If Obama Weren't Black

[Gumby]

Of course, if Obama wins the regular delegate count and the popular vote and Hillary takes the superdelegates, history will repeat itself, at least if she went on to win the general election.

And the irony is that Hillary railed against the Electoral College in 2000 as "undemocratic" and she qualified support for Joe Lieberman's primary bid in 2006 by saying the voice of the Democratic primary voters needed to be upheld....

No one will be more irate than me if that should occur.

 

[TromboneAl]

Bush was a ... ploitician

As in exploited his position. Great term -- I think it will catch on.

 

[HFWR]

I hope others who have studied the issues to a similar depth will make the same decision to avoid wasting their time in exercising the franchise.

You think voter turnout is low now...

 

[Nords]

I'm surprised that no one has brought up the specter of Bill Clinton owning a White House pass again.

Even if he didn't perjure himself on the nitpicking, we know pretty much what he did in the Oval Office with his leisure time (and the odd cigar). Just imagine what he could do if he was unleashed among the rest of the place while his spouse was otherwise occupied. I'd be afraid to touch a horizontal surface there ever again, let alone the humidors...

 

[Notmuchlonger]

I'm surprised that no one has brought up the specter of Bill Clinton owning a White House pass again.

Even if he didn't perjure himself on the nitpicking, we know pretty much what he did in the Oval Office with his leisure time (and the odd cigar). Just imagine what he could do if he was unleashed among the rest of the place while his spouse was otherwise occupied. I'd be afraid to touch a horizontal surface there ever again, let alone the humidors...

Um probably because it was something I didnt really want to think about. Thanks for bringing it up though

 

[chinaco]

...

Just imagine what he could do if he was unleashed among the rest of the place while his spouse was otherwise occupied. ...

What makes you think he is going to want the collar off?

 

[FIRE'd@51]

I'm surprised that no one has brought up the specter of Bill Clinton owning a White House pass again.

Actually, Mitt Romney alluded to this in a debate.

Bill Clinton back in WH

 

[Letj]

Put it like this. In the back of many people's mind is the concern that Obama might be a closet Sharpton or Jackson. That is the primary concern shared by many... including many Democrats. It is the main reason I am not very likely to vote for him if he is in the general election. That is enough to drive many to the alternative (McCain)... why take the chance? Why roll the dice?

I am not going to let my anger about GWB override my common sense. And Obama is an unknown quantity/quality!

Could you be anymore racist? What would prevent you from voting for him? Because he is a closet Sharpton or Jesse Jackson? Because he is part black, it means that he must be like them? How dispicable! Speaking of being fair and open minded. Geesh! For God sake, the man has been a state Senator for 8 years and a congressman for 4 and displayed no such tendencies yet he didn't pass the test in your eyes? Man, examine your own conscience.

 

[dex]

Could you be anymore racist? What would prevent you from voting for him? Because he is a closet Sharpton or Jesse Jackson? Because he is part black, it means that he must be like them? How dispicable! Speaking of being fair and open minded. Geesh! For God sake, the man has been a state Senator for 8 years and a congressman for 4 and displayed no such tendencies yet he didn't pass the test in your eyes? Man, examine your own conscience.

Did you purposely misinterperate what chinaco wrote just to get you point out? I see this is only your 56th post - I hope you do better in the future.

 

[ziggy29]

Could you be anymore racist? What would prevent you from voting for him? Because he is a closet Sharpton or Jesse Jackson? Because he is part black, it means that he must be like them? How dispicable!

You are misinterpreting.

Earlier in the thread this was mentioned in the context of Obama specifically being endorsed by Sharpton and Jackson, not that the fact that both he and Sharpton are black must mean Obama is another Sharpton.

HUGE difference.

I would agree that the latter is racist, but that wasn't the original context of the author to whom you were replying. You spun this one WAY out of its original context.

 

[chinaco]

Could you be anymore racist? What would prevent you from voting for him? Because he is a closet Sharpton or Jesse Jackson? Because he is part black, it means that he must be like them? How dispicable! Speaking of being fair and open minded. Geesh! For God sake, the man has been a state Senator for 8 years and a congressman for 4 and displayed no such tendencies yet he didn't pass the test in your eyes? Man, examine your own conscience.

Thanks for the overreaction. You have twisted my comments and interpreted them incorrectly. You have connected some dots that do not exist.

No. I am not a racist. I examine my conscience regularly.

Politicians have constituencies and political leanings. I do not know much about Obama. He has been tagged as the most liberal senator (during his brief time in the senate).

My comment (not yours) is a legitimate concern. If he has more radical political positions, I would certainly not vote for him. I am a moderate. He has little track record for me to inspect to determine if he has moderate politics. I am concerned he might start up a bunch of new give away programs that jack up taxes.

Since you were bold enough to make that type of comment. Would you mind educating me... why I should vote for him? Give me 5 relevant facts that would help me overcome those concerns.

 

[Notmuchlonger]

"Would you mind educating me... why I should vote for him? Give me 5 relevant facts that would help me overcome those concerns."

1. He has a kickass video
2. He is not Hillary
3. He is not McCain
4. Oprah has his back
5. Those 4 are good enough dont need a 5th O0

 

[Letj]

Thanks for the overreaction.

No. I am not a racist. I examine my conscience regularly.

Politicians have constituencies and political leanings. I do not know much about Obama. He has been tagged as the most liberal senator (during his brief time in the senate).

It is a legitimate concern. If he has more radical political positions, I would certainly not vote for him. I am a moderate. He has little track record for me to inspect to determine if he has moderate politics. I am concerned he might start up a bunch of new give away programs that jack up taxes.

Since you were bold enough to make that type of comment. Would you mind educating me... why I should vote for him? Give me 5 relevant facts that would help me overcome those concerns.

Ok, I admit I did not read the whole thread. However, in scanning I saw your comments and I interpreted your comments without considering the context of the entire thread. I could give you a million reasons why you should vote for Obama but I think you will be better served by visiting barackobama.com. There's a reason why he has received so many endorsements from political heavy weights; even Colin Powell and Mayor Bloomberg like and admire his positions. I can tell that you are quite cynical but I would encourage you to not look at a candidate because of the political labels that get thrown around - liberal, conservative, etc. but rather examine a candidate within the entire context of their positions. While you may disagree with aspects of a politician's position, keep in mind that you are not voting just for yourself but for a nation. As a fellow citizen, it breaks may heart when people take these positions based on the "group" they belong to and don't consider what's good for their country as a whole. As Obama says it's not about liberal America or conservative America; it's about the US of A. Spend some time pondering this and maybe just maybe you'll be able to transcend your little "conservative group" thinking and by the way I don't know what you mean by radical positions. The last time I checked he wasn't advocating state ownership of private property.

 

[Notmuchlonger]

Ok, I admit I did not read the whole thread. However, in scanning I saw your comments and I interpreted your comments without considering the context of the entire thread. I could give you a million reasons why you should vote for Obama but I think you will be better served by visiting barackobama.com. There's a reason why he has received so many endorsements from political heavy weights; even Colin Powell and Mayor Bloomberg like and admire his positions. I can tell that you are quite cynical but I would encourage you to not look at a candidate because of the political labels that get thrown around - liberal, conservative, etc. but rather examine a candidate within the entire context of their positions. While you may disagree with aspects of a politician's position, keep in mind that you are not voting just for yourself but for a nation. As a fellow citizen, it breaks may heart when people take these positions based on the "group" they belong to and don't consider what's good for their country as a whole. As Obama says it's not about liberal America or conservative America; it's about the US of A. Spend some time pondering this and maybe just maybe you'll be able to transcend your little "conservative group" thinking and by the way I don't know what you mean by radical positions. The last time I checked he wasn't advocating state ownership of private property.

You seem like you have a smidge of anger inside.

 

[chinaco]

Ok, I admit I did not read the whole thread. ... but I think you will be better served by visiting barackobama.com. ...

I did visit the site. I saw some position that I would agree with... others I would be concerned about. Let's face it, there are several burning issues this election, they all have an answer.

I can tell that you are quite cynical

Why shouldn't I be cynical, cautious and concerned? For that matter none of the candidates are perfect. I will vote for the one that seems to best fit my concerns. None of them address certain issues to my satisfaction. Some are 180 degrees different than I would prefer. For example, I am not against legal immigration... but I am against any amnesty like program for illegals.

Spend some time pondering this and maybe just maybe you'll be able to transcend your little "conservative group" thinking and by the way I don't know what you mean by radical positions. The last time I checked he wasn't advocating state ownership of private property.

Now you are talking to me like I am a moron. I am fairly liberal on some issues. But I am a bit of a hawk on taxes for handouts.


Much of the credible Black leadership is backing Hillary. What in the world does that mean? If they are not backing him... why should I even consider taking a chance on him? How would you label the traditional Black leaders for backing Hillary?

 

[Gumby]

Much of the credible Black leadership is backing Hillary. What in the world does that mean? If they are not backing him... why should I even consider taking a chance on him? How would you label the traditional Black leaders for backing Hillary?

Chinaco: I know that it may not be your intent, but this type of statement makes you sound racist. The traditional leadership of the Democratic party, black and white, started out supporting Clinton. She was and is the establishment candidate. Many of these people owe much of their political position to her and her husband. It is understandable that they would supprt her, although I'll wager that many of them do not like her. And I expect many of them to desert her once it becomes clear that Obama is probably going to win the nomination.

As an aside, there are websites that will allow you to compare the three main candidates side by side on any number of issues. Try one and see how they all line up. Clinton and Obama are almost neck and neck, McCain is somewhat different, but not too different. In large measure, we are making judgments about character and temperament. From what I have seen, I choose Obama, even though he is a bit too centrist for my liking.

 

[Gumby]

Also, Chinaco:

You asked for policy reasons to support him.

1. Supreme Court - He will appoint supreme court justices who respect the civil rights of individual Americans and who will not roll over for the Executive Branch.

2. Health Care -- his plan goes a long way toward universal health care while recognizing that you can't make people choose between health care and food. If it were mine to do, I would eliminate insurance companies altogether and have direct pay, government funding for everyone. But I recognize the need to work with the system we have and I think he does that better than Clinton.

3. Iraq -- he was right about the war in the beginning. He will remove our troops expeditiously but not rashly.

4. Immigration -- he understands that we can't simply round up 12 million people and deport them. He will work for border security, reduce incentives for people to immigrate illegally (i.e. - go after the employers whose demand drives the system), but bring the current undocumented population out of the shadows and give them a legitimate path to becoming citizens.

5. Education -- recognizes that No CHild Left behind was political theater, not sound educational policy. believes that education is more than merely producing cogs for the machine and that passing a test is not the sole measure of an educated citizenry. Will work to make college more affordable (I think his plan doesn't really go far enough on this; college should be free, like it is in Europe)

There are many more, but that should get you started.

 

[ChrisC]

Now you are talking to me like I am a moron. I am fairly liberal on some issues. But I am a bit of a hawk on taxes for handouts.

Much of the credible Black leadership is backing Hillary. What in the world does that mean? If they are not backing him... why should I even consider taking a chance on him? How would you label the traditional Black leaders for backing Hillary?

I don't know what you mean by credible black leadership; does that include Congressmen Jesse Jackson, Jr., or John Lewis (who now appears shifting to Obama) or former Governor Douglas Wilder? Or for that fact, does most of the Congressional Black Caucus count as part of your black leadership assessment -- they now appear to back Obama. Does Oprah count in your assessment of black leadership? I think the most telling black leader who is straddling the fence right now is Congressman Clyburn and the fact that Hillary has been unable to obtain his endorsement says a lot right now! The so-called "credible" black leaders that backed Hillary, like Congressman Rangel, did so before the bandwagon got started and before Obama became a credible candidate. Finally, why would you ever base your assessment of a candidate like Obama, Hillary or McCain on what the so-called credible black leaders are saying -- this sounds a bit odd to me. And it makes no sense to attach labels or any major political litmus significance to these endorsements -- as Obama is a change candidate, not beholden to the current political leadership. Even if he didn't have the support of the credible black leadership, it wouldn't change the current political dynamics of his candidacy.

 

[chinaco]

Chinaco: I know that it may not be your intent, but this type of statement makes you sound racist. The traditional leadership of the Democratic party, black and white, started out supporting Clinton. She was and is the establishment candidate. Many of these people owe much of their political position to her and her husband. It is understandable that they would supprt her, although I'll wager that many of them do not like her. And I expect many of them to desert her once it becomes clear that Obama is probably going to win the nomination.

As an aside, there are websites that will allow you to compare the three main candidates side by side on any number of issues. Try one and see how they all line up. Clinton and Obama are almost neck and neck, McCain is somewhat different, but not too different. In large measure, we are making judgments about character and temperament. From what I have seen, I choose Obama, even though he is a bit too centrist for my liking.

You are correct on one point. It is not my intent to sound racist and I am not one.

Playing the race card is a pretty low blow. Not sure about your intentions. But, you are much more likely to alienate people... more than just the target of the attack.

Just about any comment could be construed and not being PC. One thing is for sure, it is a quick way to end any discussion or debate about what people are thinking.

 

[Letj]

I


Much of the credible Black leadership is backing Hillary. What in the world does that mean? If they are not backing him... why should I even consider taking a chance on him? How would you label the traditional Black leaders for backing Hillary?

You are correct but the reason is quite obvious. Everyone of them has their hands in the Clinton pockets. Just wait, they'll start dropping her like hot potatos

 

[Gumby]

Chinaco:

I really don't believe you are a racist. I'm just telling you that the comment rings hollow and is offputting. Obama is not a "black candidate" and a reference to the support of "credible black leaders" as some sort of litmus test is unnecessary and wrong. Clinton was and is the establishment candidate. You can draw any necessary conclusions from that, without injecting a racial element.

 

[chinaco]

Chinaco:

I really don't believe you are a racist. I'm just telling you that the comment rings hollow and is offputting. Obama is not a "black candidate" and a reference to the support of "credible black leaders" as some sort of litmus test is unnecessary and wrong. Clinton was and is the establishment candidate. You can draw any necessary conclusions from that, without injecting a racial element.

My concern is not about race, it is about taxes and known versus little known. The credible comment was a contrast the support between the two candidates (Sharpton vs leaders like Julian Bond). From what I have seen on the news Hillary has more backing from known political figures.

Will those political figure switch horses during the race... well they are politicians.

I trust you will not read anything into my use of the word horses and the analogy of a race.

By the way. You and letj did not do anything but alienate me. And probably a few others that are sitting on the sidelines watching.

This seems a bit pointless and counterproductive. Let's just move on.

 

[Gumby]

From what I have seen on the news Hillary has more backing from known political figures.

A fine, race-neutral observation, which was my only point. The way you put it the first time sounded, at least to my ears, as "Even his own kind don't like him, why should I." Maybe I have been unnecessarily sensitive on this point. In any event, your suggestion that we move on is a good one.

 

[chinaco]

A fine, race-neutral observation, which was my only point. The way you put it the first time sounded, at least to my ears, as "Even his own kind don't like him, why should I." Maybe I have been unnecessarily sensitive on this point. In any event, your suggestion that we move on is a good one.

Gumby

Cloaking your comments in words like "people may interpret it this way or that" is a thin veil for a personal attack.

Expounding on your interpretation of my comment in an attempt to show it as rational and reasonable is a bit irritating.

The fact is, you are insulting me. But I suspect you know that.

And yes we should move on.

 

[Janet H]

This thread was closed due to the escalating rhetoric of the participants. It is not a comment on any particular poster or post, nor a judgment of who is right or wrong. In the heat of this political season, many are driven to use harsh words with each other, which is contrary to the spirit and the letter of the board rules. Please stop.

On behalf of the site staff,

Janet