blatham
 
  1  
Sat 16 Feb, 2008 02:00 pm
Quote:
Blatham's wanton


I'm proud to be a wanton
from l'montaigne
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Sat 16 Feb, 2008 03:47 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

I won't be voting for Obama, not because he is untrustworthy, but because he is the most liberal member of the Senate.


This actually isn't true.

Cycloptichorn


It is true:

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Sat 16 Feb, 2008 04:14 pm
nimh wrote:
nimh wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
If it was racism that motivated white male voters in the South recently to vote for Hillary (as was alleged here and on other threads, almost without comment or objection)

I am only on page 995 now -- and this thread has meanwhile passed the 1000 mark! -- but I see George has already assailed this straw man at least three times.

I know that I have, for one, repeatedly discussed the role of race in the election outcomes by demographic group, analysed it to death in fact. But if all George took from it was that it was purely and only "racism that motivated white male voters in the South recently to vote for Hillary" and that this assertion was made "almost without comment or objection", he must have had either skipped or conveniently forgotten about half the posts that were written about the topic, in this thread, the Polls etc thread, and the Old Times There Are Not Forgotten thread.


As in: something can play an undeniable role, without it being the only explanation and without it being right to pass on without reservations.

Georgeob1 has asserted, the way I read it (correct me if I'm wrong) that there are many other reasons why Southern whites may have voted for Hillary and/or Edwards, and so there's little sense in talking about race as determinator. So it suits his argument to pretend that the people he argued with asserted that it must just all have been racism - that's a silly proposition, can easily be brushed off, and then we can all continue like there's nothing to see here.

The real argument here of course was more complicated. Quite specific regional deviations from statistical trends have shown that whites in the South demonstrated a relatively pronounced unwillingness to vote for Obama. Ergo: just like in any other state, there are many who voted for Hillary and Edwards for all the substantive and superficial reasons that have motivated people elsewhere to do so; but there is a deviation from the trend that becomes specifically more pronounced the further a state is in the South, Deep South. An attendant trend is that John Edwards, who programatically profiled himself consistently as the progressive, populist, leftist candidate, enpoyed a pronounced and consistent support among a larger-than-average minority of white voters who described themselves as conservative or very conservative, and who listed such things as immigration and terrorism as a prime issues -- in short, who had little affinity at all with anything that Edwards the candidate actually said.

Based on such data, the observation has been made that among specific demographic subgroups, there has been a greater than average/usual unwillingness to vote Obama, and a surprising tendency to veer towards the white, male candidate even when the man was a strident liberal, and that these deviations from the overall trend probably point to racial motivations. .


I fully agree. However, I faulted those making this argument only for their silence on the far greater statistical correlation of the choices black voters made in exactly the same elections with the "racial identity" (love those euphemisms) of their preferred candidate. An absurd basis for choice by one group is equally absurd for another. If it was racism on the part of white voters, then it was racism on the part of blacks as well - however you choose to define racism. In fact I didn't accuse either group of racism - instead I noted the hypocrisy and illogic of the obvious double standard. The resulting outrage only served to prove my point.

Some have argued boldly that a double standard is appropriate. That blacks can and should practise actions that, if done by whites, would properly be condemned as racist. The rationalization offered for this is the correction of past misdeeds. Unfortunately life and human nature doesn't work that way. Inequality and injustice begets anger and retribution - and more inequality. Programs labeled as providing for equal opportunity, which are in practice administered to achieve equal outcomes, too often end up in defeating their promised purpose by undermining the development of their intended beneficiaries and enraging those who are pushed aside.

The fact is the overall tendency of white voters in all the primaries so far has been more surprising in their preference for Obama than in any supposed continued racial antipathy. Odd that there has been so relatively little comment on that. I find that the most remarkable observation in the recent elections - far more so than the lingering bad habits of some from both racial groups.

Finally, I find in some quarters the tendency to go to great lengths to accuse "whites" of misdeeds while excusing "blacks" for the same actions and foolishness. Given that we do indeed all share the same human nature, I find this a bit wierd and wonder about the psychology behind it.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sat 16 Feb, 2008 04:55 pm
Quote:
The real argument here of course was more complicated. Quite specific regional deviations from statistical trends have shown that whites in the South demonstrated a relatively pronounced unwillingness to vote for Obama. Ergo: just like in any other state, there are many who voted for Hillary and Edwards for all the substantive and superficial reasons that have motivated people elsewhere to do so; but there is a deviation from the trend that becomes specifically more pronounced the further a state is in the South, Deep South.


Thanks, Nimh. That was the entirety of the point I was attempting to make in the "Old Times..." thread. It is a simple, self-explanatory concept, backed up by numbers. Which of course makes it no less impossible for some to digest, amazingly.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 16 Feb, 2008 06:50 pm
George-

You are wasting your talents. Nobody is going to take the slightest notice of your sensible arguments.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Sat 16 Feb, 2008 07:24 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Out of respect to Soz (and irregardless of Blatham's wanton whining), I've answered you here George.


I don't respect the "directives" of self-appointed bullies of any sex or stripe. I''l respond here or not at all.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Sat 16 Feb, 2008 07:57 pm
Conversation With a Superdelegate
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Sat 16 Feb, 2008 08:03 pm
Obama is the only candidate to have released his tax forms. (neither McCain or Clinton have)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/opinion/15fri1.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


Obama has released his earmarks. (Clinton has not)
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070621-obama_announces_3/

Hillary Clinton reigns as the Queen of Federal Pork
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aXWIZU3DOyr4&refer=home

Obama was rated #1 in environmental policy by the League of Conservation Voters
http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/

Obama was right about Pakistan, back when Hillary was calling him "naive"
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/06/navarrette/?iref=mpstoryview

Washington Post gave Obama's economic plan an A- and gave Hillary's a C.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/22/AR2008012202614.html?hpid=opinionsbox1


Wall Street Journal preferred Obama's healthcare plan over Hillary Clinton's
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120234937353949449.html

Judge Obama by his legislative achievments, which are quite impressive, according to the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sat 16 Feb, 2008 08:06 pm
Good, substantive stuff as always, Butrfly. But probably wasted on those who have stuck their fingers in their ears and keep chanting "He's all talk and no substance! La-la-la-la!!!!!!!"
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Sat 16 Feb, 2008 08:40 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Out of respect to Soz (and irregardless of Blatham's wanton whining), I've answered you here George.


I don't respect the "directives" of self-appointed bullies of any sex or stripe. I''l respond here or not at all.
That's pretty weak, George. In real life I tend to respond to bullies while looking eye to eye from mere inches away. (If there's one thing I never could stand; it's a bully.) Here I do my virtual best to respond in kind. Similarly; I tend to treat the most respectful with the most respect. That is Sozobe and you are usually not far behind; this unnecessary episode notwithstanding. But you suit yourself. Your error has been exposed for several posts anyway. I don't blame you for walking the other way.
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Sat 16 Feb, 2008 09:01 pm
So now, McCain is Obama's advisor? Are REpublicans that, boring?

Swimpy wrote:
Cool
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Sat 16 Feb, 2008 09:05 pm
Bomani posted this on MySpace today. There are some valid points in between the humor.



----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Bomani http://www.myspace.com/knotarapper
Date: Feb 16, 2008 6:30 PM

Subject: Is Barack Obama WHITE enough?


"That's why I chose you. See... you one a 'dem!!" - Samuel L. Jackson in "A Time to Kill"

So the hubbub has finally subsided. The King of Black People (Jesse Jackson) and the Prime Minister (Al Sharpton) have officially knighted Senator Obama as black enough. Of course it took a gang of white people in Iowa voting for him before anyone felt comfortable anointing him, but it happened none the less. I personally take credit for Obama solidifying the black vote because every time someone asked me that asinine "is he black enough" question, I would quip "what do you
expect the first black president to be? A dashiki wearing, afro with a black fist pick ex-black panther?"

Since that question seems to be settled, it's time for Barack to switch gears. Okay, maybe not Barack himself, he does a good job of appearing to be above the political and racial fray. But his supporters need to start pushing the idea of how white he is. Yes, that's right; Barack Obama is as white as he is black. The one drop rule is not a genetic law or a social fact; it is a construct of this countries racist imagination. For Christ sake, he's distant cousins with Dick Cheney. We need to start stressing the idea that his universal appeal is partly due to him being white, like all the presidents before him.

"But Bomani, we need to appeal to the historic significance of him being black, or try to make him non-racial!"


Nothing is further from the truth. In all honesty, the more I watch him talk and interact with people, the more I'm convinced that he is a "soul brother". He walks with a rhythm, slaps skin when he shakes hands with even the most white-bread politician, and speaks in a cadence that would make Rudy Ray Moore proud. Even though these attributes are part of the reason he has garnered support in the important blocks of voters like African Americans, liberals, anti-war activists, and the highly educated, it will also serve to galvanize a voting block that hasn't had to come together in the history of our country. That is the all important "Aw Hell No!" voting block.

That's right; the "Aw Hell No!" political block in our society has lain dormant for 200 years, waiting for a moment to flex its political muscle. Don't forget that this country is over, well over 60% white and well under half of the population votes. That means there are a lot of white people who could care less about the political process. They believe that national politics are really out of their reach and that it's not worth taking off work to participate. As long as the Federal government stays within some superficial norms, they aren't worried about who does what in November. That's until a black man (and to be honest a, woman) had a chance to be president. This attack on the laws of the universe is destined to cause a spike in once apathetic voters.

This is the part of the editorial where I resist the temptation to stereotype all the member of the "Aw Hell No" voting block as backwoods, tobacco chewing, and cousin screwing hicks. That would be too easy and probably inaccurate. This group has young and old members, in the rural areas and urban communities. "A.H.N." members are comfortable in their existence and just aren't ready for such a dramatic change. Most surprisingly, some members of this block have spoken glowingly of Senator Obama, maybe even attended his rallies. They won't realize they are members of this group until the curtain is closed behind them in the voting booth.

For this reason, Barrack's white heritage needs to be played up as much as possible. He needs to start posing with his mother's family a lot more, not the United Nations crew of brothers and cousins he's normally seen running with. Staffers need to start snapping as many pictures as possible of him putting mayonnaise on his sandwiches and shaking hands straight up and down (no more low fives that evolve into a shake with that pat on the back). He should also be banned from speaking at any kind of Baptist church, just churches that have only a pipe organ as an instrument and sing their songs solemnly and straight from a hymnal. Barrack should be given diction lessons so he can stop cutting of his y's (like "li-ber-teh" and "e-kwa-li-teh"). And for heavens sake, when he's campaigning this summer, avoid outdoor rallies!! We can't afford him getting any darker. (Is there some cute, anglo sounding nick name that we can use as short for Barrack? I'm open to suggestions.)

"But Bomani, playing into racial stereotypes has to be counter productive! And having him fake anything takes away from the realness that gives him such broad appeal!"

Look, after he wins the presidential election I will personal show up on Pennsylvania Ave during his inauguration procession to the White House, wearing red, black and green and screaming "Barrack, Bomaye!!". Until them I am not taking any more chances acknowledging him as a black man. If you want him to win the election I suggest you do the same.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Sat 16 Feb, 2008 09:08 pm
teenyboone wrote:
So now, McCain is Obama's advisor? Are REpublicans that, boring?


You're not following this very closely, are you?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sat 16 Feb, 2008 09:10 pm
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/cartoon/2008-02/35257179.jpg
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Sat 16 Feb, 2008 09:19 pm
snood wrote:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/cartoon/2008-02/35257179.jpg
this at least we can all agree on...
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Sat 16 Feb, 2008 09:23 pm
Butterfly:
Sign me up! Aw Hell no! I love hoe if flows from my mouth! AHN! Give me the 1st card! Cool Cool
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Sat 16 Feb, 2008 09:44 pm
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5546810.html

Quote:



In spite of contrasting opinions and the need for more details, the Houston Chronicle endorses Obama.


Quote:
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Sun 17 Feb, 2008 12:31 am
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sun 17 Feb, 2008 10:18 am
There is a troublesome story coming out of New York. The report is that Obama received ZERO votes in 80 districts in New York, and no one knows why. No small matter, since this could mean more pledged delegates he does or does not get.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the paper:

"Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem's 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama.

That anomaly was not unique. In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city's 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.



http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=286025


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Seems awful fishy to me. Comments?
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Sun 17 Feb, 2008 10:42 am
Snood,
I commented on just this in another forum? Can you say "fixed" machines? Funny, they're in Rangel's district! I'm getting a whiff of stink and it's coming from that, direction!

snood wrote:
There is a troublesome story coming out of New York. The report is that Obama received ZERO votes in 80 districts in New York, and no one knows why. No small matter, since this could mean more pledged delegates he does or does not get.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the paper:

"Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem's 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama.

That anomaly was not unique. In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city's 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.



http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=286025


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Seems awful fishy to me. Comments?


:wink:
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 503
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.28 seconds on 05/06/2025 at 01:37:47