Is it Racist?

[3jsmommy]

Specifically, it's hard to put a finger on it because, in the end, the president is dependent on Congress to pass the laws and set the direction in which he wants to lead the country. (At least...that's what a president does that actually understands the constitution. But I digress )

Barack has plenty of specific plans he wants to put in place that I approve of, from health care to foreign policy to affirmative action for the poor instead of based on race. But in the end, the thing I believe he will most do is change the tone of politics in Washington. He has a history of finding compromise between two sides on issues where people are usually so entrenched that they refuse to even contemplate any middle ground.

Also, don't discount the importance of inspirational speaking. There is a reason that "Ask not what your country can do for you" and "The only thing we have to fear is...fear itself" and "Mr. Gorbachov, tear down this wall" are carved on our national memory...and it ain't because the speeches were heavy on the policy wonk side of things. [/QUOTE]

OK you said this much better than I could have, are you considering running for office?

 

[Galahad]

You asked what change we could see from Obama being elected, I gave you a very personal, very real change that I would see, your response is a little underwhelming to me actually.

Ah well, guess I can't win them all. The change I responded to really was underwhelming to me as well. It seemed completely symbolic.

If, as wvrevy says, he really intends and CAN bring both sides together then great! I pray that is true. But the few specifics I've heard from him don't seem to indicate to me that he thinks the other side has anything to offer. A lot of getting even seems to be at play in his current oratory. Though that will certainly change now that he will most certainly be he nominee.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

I haven't read the whole thread, but my brother was one of the 6% of black Tarheels who voted for Clinton.

Wow... I had no idea the percentage here would be that racially skewed!

 

[just2peachy]

It's interesting to see what I believe to be a large percentage of whites discussing the feelings/ideas of a black person. I grew up in an inner city and was the victum of what is called "reverse discrimination". It's great to have these intellectual discussions; but in the end I don't believe anyone can truly deny their inner feelings. I was not saying what Whoopi proposed was right or wrong, but I definitely can see where that mentality would come from.

 

[EMom]

...I made up my mind about Obama based on his foreign policy, particualrly his willingness to engage the leaders of Iran and Venezuela, no strings attached. It strikes me as naive and simplistic, kind of like "axis of evil," but from the other end of the spectrum.

I never said that I was definitely going to vote for John McCain. I do not like the religious right and have put my money where my mouth is through years of support for anti-religious right organizations. I do, however, admire McCain for his service to our country and for his willingness to plot his own course.

On election day, I may be writing my OWN name in for president.

Long before the Wright controversy, one of my biggest concerns about Obama was that he was not tough enough. He's too Kumbaya and "I'd Like to Buy the World a Coke." I cannot envision him being able to play with the big boys (I count Hillary in that bunch) and be a ******* when the times call for that. He strikes me as the Neville Chamberlain of our day and history shows what a treasure NC was. I perceive him as a terrible negotiator and willing to give far too much. I fear we will negotiate from a position of weakness with him as president due to his personality.

Exactly. I just love how people assume that I'm not in support of Obama because he is a black man. It couldn't be because I don't like him and don't support his policies and think that he would be horrible for our country, right?

Thanks for that. I'm ready for a Black president. Just not THIS Black president. Do I have to take the first one I'm offered, so to speak, just to prove I'm not prejudiced? Since we're talking "firsts," it's between a Black man and a White woman. In this case, I prefer the woman. If you prefer Obama over Clinton, does that mean you're a misogynist? She wasn't my top pick, but balancing the two, I'll go with her any day. I have too many reservations about Obama. She is more of a known quantity.

Is it okay not to vote for Obama because he allows himself to be spiritually guided by a man who is an idiot and a nutcase?

Either Obama is also an idiot nutcase or can't spot one when he sees one. Neither of those are qualities I want in a President.

Bingo-bango! The instant I saw those clips of Wright, my gag-o-meter went off the charts. How many ways can one man offend in so short a time? Let's see....Blasphemy (from the pulpit, no less)....breaking a Commandment (again, from the pulpit!)....lunatic ravings....racist rants.....political snipes at politicians which have NO place in church....Oh where to stop???? Millions saw him for what he was in no time flat.

Yet Obama claims he had NO IDEA Wright held these views. Ahem.....That's one hard sell for this common sense chick. It tells me either (1) He's lying through his teeth because there's no way anyone could be that close to someone for 20 years and be so clueless about their feelings....especially when they preach those beliefs publicly. (2) He is as dumb as a box of rocks when it comes to seeing people for what they are, has zero insight into human nature and indeed can't see what it right in front of his face even if it's there for two decades. (For crying out loud, WE saw Wright in action for a few minutes and saw his ugly side clear as day. But Obama couldn't???)

So he's either lying (to cover up that he somewhat agrees with that nutcase?) or is incredibly easy to bluff and can be hoodwinked for years and years. I don't want to give my vote to someone who falls into either one of those categories, thank you very much.

Only after Wright made it clear that he would bombard the media nonstop did Obama finally renounce/denounce him. When he saw he had to distance himself or pay a political price, he cut ties. Of course, he said it was because he had only just now seen what Wright was truly about. If I buy his premise, then I must believe he would be taken in/fooled by every world leader on earth and we'd be toast. Naive is not even the word. Putin, who is still likely the one in power, would eat him for a breakfast snack.

His "These things are a distraction from the real issues people want to talk about" line is working in the Democratic primary and it's hurting Clinton because she can't afford to come after him full throttle. So he manages to razzle dazzle us away from these issues, when in reality, plenty of us DO want to talk about these issues because we think they matter as they may indicate a lot about the man. But make no mistake, if he wins the nomination, these tactics will not work with the Republicans. They won't play as nicely in the sandbox and he's in for a rude awakening. They will make sure these issues don't get shuffled aside. Clinton can give as good as she gets against the Republicans. She dealt with them and took their worst for 8 years. But I don't think Obama has the stuff for it. Of course, once he has the nomination, it will be too late to learn that lesson.

I've never voted for a Republican in my life and I won't start now. But I won't vote for Obama either. I guess it's a write-in for me. I can't vote for a charismatic, modern day Neville Chamberlain when history shows me how badly that will probably go. Many Americans loved Reagan and fawned over how charismatic he was, but he never did a thing for me. If I can't believe what they are saying, then no matter how amazing the delivery, the charisma doesn't work on me. I have discovered I am Obama-immune.

 

[Robinrs]

It's interesting to see what I believe to be a large percentage of whites discussing the feelings/ideas of a black person. I grew up in an inner city and was the victum of what is called "reverse discrimination". It's great to have these intellectual discussions; but in the end I don't believe anyone can truly deny their inner feelings. I was not saying what Whoopi proposed was right or wrong, but I definitely can see where that mentality would come from.

I find it interesting for other reasons.. to show my friends in real life so we can laugh our you know whats off....

 

[smartestnumber5]

You paint with too broad a brush and I'm glad to see your psychic powers are in working order. I'm sorry - I am absolutely tired of people telling others that the reason why they are not voting for Obama is because he is black. WHATEVER. This is ridiculous. I can give you at minimum a handful of policy reasons why I could never vote for Obama, without even starting to examine his lack of experience, lack of judgment, etc. I don't need to look at his race - and I don't need any one else telling me that I am not voting for him because of it.

I'm not sure why you quoted me and then responded with this as I never implied anything of the sort and wasn't even talking about whites voting for Obama, but rather women voting for Hillary and blacks voting for Obama.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Since 1868, 121 African Americans have served in the United States Congress.

Isn't it strange that black people are underrepresented in Congress since black population votes primarily democrat. Who's holding them back? Why aren't there at least 5 to 10 black Senators? (there's only one that I know of And there's only been 5 TOTAL). You'd think the really blue states would be able to get more than one.

Nearly ALL of the post reconstruction black US Reps have been/are Democrats but they are underrepresented as well. Again strange for a party that's supposedly been on their side for so long. You'd think they could do better.

Maybe a little Affirmative Action is needed.

So let me understand...

The vast majority of black people DO take race into account when they vote?

I'm convinced that if you took two identical candidates (right down to policies and personality), one black, one white, the vast majority of black voters would elect the black candidate. Of course those would be Democrats because the vast majority of blacks vote Democrat.

Most white people probably DO NOT care about a candidates race.

So where does this frequent projection of white people being racists at the polls come from?

So you think if only black people voted Republican that there would be huge differences in the numbers of African-Americans in congress. Why? Does the republican party have a plan of how to get more blacks into high office? I suspect if they have such a plan all they'd have to do is vocalize it and they'd probably win a lot more support from blacks. As it is, apparently most black voters see something in the democratic party that they don't see in the republican party (it might be nothing more than that the democratic party is the lesser of two evils.)

As it is, the republican party apparently did have overwhelming support from blacks after the civil war and up until the early 20th century, but that disappeared with the New Deal over economic issues--and apparently black voters have in general continued to vote democrat ever since. I'm sure if the republican party were willing to take up the positions the majority of blacks favor on economic and civil rights issues, then the republican party would win many more votes.

As for the bolded lines, I'd like to see evidence that all things being truly equal (meaning, there being exactly proportional racial representation in congress) blacks would be any more likely to choose a black candidate over a similar-on-policies white candidate. I also don't know where you're getting the evidence that white people don't care about race from. (Not saying it's false--it just sounds like it's your opinion.)

Here are some polls:

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Jan. 9-12, 2008. N=995 registered voters nationwide.

"Do you think most people you know would vote for a presidential candidate who is black, or not?"
1/9-12/08 65% Would, 21% Would Not, 14% Unsure

"Would you personally vote for a presidential candidate who is black, or not?"
1/9-12/08 90% Would, 6% Would Not, 4% Unsure

So here it looks like 10% of people admit that they might not or definitely won't vote for a black candidate, while 35% think that most other people they know might not or definitely won't vote for a black candidate. 10% is a pretty scary number on it's own, but then there's the question of why 35% think that most others around them won't vote for a black candidate. It could be a perception error on the part of those answering the question--they tend to think their family members and friends are more racist than they are. Or it could be a self-reporting problem. People might be reluctant to actually admit that they personally would not vote for a black candidate, but are including themselves and other people who think like they do in their answer to the question about others around them. (There'd really have to be a better designed study to figure out if the latter is happening. This kind of thing has been shown to happen when women are asked how many sex partners they've had. If the study is designed so that they have anonymity, women as a group report significantly more partners on average than in a case where their name/voice/face could be associated with their answer.)

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey conducted by Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas. Aug. 1-18, 2007. N=3,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 2. Feb. 2007 survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International.

"Regardless of the specific candidates who are running for president, we'd like to know how you generally feel about some different traits. First, would you be more likely or less likely to support a candidate for president who [see below], or wouldn’t this matter to you? How about if a candidate [see below]?" Items rotated

WOMAN (8/1-18/07)
More Likely 15
Less Likely 12
Wouldn't Matter 72
Unsure 1

BLACK (8/1-18/07)
More Likely 9
Less Likely 6
Wouldn't Matter 84
Unsure 1

So it looks like Hilary gets more of a boost from her gender than Obama does from his race, but she also gets more of a negative effect from her gender than he does from his race (though we don't know the race and gender % of those answering the questions nor do we know if they actually were answering truthfully).

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. July 18-21, 2007. N=1,125 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.

"If you honestly assessed yourself, thinking in general about a/an [see below] president of the United States, is that something you'd be entirely comfortable with, somewhat comfortable, somewhat uncomfortable or entirely uncomfortable?"

WOMAN
Entirely Comfortable 54
Somewhat Comfortable 25
Somewhat Uncomfortable 9
Entirely Uncomfortable 10
Unsure 1

AFRICAN-AMERICAN

Entirely Comfortable 56
Somewhat Comfortable 30
Somewhat Uncomfortable 7
Entirely Uncomfortable 5
Unsure 1

So 12% admit they are uncomfortable with a black president and 19% admit they are uncomfortable with a woman president.

You get a very different story depending on what poll you look at. It seems like most Americans are not very confident at all that their own friends and family would vote for a black candidate, but many fewer Americans actually say that they would not vote for a black candidate. I don't know what's going on to explain that incongruity, but that is probably why there are so many news items asking whether white democrats will vote for Obama. What's interesting is that there are many fewer questions about whether male democrats (and maybe women too?) will vote for Hilary when these polls show more hostility toward a female president than a black one.

 

[smartestnumber5]

White men of European ancestry have had more than their share of political power, and of late I'm none to impressed with how many of them have used it. I think it's perfectly understandable that African-Americans might like to see more African-Americans in office. I would like to see more African-Americans in office, too, and I'm of white European ancestry.

I'm sure most African-Americans are making this decision based on their politics, but race certainly is a factor. Obama being black is a plus. Race is a factor in most facets of everyday life if you are in the minority.

I completely agree.

I think of it like this: Suppose candidate A and B are the same on all the policies I care about and I think they'll make equally good candidates. But candidate A is from an overrepresented group while candidate B is from an underrepresented/disadvantaged group and in fact we have never had a candidate from group B. Well if I can't decide between the candidates on the grounds of policy differences or electability or something like that, then choosing on the basis of making our government more diverse and getting better representation of certain historically discriminated against groups seems like a pretty good way to make the decision.

In the context of presidential elections, the underrepresented/disadvantaged groups in question are likely to be racial, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. groups. But what I'm making my choice based on is the underrepresentation/disadvantage that happens to be the case for that group. It would be an entirely different matter in a different context. For instance, if I were voting for Mayor in a town with a very high Jewish population and the last 15 mayors had all been Jewish, trying to create diversity would mean picking the equally good Christian candidate over the equally good Jewish one. If it were a historically all-female college, that might mean picking a male president.

 

[rayelias]

I wouldn't say that "racism" can be justified, but what you're describing in blacks could simply be resentment rather than true racism, and that is absolutely justifiable in people over a certain age (and I would include Jeremiah Wright in that statement). Blacks old enough to remember the civil rights movement undoubtedly have vivid memories of seeing whites protesting black equality. I don't think it is a stretch at all to say that they may still feel resentment towards whites as a whole for those actions, even after 40 years.

I can appreciate this viewpoint, and it definitely does have merit.

However, IMHO, it is unhealthy for individuals and society as a whole to hold on to resentment.

Japan has every right to be resentful (at the least) towards the US for nuking 2 of their cities. Japanese-Americans, as well for their inernment during WWII. If they held on to that resnetment today, they would not be the economic power that they are, and our friendship/alliances would not be so strong. Same thing goes for West Germany.

Sometimes the "chains that bind you" are self-placed, unfortunately. And, not necessarily consciously, either.

I don't know what the answer is. I just know that people (singluarly and plurally) who don't hold onto the past, and instead live in the present and look towards the future seem to be much happier and succesful.

 

[Charade]

Educating people & talking about the past is the only way to move forward.

True but we don't seem to be able to get beyond the past. Many people feel it's really no different today than it was 40-60 years ago. It most certainly is for the majority of the country.

The feeling I am getting here is that alot of posters (Republicans) are saying they would vote for a blck candidate if they did not mention race, if they did not address the issues that this country is still facing regarding race. For many people that would be the most comfortable thing, but would it be the best thing for everyone in this country? Would we ever have real change or become color blind by ignoring issues?
I can't think of a better person to bring this country & lead us towards real change than Obama. The thing is not everyone wants real change, some people are scared of it & the more generations that adhere to this type of thinking the more divided we will become (IMHO of course!)

Until you mentioned that, no one else has. Where did the "feeling" come from?

 

[Charade]

Many ways but I will give you one because of the context of our discussion here-
My children (& the rest of this country) will be able to look at the cover of a newspaper & not be able to point out the next president to me when faced w/ a young black man & an old white man faster than blinking an eye.
That may seem like a very small insignificant change to some, but I think the trickle down effect can be huge.

So we're just overdue for a black (and then a woman) president regardless of qualifications?

Once we have one of each it'll all be OK?

 

[Charade]

I will say I never expect overnight change, however, one way I would personally hope to see some change,if Obama is elected, is in our energy problem. This is an issue I think that maybe we could see coming to fruition. In that I mean the government putting pressure on the automakers to start creating more fuel efficient cars. I think this may happen, although it is shocking when you think about he 1970s gas crisis and that not a thing was done to try an alleviate our oil needs. I really don't expect a conservative to embrace a "green" issue as strongly as a dem. I feel that his statements about working to get the car companies to build more fuel efficent cars could really happen now becasue of the increased care of the public on green issues and the current gas crisis.

Maybe I am nuts but I actually think he will be an exciting president...it's good to see all of the young involvement and he has energized a lot of people.

Many things were done. But something that wasn't done was allowing us to tap our OWN oil anymore that was already tapped. There are all sorts of alternate sources of energy out there. Have been for decades. Usually they were too expensive for the average person but now they are becoming more affordable. Why? Partly from regulation and partly because the market has changed.

If you asked me 20 years ago if I'd put a wind turbine up in my backyard, I'd probably say "a what?". Now you can get them for a few thousand dollars. Within reach of millions of Americans.

If I had an extra (kinda tight right now because I'm getting married) $10K, I'd probably put one up.

 

[LohKee]

I agree. Any one that thinks a former POW with 2 sons in the military is actively seeking war just for the heck of it is just creating a reason not to like McCain.





You paint with too broad a brush and I'm glad to see your psychic powers are in working order. I'm sorry - I am absolutely tired of people telling others that the reason why they are not voting for Obama is because he is black. WHATEVER. This is ridiculous. I can give you at minimum a handful of policy reasons why I could never vote for Obama, without even starting to examine his lack of experience, lack of judgment, etc. I don't need to look at his race - and I don't need any one else telling me that I am not voting for him because of it.




thumbsup2

Not painting anyone with a brush, just calling it as I see it. Maybe you want to stick your head in the sand about racism, but the fact is that some white people won't vote for him due to his blackness. Just as some people won't vote for Hillary due to sexism!

BTW, I could give a rats **** who you vote for!

 

[CPT Tripss]

Isn't it interesting that one can't begin a conversation, that will be, if it isn't already, a big area of discussion in this election season, without it getting personal? I don't think I assume that anyone on this board votes democratic or republican based on their color. When I point out that black voters vote democratic, there is a historical basis for that....in most elections. If they just voted based on color of the candidate, Michael Steel would have done better.
With regard to the "doctor" comment, you may find that certain "specialties" actually vote democratic; pediatricians for example.

Is that because they are about the lowest paid specialty? Or maybe a sad commentary on "family values?"

Seriously, I think most people would gravitate towards a candidate who they percieve as being a lot like them, particularlty when that candidate is a historic first.

 

[DawnCt1]

[/B]

You can refrence the Civil Rights Movement to see this in action....many politicians were AFRAID to end segregation, fearing they would be on the losing end politically with their constituants...when clearly this was a moral and not political issue. Why could such treatment of a large portion of the country go on for so long...because of the fear of the unknown changes it would bring to white society. It is hard to make real change when people only half heartedly want it.....I agree, Obama has that spark that maybe will begin a real want for change in America and the possiblities it brings.

Lets rephrase that and say "many democrats". It was the Republican of 82 per cent of the Senate Republicans, vs 69% of the Senate Democrats that gave us the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The contrast in the House of Representatives was even more marked, with 61 percent of Dems voting for the Act as against 80 percent of the Republicans. Al Gore's father was one of those who refused to support the Act that enforced the constitutional rights of blacks. Unlike that well-known Democrat Bull Connor who used dogs, clubs and hoses to violate black rights, the genteel Gore merely voted against them.Lets not forget that it was a Republican president who gave us the Emancipation Proclamation as well. When the war was over the Republicans introduced the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments in an effort to protect black rights, all in the teeth of ferocious opposition from Democrats.
And Republicans should not hesitate to shame Democrats into admitting that theirs was the slavery party, the party of the Ku Klux Klan, of Jim Crow, lynchings, burnings and Senator Robert Byrd. It was Democratic judges in the South who only forty years ago strove to keep blacks in their place and out of the polling booth — not Republicans.
It was Republican Justice Warren, an Eisenhower appointee, who stood up to the South's segregationist politicians, not a Democratic appointed judge. It was Warren's actions that finally brought about the full emancipation of all of America's blacks. And it was a Republican president who backed him.

 

[CPT Tripss]

I disagree. I don't think it speaks volumes because I don't think that attitude isn't as prevalent as some people think. I believe there are people like that, which is sad, but I would bet (a Mickey bar) that the majority of white folk don't care what color a person a candidate is.

OTH, I DO believe that the majority of black folk WOULD vote for a black candidate over a white candidate with most all other things being equal.

"Most all other things equal" I'll bet that the large majority of people would vote for the candidate most like them.

 

[Charade]

Maybe you want to stick your head in the sand about racism, but the fact is that some white people won't vote for him due to his blackness. Just as some people won't vote for Hillary due to sexism!

BTW, I could give a rats **** who you vote for!

I don't think anyone has stated that racism is entirely absent in the US but then I don't think it's as pervasive or systemic as some make it out to be.

 

[LukenDC]

Naive is not even the word. Putin, who is still likely the one in power, would eat him for a breakfast snack.

As I considered my vote, the specter of who would be sitting across from Putin was very much on my mind. I would feel far more comfortable with Hillary or McCain in that chair than Obama.

I've never voted for a Republican in my life and I won't start now. But I won't vote for Obama either. I guess it's a write-in for me.

I'm running---vote LukenDC for president!

 

[DawnCt1]

Is that because they are about the lowest paid specialty? Or maybe a sad commentary on "family values?"

Seriously, I think most people would gravitate towards a candidate who they percieve as being a lot like them, particularlty when that candidate is a historic first.

I think as a group that they tend to be more liberal. I know several pediatricians with very lucrative private practices who can well afford to be democrats.