Obama '08?

engineer wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
From the article McG posted

Quote:
Does Obama think it improves matters when black leaders tell blacks that they're poor, sick, jailed or hooked on drugs because of a government plot? Does it help to fix things if the choir is singing "The devil made me do it," the white devil?

This is the PR problem Obama has, the subtle perception of his own making that has been created, and which he has not yet dispelled if he in fact can. I think a lot of people, even a lot of Democrats, will not vote for him if their perception is that he might view the world this way.

But nothing the man has ever said, implied or voted for would lead to this perception. He has left a trail of accomplishments, activities, speeches, legislation, etc. and the only things that bring up the concerns you voice are a few snippets from sermons that his pastor gave. Even Huckabee when asked about this said that this is a non-issue and pastors get into their sermons and sometimes the rhetoric is thick. This feels like the way people used Billy Carter against his brother, guilt by association. If you don't like Obama, by all means, vote for McCain, but at least come up with real reasons. There are enough real differences between the candidates that it shouldn't be that hard.

Huckabee's own unique view of the world didn't get him very far in the campaign, either, did it. In the case of Obama's Jeremiah Wright problem it isn't what Obama has said that is the problem, but what he hasn't said. When he was just a candidate who happened to be black, he could be a regular guy, a candidate for which race or gender or anything else was not an issue, and he could deal with universal issues that affect everybody.

Jeremiah Wright made it a racial issue forcing Obama to give that speech and thereby, in the minds of many, he became the 'black candidate' instead of a candidate who happened to be black. He didn't defend the more objectionable rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright, but he defended the reasons that Jeremiah Wright preaches the rhetoric. And because of that close, intimate, 20-year association, the question now exists as to how much of Wright's view of the world Obama shares since he has never disavowed it, or even admitted he knew about any of it, until political expediency required that he did so.

So that is his problem re Jeremiah Wright as I see it. And I'm certainly not the last word and new and different information could certainly change my mind. But (not you but others) calling racist, bigoted, et al any of us who presume to note these observations and express opinions isn't the way to fix it. In fact that is more likely to reinforce the perception that anybody who isn't squarely in support of Jeremiah Wright will be branded a racist bigot which is the problem people have with Wright in the first place.

I can't look into Obama's heart and soul and know what he believes or thinks beyond what he says, how he behaves, how he votes, what he writes, etc. But many--I'm guessing most--Americans would never vote for a Jeremiah Wright. And they aren't going to vote for somebody who even might be Wright's protoge, disciple, or who is indoctrinated in that kind of paranoid racist anti-Americanism.

0 Replies

Quote:

Jeremiah Wright made it a racial issue forcing Obama to give that speech and thereby, in the minds of many, he became the 'black candidate' instead of a candidate who happened to be black.

Yes, but you want him to be seen that way. You welcome it, embrace it, and seek to perpetuate that meme. Right?

Like I said above, the Wright incident gives Conservatives license to refer to Obama as the 'black' candidate, knowing that deeply-held racial fears amongst whites - which are exactly what you outlined, Fox - will turn some against him. It's part of the electoral strategy this Fall.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Jeremiah Wright made it a racial issue forcing Obama to give that speech and thereby, in the minds of many, he became the 'black candidate' instead of a candidate who happened to be black.

Yes, but you want him to be seen that way. You welcome it, embrace it, and seek to perpetuate that meme. Right?

Like I said above, the Wright incident gives Conservatives license to refer to Obama as the 'black' candidate, knowing that deeply-held racial fears amongst whites - which are exactly what you outlined, Fox - will turn some against him. It's part of the electoral strategy this Fall.

Cycloptichorn

You don't have any clue what I see, welcome, embrace, or perpetuate and your ad hominem argument only makes your argument stupid. Try again.

0 Replies

What he said . . .

This thread pottered along for months with a small core of contributors, and perhaps a few more readers. Now, within the last few weeks, it has been flooded by conservative members. I'd say he's got them running scared, so they come here to unload the "message" . . .

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

In the case of Obama's Jeremiah Wright problem it isn't what Obama has said that is the problem, but what he hasn't said. When he was just a candidate who happened to be black, he could be a regular guy, a candidate for which race or gender or anything else was not an issue, and he could deal with universal issues that affect everybody.

But then we found out that he had black friends and went to a black church, so now we have to wonder, is he a candidate that happens to be black or is he a black candidate? Now he must talk about this race issue which makes him a racial candidate and we don't really want to deal with all this race stuff which is why we keep talking about it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Jeremiah Wright made it a racial issue forcing Obama to give that speech and thereby, in the minds of many, he became the 'black candidate' instead of a candidate who happened to be black.

Yes, but you want him to be seen that way. You welcome it, embrace it, and seek to perpetuate that meme. Right?

Like I said above, the Wright incident gives Conservatives license to refer to Obama as the 'black' candidate, knowing that deeply-held racial fears amongst whites - which are exactly what you outlined, Fox - will turn some against him. It's part of the electoral strategy this Fall.

Cycloptichorn

You don't have any clue what I see, welcome, embrace, or perpetuate and your ad hominem argument only makes your argument stupid. Try again.

Bull. I see you still talking about this issue day after day, because you are attempting to perpetuate this exact meme that you point out above.

Repudiate it now. Say that you don't see him as the 'black' candidate. And that you don't think people should look at him that way.

You will not do so. I have correctly identified your prime motivator in this discussion. To continually paint him as a black man, to make Obama's race and latent White fears the issue in this race, and not other topics. I don't think it's going to work, at all. But I can see why you want to try.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You may have a point. When all there was to say about Obama was WOW, there wasn't much incentive for those who are not Obama-ites to hang around the thead. How do you argue against a WOW?

So then when there was actually something substantive to discuss, this did generate interest among those who enjoy discussing something instead of just saying WOW.

I probably have said all I have to say on the subject several times now, however, and rather than become the subject of the thread myself, I'll gracefully withdraw until there is something different to bring up.

Butfly posted an article a little while ago that would certainly merit a lot of discussion, not that I think the more left leaning members would be disposed to give it much attention. Good luck though.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

You may have a point. When all there was to say about Obama was WOW, there wasn't much incentive for those who are not Obama-ites to hang around the thead. How do you argue against a WOW?

<sputter>

OK, gonna say something.

I like this thread a lot. I get that it's changed, and honestly not sure I'd have it any other way.* To wit -- Obama was niche for a long time. Sure, some guy who might possibly run for president, OK, whatever. Many people weren't yet interested in the presidential race (as Walter noted at some point recently, I started this over two years ago now), and for quite a while -- I'd say up until Iowa -- this thread was mostly about the more wonkish political junkies among us. Lots of speculation and if-this-then-that's and also, yes, talk about the substance of Obama. Who he is, what he stands for, what he believes, what he wants to do, how he plans to accomplish those things...

Lots of talk in Wonkville, and some of my favorite people live there.

But then, after Iowa, there was a bit of a shift. Not anyone's fault, just a change in focus. Wait a minute, this guy could actually win the Democratic nomination?

(Do you remember how much of a foregone conclusion it was before Iowa that Hillary would get the nomination?)

And then, after that... wait a minute, this guy could actually become our PRESIDENT??

That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

And I get that.

Things have really gotten ugly -- and I mean that in the awful-wallpaper-pattern sense, not the blood-and-gore sense -- since it started to look like a) the Dem nomination is Obama's to win unless he really messes up, and b) if he gets the Dem nomination, McCain is in trouble.

We then moved out of Wonkville and into Partisanville. Wonkville is about figuring things out; arguments go places. Partisanville is about throwing stinky objects at each other and seeing what sticks. Oooh, that did! Yay, let me find more.

Now, I don't want to get too us-vs.-them -- not the point. Individuals can belong to both -villes -- Cycloptichorn can be a wonk par excellence and then turn way partisan. Bear spends a lot of time in Partisanville but he has some really nice insights when he deigns to share them. And he's not a "them" just 'cause he supports Hillary.

And -- aside from all that stuff -- then there's the current lull. The surfeit of wonky stuff to wonkishly discuss and crowd out the ugly-wallpaper partisan stuff. Did Obama win TX? Not sure, won't know for a bit yet. Was Hillary's Tuzla thing ridiculous? Sure was. So. When's PA?

*It's amazing, when I re-read the first post, to realize that we're at this point. That Obama really might win the Dem nomination, really might become president. Very far from a done deal yet but it's pretty exciting that he's gotten even this far. So, I'm glad that this didn't stay niche; I'm glad that Obama might really go all the way, and if this thread's a casualty, ah well.

0 Replies

Kudos to you for a coupla things, Soz. Capturing, again, a level-headed and sensible perspective on this Obama "thing".

Having the humility to realize it ain't for any one person to control how the thread ultimately ends up, even though you (like I) "really like" this thread.

Kewl.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

You don't have any clue what I see, welcome, embrace, or perpetuate

Maybe you could help Cycloptichorn get a clue by more frequently speaking your own mind and more rarely hiding behind vague hearsay about what's "in the mind of many."

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
You don't have any clue what I see, welcome, embrace, or perpetuate

Maybe you could help Cycloptichorn get a clue by more frequently speaking your own mind and more rarely hiding behind hearsay about what's "in the mind of many."

Well gee, Thomas, perhaps you could enlighten me on some place I haven't spoken my mind. As for the 'hearsay' I have posted a gazillion links to articles, videos, polls, and opinions. Do you think it is necessary that I do that in each post instead of referencing the 'many' that has been thoroughly discussed over these last several weeks or drawing a conclusion that a plethora of these sources add up to many? Do you impose that requirement on anybody else?

I don't mind being hung for whatever crime I have committed. But I do insist on being hung for the right crime.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

"The New York Times, for example. Quite left of center in my opinion." How convenient that is for the powers that be in America. When Bushie lied us into war in Iraq it was the New York Times and Judith Miller that spread his lies for him. The New York Times is much more guilty than Bushie in that regard and therefore more powerful. They could easily have proven Bushie's "evidence" just as fake, forged and fabricated as as did Hans Blix, ElBaradei and Scott Ritter. Instead Judith Miller worked with Scooter Libbey and Cheney to spread lies. When Powell gave his evidence at the UN the New York Times called his report a, "powerful" and "sober, factual case." Powell now calls his testimony a "lasting blot on his record". The "leftie" American mainstream media followed in Judith Miller's footsteps. Bushie lied us into war but it was the "liberal" press that allowed that and they had the power to tell truth and prevent a needless and bloody war. God damn that for sure. Bill Moyers put it all in perspective in a great show "Buying the War" http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

Thanks Blue!
I saw this one, too.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03282008/profile.html

Mayor Booker and Barack Obama, the new movers, with a positive message.
:wink:

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Obama's indoctrination

Quote:
By Ralph R. Reiland
Monday, March 31, 2008

The Department of Justice reports that approximately 8,000 blacks were murdered in the United States in 2005. In one year, that's exactly double the total number of American military deaths during the entire five years of the war in Iraq; in one year, that's 10 times the average number of American military deaths per year since the start of the war.
A recent study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics at the Department of Justice shows that blacks committed murders in 2005 at a rate seven times higher than whites.

The vast majority of those 8,000 black murders in 2005 were intraracial -- black victims being killed by other blacks. Similarly, Justice Department statistics covering the years 1976 through 2005 show that 94 percent of black murder victims were killed by blacks, and 86 percent of white murder victims were killed by whites.

Conversely, in inter-racial terms, 6 percent of black murder victims during those years were killed by non-blacks while 14 percent of white murder victims were killed by non-whites.

For 1976 through 2005, the Justice Department reports that blacks, 12 percent of the U.S. population, committed 52 percent of the nation's murders and were 47 percent of all murder victims.
Until I heard the racist and anti-American tirades of Barack Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, it hadn't occurred to me that the murderous fires in the black community were being stoked from the pulpits inside black churches.

I wonder if it's ever occurred to Obama and Wright that it probably doesn't help young people in the black community when they're told that their country hates them, that the U.S. government gave them drugs and AIDS, and that jail and genocide are the officially-sanctioned plan for them.

"The government gives them drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America,'" shouted Wright at his congregation. "No, no, no. God damn America. That's in the Bible, for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

I wonder if Obama ever considered the negative impact on young blacks from listening to these hateful and anti-white tirades. It's not as if Obama is blind to the influence of hate speech. When Don Imus made one careless remark about black female athletes, Obama was among the first to call for his firing. Fines and a temporary suspension weren't enough. Obama said he wanted Imus silenced so that his young daughters never had to hear such language.

Does Obama think it's good for his daughters and the black community when black leaders increase the black community's level of anger, defeatism, paranoia, cynicism, negativity and pessimism? Does he think it's good to jack up the level of the resentment and racism in a community that's already overdosed on rage and victimhood?

"Recent statistics show that more than three times as many black people live in prison cells as in college dorms," reports the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education. "One in every 10 black men between the ages of 25 and 29 is in prison."

On top of being murdered, blacks are also "more likely than any other group to be victims of serious violent crime," reports the Justice Department, which is defined as "rape, other sexual assaults, robbery or aggravated assault."

And we need more ranting and raving, more boiling with rage?

Does Obama think it improves matters when black leaders tell blacks that they're poor, sick, jailed or hooked on drugs because of a government plot? Does it help to fix things if the choir is singing "The devil made me do it," the white devil?

"The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color," Rev. Wright preaches to his congregation. In America, he asserted, "no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body."

The United States is "the number-one killer in the world," preached Wright, the "U.S. of K.K.K. A," a nation that only maintains its standard of living "by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty."

For 20 years, Barack Obama drank the aforementioned Kool-Aid, never seeing the problem. That makes him a problem.

I guess the writer of this piece of trash thinks that being complacent and apathetic is better.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I guess the writer of this piece of trash thinks that being complacent and apathetic is better.

T
K
O

Better then what? Teaching hate?

0 Replies

By the way, for you history junkies, today is the 40th anniversary of the speech given by LBJ that was largely about Vietnam, which was not going well for us. The reporters were following along in their copies of the pre-released text. Johnson looked away from the teleprompter and said (paraphrasing) "I will not seek nor will I accept a second term as President."
I remember watching that in the TV room in my dorm at William and Mary. I was a senior, only two months away from graduation in a time when the draft was, of course, still in force. I remember the stunned silence.
LBJ was facing opposition from Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy for the Dem nomination and I think it is likely that the sitting President would have lost to either of them.

BTW, we seniors did graduate, but an amazing percentage of us pretty well off white guys discovered we had dis-qualifying football injuries or we happened to be walking down the street and saw (like Mr Bush) a "help-wanted" sign in the window of a Reserve unit.

0 Replies

teeny, I saw Moyers interview Booker the other night. Booker is very impressive.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

teeny, I saw Moyers interview Booker the other night. Booker is very impressive.

He is really sincere! I met him at a Stand-Down, back in October. I had never attended one. One of those talk-show pundits, (I think O'Reilly), said that their were no homeless Veterans. There were thousands there, that day. It was so sad, but at the same time, you could see pride and dignity in their faces. All sizes, all colors, male and female. I was so moved. They received medical exams, a haircut, dental care, clothing, food, money, a hot meal and applications, for permenant housing. Many were living in shelters.

Some had jobs, others, were just glad to be there. There's a South and North Stand-Down held in the Fall. The Red Cross, Salvation Army and Division of Veterans Affairs are all there. I just can't describe it. You wonder why, in a country of plenty, why our Veterans are overlooked and forgotten, by a government, that just doesn't care! I wonder, if McCain, a Viet Nam Veteran, feels anything for his comrads. Crying or Very sad

Mayor Booker, apparently had never attended one either and was visibly moved! Reporters from NJN-PBS and WNBC-NYC, came to cover it. I'll never forget it.
Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

I have always been taught that if you don't like the way things are going, then you don't have the right to complain, unless you are actively trying to change things.

I'm sure Rev. Wright knew that the words "god damn America" would inspire a lot of feelings. I'm sure it moved a lot of people.

The writer cites the Bureau of Justice statistics on "black on black" crime, which is absolutely irrelavant. Irrellevant unless you mean to imply that the issues the black community faces (or any other community for that matter) is the fault of the same community. Disagree? Then tell me why the writer found this relavant at all. What's the angle?

The writer makes claims of racism, or anti-americanism. It's like someone saying "tomato," and the writer hears "ketsup." Granted, Rev. Wright's comments are critical of the USA, but nowhere does it say that America itself is enherently flawed or evil.

Many in the US would like to whitewash our history, and those individuals are largely offended by people such as Wright who insist on people removing their rose colored glasses.

I certainly don't agree with everything that Rev. Wright says, but I also find it to be irrelavant in evaluating Obama. If Obama is unelectable because someone close to him speaks contraversally, then is McCain then unelectable for referring to his captures as "gooks?"

As engineer posted a few pages back, there is better proof to absolve Obama. He posted, and I agree, that if Obama has either racist or anti-american motives/beliefs, then they would already has shown themselves in his voting record. They have not.

As FreeDuck very cleverly made satire of Obama's critics. Let's turn him into the black candidate.

As Soz provided perspective on the evolution of the dialogue. We keep trying to get back to Wonkville, and discuss the big picture. The partisan critics of Obama simultaneously say that he is one-dimetional, yet they refuse to allow the dialogue to move on to the other dimentions of Obamas platform etc.

Tell me McG, have you ever condemmed any of the actions of the USA?
Tell me McG, how many times have you been demanded to be apologetic for the actions of others?
Tell me McG, in a practical sense, what are you worried about with Obama as a President?

Tell me.
K
O

0 Replies

Quote:

Tell me McG, have you ever condemmed any of the actions of the USA?

Yep.

Quote:

Tell me McG, how many times have you been demanded to be apologetic for the actions of others?

Depends on who they are and what actions the other has done.

Quote:

Tell me McG, in a practical sense, what are you worried about with Obama as a President?

Extremist liberal policies.

Now, do you believe the US government is responsible for giving the black man aids? That the US government distributes drugs to the black man so they can become addicted and arrested and put in jail? Do you think that the high number of black crime in comparison to the general population percentage should be blamed on "the white devil"?

I can tell you one thing, if my spiritual adviser suggested these things, he'd not be my spiritual adviser long.

0 Replies

Well, For those who can only cite ev. Wright, try this:

http://www.runcynthiarun.org/DiscussionOfRaceThatMatters

Running as an Independent, here's a candidate, you might want to learn more about. :wink:

She was the only Democrat to sit in on the Katrina hearings.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know