Obama '08?

ability to govern is not the issue... bush governed.

It has nothing to do with the color of anybody's skin. Many who oppose Obama would vote in a heartbeat for a Colin Powell or somebody of his stature and experience.

It has everything to do with perceptions of a person's integrity, the way THAT person views race and how that might affect the way the person governs, and it has to do with a person's heartfelt devotion, allegiance, respect for, and love of country and the people in it. Obama started out transcending race and people responded to that. That bubble was burst by Jeremiah Wright and Obama's too weak objection to Wright's message.

Again I think most Americans do not want a 'black' President. They want a president with the ability, vision, judgment, and experience to competently lead a nation with all its people, and who sees us all as Americans, not people of this race or that race or this group or that group. It is absolutely fine if that President happens to be black.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

ability to govern is not the issue... bush governed.

No, he did not. At least, he governed quite poorly. If he had more ABILITY to govern, things wouldn't have gone so badly. So I would say that it is the issue, in fact.

Now, what would YOU say is the issue? Specifically.

Cycloptichorn

When Powell sucked up to the Shrub, and sold out his honesty and principles at the UN, he lost my respect completely. I'm sure any number of confused Republicans would vote for him, though.

Again I think most Americans do not want a 'black' President. They want a president with the ability, vision, judgment, and experience to competently lead a nation with all its people, and who sees us all as Americans, not people of this race or that race or this group or that group. It is absolutely fine if that President happens to be black.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

ability to govern is not the issue... bush governed.

No, he did not. At least, he governed quite poorly. If he had more ABILITY to govern, things wouldn't have gone so badly. So I would say that it is the issue, in fact.

Now, what would YOU say is the issue? Specifically.

Cycloptichorn

governed worse than anyone in history IMO... but governed none the less.

The people who take offense to his association with Wright are not concerned with his ability to govern but rather the intent of his governing.

I'm not making a judgement call because i could give a rat's ass less... I'm just stating what I think to be the issue.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

ability to govern is not the issue... bush governed.

No, he did not. At least, he governed quite poorly. If he had more ABILITY to govern, things wouldn't have gone so badly. So I would say that it is the issue, in fact.

Now, what would YOU say is the issue? Specifically.

Cycloptichorn

governed worse than anyone in history IMO... but governed none the less.

The people who take offense to his association with Wright are not concerned with his ability to govern but rather the intent of his governing.

I'm not making a judgement call because i could give a rat's ass less... I'm just stating what I think to be the issue.

Fair enough. Do you think people are concerned that his intent will be to prop up the Black community at the expense of others?

Cycloptichorn

everyone identifies everyone with their racial groups... what's so wrong with that? What are you afraid of?

If I'm in conversation and say I saw Tony at the club last night and someone says which Tony and I say the black one... am I a f*cking racist because we know two Tonys... one black and one white?

Of course he identifies people with their racial groups... that doesn't mean he's a racist...

Now what I'm curious about is how a person like foxfyre... who I am no particular fan of and don't see eye to eye with much, can mention Obama as a black president and be a racist but how you progressive types can mention him as a black president and have it be a badge of honor and an indication of how enlightened you are and how far we've come that we're electing a black president?

So which is it?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

ability to govern is not the issue... bush governed.

No, he did not. At least, he governed quite poorly. If he had more ABILITY to govern, things wouldn't have gone so badly. So I would say that it is the issue, in fact.

Now, what would YOU say is the issue? Specifically.

Cycloptichorn

governed worse than anyone in history IMO... but governed none the less.

The people who take offense to his association with Wright are not concerned with his ability to govern but rather the intent of his governing.

I'm not making a judgement call because i could give a rat's ass less... I'm just stating what I think to be the issue.

Fair enough. Do you think people are concerned that his intent will be to prop up the Black community at the expense of others?

Cycloptichorn

yes... and to a lot of people the anecdotal evidence supports at least that possibility. I don't think I believe that, but none of us will know until and if he becomes president will we? I will at least accept the possibility that it could be true... but then I'm not a cool progressive anymore.....

I think dividing people up into groups and pandering to those different groups . . . by . . . religion . . . is one of the reasons this country is in the mess that it is in.

No one has yet to suggest that Obama is unqualified to be President on the basis of his "racial" heritage. As several of us have said repeatedly, a Black candidate with the stature of Collin Powell would be welcomed. I can only speak for myself, but I have no problem with a woman or any minority as President of the United States. However, I would never vote for a candidate based primarily on their gender, "race", or religion, because that is the sort of chauvinism that we all should be actively working against. Racial prejudice and bigotry has outlived there time, and the United States should be the leader in the effort to leave such silly notions behind us as a species.

Racism has been injected into this election cycle, by the Democrats. Obama chose to entangle himself with racial bigots for twenty years, and made a race baiting preacher his friend, mentor, and political adviser. That vulnerability should have been recognized long ago, because we all know that during election campaigns every rock is turned over looking for the vulnerabilities of candidates. Obama himself is responsible for putting the cross-hairs on his association with a bigot. Rev. Wright has as much right to be racially bigoted as any White Supremacist, but racial bigotry and preaching hate is not good policy if you want to run for national office.

Does anyone doubt that the Clinton's knew of Obama's faux pas, and chose to inject it into the campaign when it appears that the nomination is slipping from her hands? But to be fair, the Clinton's aren't saying that Obama shouldn't be the Democratic nominee because he's Black, their point is that during the general election a major issue will be Obama's long association with a racial bigot who preaches anti-Americanism.

The folks who are spouting racism, aren't those who question Obama's judgment and association with a racially divisive organization. The racists are those who seek to divert attention from the Great Man's indiscretion by labeling everyone else as racists. You lot are the ones who seem determined to make this election about a candidate's race rather than his associations and judgment.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

everyone identifies everyone with their racial groups... what's so wrong with that? What are you afraid of?

If I'm in conversation and say I saw Tony at the club last night and someone says which Tony and I say the black one... am I a f*cking racist because we know two Tonys... one black and one white?

Of course he identifies people with their racial groups... that doesn't mean he's a racist...

Now what I'm curious about is how a person like foxfyre... who I am no particular fan of and don't see eye to eye with much, can mention Obama as a black president and be a racist but how you progressive types can mention him as a black president and have it be a badge of honor and an indication of how enlightened you are and how far we've come that we're electing a black president?

So which is it?

Woah there chief. You seem to have a real stick up your ass about the 'progressive types' lately, and have over-reached a little here.

I think that what the Wright incident really does to hurt Obama, is it allows the right-wingers to say that he will be a 'black' president. And they don't mean that in any sort of good fashion at all. That he will put the interests of the black community above those of the white community. That's the only real response that anyone has given on this issue.

It allows them to combine two of their favorite memes: faux-patriotism bullshit, and innate white fear of black folk. They are appealing to the second while speaking of the first.

Voting for Obama isn't a 'badge of honor' for me or anyone else. He's just a good candidate for prez, is all. I'm pretty sure that you've made this construction up in your mind, as part of the general anti-Obama thread you've got going in there. I think that Revel was correct a few pages back when she said that you, not us, are the one crowing about your superiority as of late.

Cycloptichorn