Obama '08?

nimh wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

Yeah, like repeatedly asking McCain how many years he proposes to stay in Iraq: or Obama why he stayed so long in Wright's church.

Do you seriously think that these questions are on par with each other?

"What is your exit strategy?"
"Why do you hate America?"

Right on. I dont even catch on to that stuff anymore half the time, but you're right to call this out.

Please re-look at the original context. My point was that some "questions" repeatedly asked of candidates by partisan (or merely attention-seeking) media types are not real questions at all, in the sense that new information or an answer is sought. They are instead attempts to replay a particular point or spin in the public mind. I provided two excellent examples of that phenomenon, one against Mccain - that was already the subject of the discussion, and another against Obama to illustrate the same point.

The original questions were;
McCain -- When, under your direction, will U.S. forces leave Iraq?
Obama - Why did you remain so long in Rev Wright's church?

Diest chose to arbitrarily rephrase both questions in a way that fundamentally changed the nature of the McCain question and sharpened the Obama one. Your hyperventilation about the supposed difference in the outrage involved in the two (now highly distorted) "questions" has nothing whatever to do with the discussion.

Diest's arbitrary rephrasing of both questions, McCain's in particular, was a bald distortion of the facts. The discussion with Cyclo was clearly about the "How long will we stay in Iraq" question - one posed in such a way as to demand only a date certain. As I noted in the referenced dialogue McCain had clearly outlined an 'Exit Strategy' based on a progressive withdrawl of U.S. forces and parallel disengagement from the daily action, ultimately to remote garrisons - all based on the progress of events. The objection to it was exclusively over the "date certain" bit - and NOT the exit strategy.

In their original form, both "questions" were merely attempts to replay a particular spin - and that was the whole point.

Moreover, the distinction you are trying to draw doesn't withstand a moment's thought. I suppose I could arbitrarily rephrase the McCain question - just as Diest arbitrarily did both -to read, "How long do you propose to continue the slaughter of Iraqis and American Soldiers in that unhappy country?"

Diest's proclivity for such childish tactics - selecting one often trivial element from a larger context, distorting it to aid his purpose in finding (usually irrelevant) "fault", and then highly exaggerating its importance - makes a dialogue with him, at best, a waste of time. I'm surprised that Nimh fell for this stuff.

Nobody I know says a black man can't be president.

As far as I am concerned, it has nothing to do with race.

We have a black man on the supreme court, but the Democrats, and many blacks did everything in their political power to prevent it.

To say it is race is hogwash.

It is politics, pure and simple, and I for one am not going to be browbeat into voting for Obama simply because his skin is black.

It will be based on his political views, and the drumbeat is starting, you and your ilk will accuse any opposition to Obama as racism.

If he loses, it will be because the country is too racist.

This is totally repugnant as a strategy, but this is what your party does.

Diest, Clarence Thomas is a good example. When he was going through the confirmation process, it was a very ugly, very ugly process, and he was accused of lots of things, one being he was an Uncle Tom for the simple fact that he was standing as an individual not as a black person per se. Remember, he wasn't black enough according to many black folks, and some of the people that skewered him the worst were of the black community. Republicans never accused Democrats of opposing the man because he was black. And the truth is it was all about politics.

In contrast, here we have Obama running as a black person, and those that don't vote for him have been accused of racism, and count on it - we will hear lots more about it. At the beginning, some black leaders claimed or debated whether he was "black enough," and the meaning of that could be debated as a subject in and of itself, but in order to gain the support of many in the black community, he had to prove he was "black," which apparently involves a whole lot more than skin color. Again, it is about politics, plain and simple, not color of skin.

By the way, I think the pictures show Clarence Thomas to have alot blacker skin than Obama. On a serious note, Clarence Thomas has turned out to be one fine justice. I have heard him speak, and he speaks common sense, I like and respect the man a great deal, especially knowing what he has gone through to be an honorable individual to buck the poison thrown at him.

All of this is so plain as day, Democrats see people as groups, Republicans see people as individuals.

..............

And looking at the discussion between George and Deist, I am reminded of the clip of Jeremiah Wright referring to Justice Thomas as "Long dong silver" as he expressed contempt for a black man who isn't a flaming liberal. And it is THIS kind of attitude that makes whatever influence Jeremiah Wright has had on Barack Obama significant for many voters.

maporsche wrote:

revel wrote:

However; we can't discount there are bigots out there on the streets who may not be here in threads or on the news but who vote and even do things with the way they feel about blacks.

Like Teenyboone or Gala?

Or YOU?!

By the way, I think the pictures show Clarence Thomas to have alot blacker skin than Obama

okie wrote:

By the way, I think the pictures show Clarence Thomas to have alot blacker skin than Obama

You may think this comment is cute or even funny and put in the smiley face, i take it as overtly offensive every bit as much as a KKK noose or burning cross and WAY over the edge. I am however, curious as to the origination of this thought. Is it from your mind or some other source?

And looking at the discussion between George and Deist, I am reminded of the clip of Jeremiah Wright referring to Justice Thomas as "Long dong silver" as he expressed contempt for a black man who isn't a flaming liberal. And it is THIS kind of attitude that makes whatever influence Jeremiah Wright has had on Barack Obama significant for many voters. Those voters want a President who will appoint judges of the highest caliber as demonstrated by Justice Thomas. They don't want the criteria for judges to be "is she or he liberal enough" or "black enough?"

To refer to such concern as 'racist' or a 'smear against Obama' applies a very different standard to Obama than would be applied to any other candidate.

okie wrote:

By the way, I think the pictures show Clarence Thomas to have alot blacker skin than Obama

You may think this comment is cute or even funny and put in the smiley face, i take it as overtly offensive every bit as much as a KKK noose or burning cross and WAY over the edge. I am however, curious as to the origination of this thought. Is it from your mind or some other source?

okie wrote:

By the way, I think the pictures show Clarence Thomas to have alot blacker skin than Obama

You may think this comment is cute or even funny and put in the smiley face, i take it as overtly offensive every bit as much as a KKK noose or burning cross and WAY over the edge. I am however, curious as to the origination of this thought. Is it from your mind or some other source?

dyslexia wrote:

okie wrote:

By the way, I think the pictures show Clarence Thomas to have alot blacker skin than Obama

You may think this comment is cute or even funny and put in the smiley face, i take it as overtly offensive every bit as much as a KKK noose or burning cross and WAY over the edge. I am however, curious as to the origination of this thought. Is it from your mind or some other source?

Dys - you know I don't speak for Okie, but there's been considerable media attention to shades of black as enhanced in actual photographs.

The Clinton campaign in particular is suspected of posting Obama's pictures with his face digitally darkened - or possibly just filtered, not exactly sure as to technique used.

Clinton doesn't know digital from analogue, Cycl, a sufficient condition right there for her having nothing to do with it <G>

okie wrote:

By the way, I think the pictures show Clarence Thomas to have alot blacker skin than Obama

You may think this comment is cute or even funny and put in the smiley face, i take it as overtly offensive every bit as much as a KKK noose or burning cross and WAY over the edge. I am however, curious as to the origination of this thought. Is it from your mind or some other source?

Foxfyre wrote:

..............

And looking at the discussion between George and Deist, I am reminded of the clip of Jeremiah Wright referring to Justice Thomas as "Long dong silver" as he expressed contempt for a black man who isn't a flaming liberal. And it is THIS kind of attitude that makes whatever influence Jeremiah Wright has had on Barack Obama significant for many voters.

Hi Foxfyre - for once, Rev. Wright is innocent: that phrase can be safely attributed to Prof. Anita Hill (also black, in case you don't recall the confirmation hearings for Justice Thomas). Prof. Hill was quoting Clarence Thomas verbatim, she said at the time.

He set me free to be me. I can't be a colored coon on the faculty at Vanderbilt with no sense of pride. And I can't be a Supreme Court judge called long dong silver who disrespects black women and himself. I got to be me. I can't be a lyin' five-star general who leads an entire nation into war on a lie. And I can't be a sec of state who goes shopping on Broadway while folks are drowning in New Orleans--I got to be me. LINK

Diest, Clarence Thomas is a good example. When he was going through the confirmation process, it was a very ugly, very ugly process, and he was accused of lots of things, one being he was an Uncle Tom for the simple fact that he was standing as an individual not as a black person per se. Remember, he wasn't black enough according to many black folks, and some of the people that skewered him the worst were of the black community. Republicans never accused Democrats of opposing the man because he was black. And the truth is it was all about politics.

In contrast, here we have Obama running as a black person, and those that don't vote for him have been accused of racism, and count on it - we will hear lots more about it. At the beginning, some black leaders claimed or debated whether he was "black enough," and the meaning of that could be debated as a subject in and of itself, but in order to gain the support of many in the black community, he had to prove he was "black," which apparently involves a whole lot more than skin color. Again, it is about politics, plain and simple, not color of skin.

By the way, I think the pictures show Clarence Thomas to have alot blacker skin than Obama. On a serious note, Clarence Thomas has turned out to be one fine justice. I have heard him speak, and he speaks common sense, I like and respect the man a great deal, especially knowing what he has gone through to be an honorable individual to buck the poison thrown at him.

All of this is so plain as day, Democrats see people as groups, Republicans see people as individuals. This is a generalization, but I think a valid one, everyone is different, but in general, more Republicans think and act independently, than do Democrats or liberals. I will be skewered for this generalization I am sure.

Many people pass it off as okay, and the theory has even been put forth that anyone belonging to a minority cannot qualify as being a racist, but the fallacy of that theory should be obviously flawed.

High Seas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

..............

And looking at the discussion between George and Deist, I am reminded of the clip of Jeremiah Wright referring to Justice Thomas as "Long dong silver" as he expressed contempt for a black man who isn't a flaming liberal. And it is THIS kind of attitude that makes whatever influence Jeremiah Wright has had on Barack Obama significant for many voters.

Hi Foxfyre - for once, Rev. Wright is innocent: that phrase can be safely attributed to Prof. Anita Hill (also black, in case you don't recall the confirmation hearings for Justice Thomas). Prof. Hill was quoting Clarence Thomas verbatim, she said at the time.

Sorry but he isn't innocent. From a transcript of a sermon he preached on January 27, 2008:

Quote:

He set me free to be me. I can't be a colored coon on the faculty at Vanderbilt with no sense of pride. And I can't be a Supreme Court judge called long dong silver who disrespects black women and himself. I got to be me. I can't be a lyin' five-star general who leads an entire nation into war on a lie. And I can't be a sec of state who goes shopping on Broadway while folks are drowning in New Orleans--I got to be me. LINK

Is there any question in your mind to whom he is referring here? Would anybody not understand what he is saying here? If you are black and conservative you're scum. He didn't coin the phrase but he doesn't have any problem applying it to a sitting Supreme Court justice.

Okie - Pick a side of your mouth to speak out of. Either Democrats vote based on politics or skin color.

I'm also with dys, you comment about skin tone is pretty offensive.