a "skin color" and "sexism" issue only.

Ont "only" but a factor to be taken seriously. I didn't think it up. I saw this last night in one of those articles I wasa reading. I thought it was a good reason to consider voting for Obama. Obama is an African American. It's a factor in the race as much as gender is for Hillary. It would be unwise to try to ignore it.

When I worked for the New York Urban League, in 1972, I was often part of a group in which I was a minority of one. I regularly heard discussions about "crazy white liberals" who couldn't recognize their own racism. The general consensus was that unless a white person could admit that they had residues of racism, they were vulnerable to acting on their racial feelings without knowing it. And the same was true for blacks who didn't mention skin color in referring to "honkies." There was little double standard. One of the criteria that was used is whether someone tried to talk about a person of color without mentioning that they were black. If you could talk about a black man and call him exactly what he was, black, it was experienced, at that time, as an indication of unacknowledged racism.

I know that members of my children's (ages 21 - 25) generation truly don't see skin color. They've come up in a very different environment than older Americans. So it may not mean that to younger generations, but there are large numbers of black Americans who still look for this.

Are we to not mention race when we're considering electability?

0 Replies

no. not here. only everywhere else can it be discussed without hysteria. :wink:

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

I just watched Rove on Face the Nation. The man is as smooth as a high quality anal lubricant.

The straightline here is too obvious to take advantage of.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Sexism is more acceptable to more Americans than racism .

This came up in a Bill Moyers piece I was watching earlier today.

It was an interview with Kathleen Hall Jamieson.

I haven't been able to find today's interview online yet, but I found one from the autumn of 2007 where they discussed it in a slightly different vein.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12072007/transcript1.html

Quote:

<snip>

Quote:

BILL MOYERS: And where would you? There is no language of degeneration like this that describes men, is there?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Well, you could say, "How are we going to beat the bastard?" But it wouldn't carry all the same resonance of that word in the context of its use now.

BILL MOYERS: And you couldn't say, "How are we going to defeat the nigger?" How are we going to-- which is the word that was so common when I was growing up in the South. "How are you going to defeat the kike?" referring to Jews-- you wouldn't do--- that woman would not have done that, I don't think.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

When I worked for the New York Urban League, in 1972, I was often part of a group in which I was a minority of one. I regularly heard discussions about "crazy white liberals" who couldn't recognize their own racism. The general consensus was that unless a white person could admit that they had residues of racism, they were vulnerable to acting on their racial feelings without knowing it.

Strange -- that sounds hilariously like the boilerplate Alcoholics Anonymous trip to me. Tell me, were you expected to introduce yourself by saying "Good morning, I'm Lola", <chorus: "Hi Lola!">, "and I'm a recovering racist?"

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

"States with large minority populations". You Americans are so delicate!

I'm not trying to be offensive either. Maybe it's just that we older Brits have a baleful view of some of America, reinforced by the appearances of Mr Bush on our screens, and the antics of him and and his coterie.
Hell, some of them even shoot their friends!

McTag

With all due respect...

If what you see and read of George Bush and his coterie leads you to believe there is now a better chance that an african-american president might be assassinated, than ever before, I have to question your ability to assimilate what you are reading and seeing.

A particular concern about the safety of an african-american president is not unreasonable but we should keep in mind that with assassins and would-be assassins of presidents we are most often dealing with equal opportunity nuts:

Abraham Lincoln (R): Probably the only politically motivated assassination, but one of a few politically motivated attempts; quite possibly part of a broader conspiracy

James Garfield (R): Nut

William McKinley (R): Anarchist nut

John Kennedy (D): Left-wing nut

Andrew Jackson (D): One attempt by a nut

Theodore Roosevelt (R): Shot but not killed by a nut

Franklin D Roosevelt (D): One attempt by a hit-man who may have been aiming at a different target

Harry S Truman (D): One attempt by a pair of Puerto Rican separatists. Somehow not surprisingly Jimmy Carter commuted the sentence of one in 1979

Richard Nixon (R): First attempt by a nut who then went on to shoot Gov George Wallace; Second attempt by a nut

Gerald Ford (R): First attempt by a nut - first woman nut. Second attempt - another woman nut

Ronald Reagan (R): Shot but not killed by a nut

George H.W. Bush (R) Plot by Saddam hired hit-men foiled

Bill Clinton (D): One attempt by a nut Second attempt by a nut

George W Bush (R): One attempt while in the country of Georgia. Nut?

All things considered, the Secret Service does a fantastic job protecting the president.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Lola wrote:
When I worked for the New York Urban League, in 1972, I was often part of a group in which I was a minority of one. I regularly heard discussions about "crazy white liberals" who couldn't recognize their own racism. The general consensus was that unless a white person could admit that they had residues of racism, they were vulnerable to acting on their racial feelings without knowing it.

Strange -- that sounds hilariously like the boilerplate Alcoholics Anonymous trip to me. Tell me, were you expected to introduce yourself by saying "Good morning, I'm Lola", <chorus>, "and I'm a recovering racist?"

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Lola wrote:
When I worked for the New York Urban League, in 1972, I was often part of a group in which I was a minority of one. I regularly heard discussions about "crazy white liberals" who couldn't recognize their own racism. The general consensus was that unless a white person could admit that they had residues of racism, they were vulnerable to acting on their racial feelings without knowing it.

Strange -- that sounds hilariously like the boilerplate Alcoholics Anonymous trip to me. Tell me, were you expected to introduce yourself by saying "Good morning, I'm Lola", <chorus>, "and I'm a recovering racist?"

Very funny Thomas........no, I was accepted and respected at the same times I was sometimes invisible during some of these discussions. Once I went to a party at the home of a co-worker/good friend, a black social worker. My husband and I sat through the playing of a very funny record which was a very early comedy act of Richard Prior. It was a series of very abusive jokes about "honkies." My husband and I, being the only honkies at the party, just sat there sheepishly, feeling humiliated and guilty. After I slept on the experience, I was angry. And on Monday I told my friend that I had been uncomfortable until I realized that we had been a part of reverse racism. She agreed. She was a very good friend.

It was an interesting time in history and I'm glad to have been there.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Lola wrote:
Sexism is more acceptable to more Americans than racism .

This came up in a Bill Moyers piece I was watching earlier today.

It was an interview with Kathleen Hall Jamieson.

I haven't been able to find today's interview online yet, but I found one from the autumn of 2007 where they discussed it in a slightly different vein.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12072007/transcript1.html

Quote:

<snip>

Quote:
BILL MOYERS: And where would you? There is no language of degeneration like this that describes men, is there?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Well, you could say, "How are we going to beat the bastard?" But it wouldn't carry all the same resonance of that word in the context of its use now.

BILL MOYERS: And you couldn't say, "How are we going to defeat the nigger?" How are we going to-- which is the word that was so common when I was growing up in the South. "How are you going to defeat the kike?" referring to Jews-- you wouldn't do--- that woman would not have done that, I don't think.

Interesting. I doubt that if someone asked that question with "nigger" rather than "bitch" and it was immediately challenged by the candidate, that would be a news story with a limitless life.

I think it probably has to do with the fact that women are mothers, both ambivalently loved and blamed by their children. While our history with blacks has to do, in large part with a need to dominate, control and abuse another group of people in order to counteract fears of inferiority. We feel more guilty about race relations than we do about mistreating our mothers because we somehow know that they will forgive us out of motherly love.

0 Replies

Why can't we just support the person who we feel is best for the job?

Being psychoanalyzed as a voter by people who don't know a thing about my relationship with my mother is a bit troubling. As a man from an interracial family... it all gets so confusing anyway Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Why can't we just support the person who we feel is best for the job?

Damn right. We should take a lesson or two from the young people in this case.

0 Replies

I was tempted to write "the best man for the job"... but I was afraid that too many people lack a sense of humor.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Why can't we just support the person who we feel is best for the job?

Being psychoanalyzed as a voter by people who don't know a thing about my relationship with my mother is a bit troubling. As a man from an interracial family... it all gets so confusing anyway

I wasn't speaking to you personally ebrown. I was thinking in general. I analyze too much, I know. It's just the way my mind works. I'm always trying to understand how things work and I drive people crazy from time to time. Sorry.

And yes, we should all just vote for whoever you think is best. That's what I'm going to do. Thinking about why helps me decide, but no one has to do the same unless they want to.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

sozobe wrote:
As for the question itself -- will he be assassinated? -- we've talked about that here before. I think there will always be kooks, period, but that there are security measures in place and that I don't think that Obama is necessarily in MORE danger than any other president. Certainly not a reason not to vote for him anyway.

I totally agree that it's not a reason to refrain from voting for him; if anything, electing him would be a way to defeat the demons of the past. But do you honestly think Obama is not in more danger of assassination "than any other president"?

Well, I said "not necessarily." Finn gave a nice list of previous attempts, and that was what I was thinking when I said it. (Not that there aren't people who are horrible enough to make the attempt, but that presidents are often targets regardless of color or party.)

But a simple answer to your last question is that he probably is in more danger, based on his early and unusual Secret Service protection.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I was tempted to write "the best man for the job"... but I was afraid that too many people lack a sense of humor.

I've said it many times myself. She does have several characteristics usually associated with maleness in our society. And she does wear pant suits.

0 Replies

Has anyone ever seen her legs in public?

0 Replies

If Hillary was a man, her legs would not be an issue.

But yes, and they are not so remarkable as to need to be of concern for anybody.

http://www.nohillaryclinton.com/blog/blog_images/hilliarycankles.jpg

0 Replies

Obama's Virginia Jefferson Jackson speech -- got there through a blog talking about how he's upped his prose/ poetry quotient.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/CmBV

(Though as in that snippet I posted a little while ago, he's always had plenty of prose going even though the focus is on poetry...)

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know