Originally Posted By friendofdd I think I understand bigotry well enough, but there is one thing about this campaign I don't think I understand. It is definitely bigotry for a person to avoid voting for a black man or a woman simply because he is black or she is female. Is it bigotry to vote FOR them simply because he is black or she is female? The question does not have to do with their qualifications, but only those physical traits over which they have no control, skin color or gender.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Obama give hope that he can fix these things, but doesn't describe the roadmap or timeline that they can actually be fixed. >>> Have you read his freaking book? If not you are blowing smoke out your backside. He does not give an exact timeline... no one could at this point. But he articulates his viewpoints and approach to the issues far more clearly than any other candidate I’ve seen. And I like him because he doesn't glom onto classic liberal answers or classic conservative answers. He uses a lot of common sense drawing on the best things from both points of view. Maybe that's hope. Maybe that's naive. After the last 8 years, I'll take my chances on a guy with a little common sense.
Originally Posted By Kimber "Ah yes... the "not black enough" argument. We knew the bigots would come crawling out of the woodwork sooner or later. Any what better way to disguise your bigotry than to claim that Obama is "not black enough"?" I never claimed that he wasn't "black enough" only that he's never lived within the social confines of his "blackness". Just listen to his campaign spin the release of the "traditional garb" photo. Or read his wife's thesis. They know better than anyone that Obama's "blackness" is a matter of white perception and white perception only - and they spin him as as "black as he needs to be" to get white votes. Listen to him speak to a black audience and then listen to him give the same stump speech to a white audience - the inflection and phraseology shifts from a comfortable "blackness" to his black audience to a much less frightening "blackness" to his white audience. He plays the race card more adeptly that any politician in his country. Just watch him run towards Oprah - a non-frightenng to white folks black woman - and from Farrakhan's endorsement- a very frightening to white folks black man. It's the Obama campaign that's racist. Playing the "racist" card is a tactic of the Obama backers - calling their candidate "black" gets the one making the obvious statement branded a racist. It's the Obama campaign's own obvious racism that gets missed. Kim
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Just watch him run towards Oprah - a non-frightening to white folks black woman - and from Farrakhan's endorsement- a very frightening to white folks black man. It's the Obama campaign that's racist.>> You can't control who endorses you. It is obvious you would make know endorsements you considered favorable and distance yourself from those you considered unfavorable. If George HW Bush endorsed McCain (which he did), it would be made widely known (which it has). If the head of the KKK in America or the head of the Posse Comitatus or whatever endorsed McCain he would run like heck from it, as he should. So your point would be.....??
Originally Posted By woody Obama isn't racist anymore than Hillary is sexist. Both are using their inherent differences to their advantage. From the way Hillary and especially Bill attack Obama, I am more convinced of Hillary and Bill's race baiting than Obama's racist chauvinism or perhaps his sexism of Hillary. Hillary has already lost the support of vast numbers of blacks, while Obama is gaining the support of white women and men.
Originally Posted By Kimber "So your point would be.....??" That the Obama campaign sees itself only as a reflection of its white audience knowing that it doesn't need to sell itself to his "black" audience as they want him to be real so badly that it doesn't matter how he speaks to them or what he says, believes in or can , cares to or will do, and caters it's message accordingly. Making him "as black as he needs to be" keeps their spin doctors awake nights. It's no accident that those packaging Obama were "Friends of Bill". Many of the political strengths and weaknesses are the same. That Obama is distancing himself from the national press corps following his campaign, allowing them access to rally stops only when accompanied by a staffer and not allowing any interviews is the first sign of overt fear that we've seen. That there is increasing scrutiny of his Illinois and Senate records sends him into hiding is telling. Wait until the Republicans go after him - Hillary is pulling her punches, McCain will have no constraints. Wait until the Rezco trial begins in a couple of months and the spin coming from Obama central will be amazing. Hillary only needs to keep her head above the tidal wave until then. And, in August, with the Rezco trial in full swing, just who do you think that the Democrats will back? If the KKK should support McCain, and I believe McCain to be fundamentally more racially tolerant than is Obama, I would expect that he would run. Couching its back-handed racism safely within its message to white America is the master stroke of the Obama campaign. That alone has earned David Pouliffe his 10 million dollar payday. The problem is that Farrakhan's theology is more closely linked to Obama's early ideology - read the book - than is McCain's to the KKK. Listen to the words he chooses and the inflections he speaks with when his audience is white. He's a bigot - a very covert one - but a bigot none the less. Kim
Originally Posted By Kimber "Farrakhan's racism is overt, not covert." I wasn't refering to Farrakhan's racism, but rather to Obama's. Kim
Originally Posted By jonvn "Is it bigotry to vote FOR them simply because he is black or she is female?" Yes. What is the Rezco trial?
Originally Posted By Kimber sorry Rezko - I googled it and got both spellings - lots of others can't spell Mr. Rezko's last name either it seems. <a href="http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/25/rezko-stays-in-jail-appeals-court-wont-grant-bail/" target="_blank">http://youdecide08.foxnews.com /2008/02/25/rezko-stays-in-jail-appeals-court-wont-grant-bail/</a> <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4204413&page=1" target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/ story?id=4204413&page=1</a> and many others... The short answer is that he's the price Obama paid for doing business as usual in Chicago. Kim
Originally Posted By jonvn Ah. Well, this will smear him. Think of what they did with Whitewater, and that amounted to nothing.
Originally Posted By Kimber What it does is make him the status quo - he's business as usual - he's the easy way out - he's Washington - he has nothing to do with "change you can believe in". He's "the same old folks doing the same old stuff..." Yup - the fun has just begun. Kim
Originally Posted By jonvn "he's business as usual" Of course he is. And the fact that people seem to think he's something special is beyond pathetic. We live in a very large and complex electoral system. You either play the game and follow the rules or you get nowhere.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<Obama, and the Democrats in general, are riding a wave right now based on people's immediate wants.>> People's immediate wants seems to include: improving the economy; getting the US out of the Iraq quagmire; finding jobs; feeling that we're doing all we can to prevent terrorism on our ground; and having faith in our government. Kim, do you find these priorities to be short-sided or selfish? Would you suggest that a candidate who addresses these concerns is pandering to some lowest-common-denominator? You've criticized Obama for actually adressing the concerns of the people. I don't get that.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<Listen to him speak to a black audience and then listen to him give the same stump speech to a white audience - the inflection and phraseology shifts from a comfortable "blackness" to his black audience to a much less frightening "blackness" to his white audience.>> So he adjusts his speaking style based upon his audience? I give him points for that. What a refreshing change. Any good speaker knows that the #1 Rule in making a speech is to assess one's audience and to craft the presentation style to them. That's a totally ELEMENTAL guideline. [Too bad GWB never quite understood that. And too bad we're still dealing with the consequences] If a candidate were to change the actual content of his speech -- that is, his position on the issues -- based on the audience to whom he was presenting, that would be dodgy. But to change presentation STYLE... well, that's just Public Speaking 101.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<I never claimed that he wasn't "black enough" only that he's never lived within the social confines of his "blackness".>> OH! So sorry, Kim! The correct answer is, "If your skin is black in the US, you DO live within the 'confines of blackness.'" You imply that because he has become successful and is now monied, he must never have dealt with racism and must not be dealing with it now. But thanks for playing!
Originally Posted By gadzuux It reminds me of the people in `04 that were essentially saying "kerry wasn't THAT wounded" after being shot twice. How do you know what obama's life experience is as a black man? How can you presume to say that he "hasn't lived within the social confines of blackness"? >> Just listen to his campaign spin the release of the "traditional garb" photo. << Why should they even have to speak to it at all? What's the implication here? That they owe us an explanation? That he's secretly muslim? That he's un-american? It's pandering of the lowest sort aimed at the most ignorant people. Republicans. >> The economy is suffering, and voters want someone to put money back in their pocket. They want the war in Iraq to end. They want health care to cost less. An endless litany of wants. << They want to undo the actions of the bush administration. The economy is on the ropes partly because of our military spending in iraq. And partly of reducing revenues while wildly increasing spending. And borrowing. This "endless litany of wants" is really wanting our government to be responsible with the power and money that we give them. That hasn't happened over the last seven years. But don't be critical of the public wanting to get out of the very problems that the GOP has put us in - wars, unprecedented deficits, unprecedented foreign debt, and intrusion into people's personal lives. It's ironic that the republicans pitch themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility, smaller government, leery of foreign entanglements, and staying out of people's lives. Does ANYBODY still believe this?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << This "endless litany of wants" is really wanting our government to be responsible with the power and money that we give them. That hasn't happened over the last seven years. >> Not really. Voters were more than happy to elect GWB the first time on his campaign entirely based on the idea of cutting taxes. They wanted more money in their pocket. Voters didn't care about the long term implications. When GWB's wars and increased government spending propped up the economy a bit at the long term expense of the taxpayer, voters responded by electing him again instead of acknowledging that there would be a hangover at the end of the spending party. Voters don't really care to solve long term problems or seek responsibility in government. They will vote based on their immediate short term needs and desires.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Perhaps you should read the article you linked to: <<Obama and Blagojevich have not been accused of any wrongdoing.>>
Originally Posted By mele It's always interesting when someone is accused of not being black enough. Cos black enough people must...what? Live in the projects, have some relatives who are in jail, done a couple of drive-by shootings? Breaks out into a dance when ever their jams come on over the radio? Eat fried chicken and guzzle kool-aid? What exactly is the "life of a black person"?
