FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

Race is arguably the biggest issue in this election, and it’s one that nobody’s talking about.

The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn’t be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense…unless it’s race.

Time magazine’s Michael Grunwald says race is the elephant in the room. He says Barack Obama needs to tread lightly as he fights back against the McCain-Palin campaign attacks.

He writes, “Over the past 18 months, Obama has been attacked as a naive novice, an empty suit, a tax-and-spend liberal, an arugula-grazing élitist and a corrupt ward heeler, but the only attacks that clearly stung him involved the Rev. Jeremiah Wright - attacks that portrayed him as an angry black man under the influence of an even angrier black man.”

The angry black man, he goes on to say, doesn’t have broad appeal in White America. And even though the makeup of our population is changing, whites are still the majority in this country. How ironic that the giant step forward of nominating an African American for president may ultimately keep us mired in the past.

Here’s my question to you: Will Barack Obama’s race cost him the White House?

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/16/obama-race-a-factor/





I expected the race card to make its appearance, but not so soon. Love his attempt to make Reverand Wright's angry racist tirades a product of white fear. Guilty white people make me physically ill.

If Obama loses this race its because he is a radical left winger and the Democrats are a bunch of boobs who have strayed so far from where they started they can no longer win big races, even "slam dunk" ones like this.

Yes, because we know race plays no part in politics in America. Cough, Willie Horton, cough.

I don't know if it will decide the election, but it's definitely one factor. There are plenty of people who won't vote for him because he's black.

Did you miss my last post on this guy:

I'll say. Jack Cafferty is the most biased "reporter" on television right now. He's worse than Olbermann:

Jack: Wolf, I just want to read you a few email responses to today's question: "What do you think of Sarah Palin?"

Cindy in Montana writes: "I think Sarah Palin is an evil disgusting human being. She's worse than Hitler. In fact, she's more evil than if Hitler and Lord Voldemort had a baby. In fact, there's a 10th circle of Hell about which Dante didn't describe because it was too awful, and that's the Circle of Sarah Palin. She eats puppies, shoots babies as target practice, and has a secret pit in the back of the Alaskan Governor's mansion where she keeps legions of Jews, Women, and African Americans to torture for her amusement. I wish she would die, but unfortunately she's an undead, evil temptress that only The One can destroy. Praised be Obama!"

Wolf, so far I've gotten over 93,000 emails about our question, and not one of them is even remotely positive. Most just view her as the human embodiment of all that is evil.


Yes, because we know race plays no part in politics in America. Cough, Willie Horton, cough.

This is more than making a point. He's trying to guilt whites into voting for Obama.

"If you vote for McCain, you're a racist!"

I think the sexists have evened things out. The only reason McCain isn't up by 10 points is because he picked the split tail.

Cafferty is lame.

Race plays a role in politics, but I'm hoping its not a big role.

If Obama wins, some of his supporters will blame it on racists.

I thought the argument was that race would help Obama in the polls but not in the actual vote.

Yes, because we know race plays no part in politics in America. Cough, Willie Horton, cough.

I don't know if it will decide the election, but it's definitely one factor. There are plenty of people who won't vote for him because he's black.

You're right that race plays a factor, but you're wrong about how it plays into the campaign. If Obama were WHITE he wouldn't be the nominee.

I expected the race card to make its appearance, but not so soon.

I read this column by Jacob Weisberg a month ago: "If Obama Loses: Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him." (http://www.slate.com/id/2198397/)

Sure there are racists out there who won't vote for him, but to suggest that's the only reason why Obama could lose is ridiculous.

If Obama were WHITE he wouldn't be the nominee.

This statement is more ridiculous than anything Cafferty said. :shrug:

Why do you think it's ridiculous? Do you think it is untrue?

I also think race plays a bigger role than what we're willing to admit.

Gender also may a role. I don't think it will be as much as the racial one.

Why do you think it's ridiculous? Do you think it is untrue?

Yes, not only untrue but absurd.

Yes, not only untrue but absurd.

This is not a direction I think we need to go, but I will ask one question. Would Senator Obama had won the nomination if he only received 50% of the Black vote in the primaries?

The other, larger point, is that a great many of us here called this moment months ago, the moment where the only reason for a Senator Obama loss is racism, and where the only reason people won't vote for him is due to racism.

It's no accident that only white males have been president.

This is not a direction I think we need to go, but I will ask one question. Would Senator Obama had won the nomination if he only received 50% of the Black vote in the primaries?

Why do you assume a hypothetical "white" Obama would not have received the black vote?

It's no accident that only white males have been president.

Careful. That could really be spun badly. ;)

I'd just like to point out that Obama is as much white as he is black :)

This is not a direction I think we need to go, but I will ask one question. Would Senator Obama had won the nomination if he only received 50% of the Black vote in the primaries?


No

The other, larger point, is that a great many of us here called this moment months ago, the moment where the only reason for a Senator Obama loss is racism, and where the only reason people won't vote for him is due to racism.

Because the race issue was as obvious months ago as it is today.

The notion that race is the only reason Obama may lose is just as absurd as the notion that he only got the nomination because he's black AND that race has nothing to do with who wins.

I don't know if it will decide the election, but it's definitely one factor. There are plenty of people who won't vote for him because he's black.

Yep. There are also many who'll vote for him ONLY because he's Black.

I remember when Hillary was an issue in the race and everyone was talking about how Black Women were in a weird place because they were having to decide between Hillary and Obama. If they didn't automatically choose Obama, then they were labeled sell outs for not voting for the Black person. But then the idea of having the 1st Women President was also a huge draw. Oprah got a lotta shit for supporting Obama from some women too.

I guess the lucky thing for them was that both the Woman and the Black were both Democrats. Otherwise they'd have to go into hiding. :lol:

Yes, not only untrue but absurd.

Do you think Sarah Palin would be the VP candidate if she was male?

I'd just like to point out that Obama is as much white as he is black :)


Yeah people forget he's only Half-Black. But then again America has the "one drop of colored blood" law doesn't it? :lol:

This is not a direction I think we need to go, but I will ask one question. Would Senator Obama had won the nomination if he only received 50% of the Black vote in the primaries?


Thank you.

I think HC had little shot of winning the nomination and only became very attractive to voters when the alternative was Obama. A bit revisionist to declare Hillary the darling of the left. :lol:

Do you think Sarah Palin would be the VP candidate if she was male?

Sarah Palin was appointed, not elected by 18 million people.

The notion that race is the only reason Obama may lose is [just as] absurd


I agree with this.

Do you think Sarah Palin would be the VP candidate if she was male?

Another question is would Sarah Palin be the GOP VP candidate if Hillary had won the nomination? I doubt it.

Sarah Palin was appointed, not elected by 18 million people.

And don't you believe that some of those 18 million voted for Obama simply because of the color of his skin? Given the razor thin margin of the primary, you don't believe that could make a difference?

I think HC had little shot of winning the nomination and only became very attractive to voters when the alternative was Obama. A bit revisionist to declare Hillary the darling of the left. :lol:

maybe I'm remembering wrong but wasn't HC considered the favorite to win the nomination a year ago?

I think HC had little shot of winning the nomination and only became very attractive to voters when the alternative was Obama. A bit revisionist to declare Hillary the darling of the left. :lol:

Yet the polls and her performance would indicate otherwise.

And to answer your previous question with a question, why did a politician who always polled very favorably amongst black voters, was leading with them in most early Democrat polls, and who shares virtually all of the same policies with Mr. Obama end up getting only about 20% of the black vote?

Yet the polls and her performance would indicate otherwise.

And to answer your previous question with a question, why did a politician who always polled very favorably amongst black voters, was leading with them in most early Democrat polls, and who shares virtually all of the same policies with Mr. Obama end up getting only about 20% of the black vote?

Did she end up getting 20% of the black vote?

I also think race plays a bigger role than what we're willing to admit.I'm willing to admit it. If Obama loses I'm pretty much convinced it's because he's <strike>black</strike> multi-racial and has a "funny" name.

Dems are whining about racism, Reps are whining about sexism.

Can't we all just agree that EVERYBODY is a bigot and move on?

And I'll admit I was wrong. I didn't believe Obama had a chance to win the Democratic nomination because he was black. I was wrong.

But the Democratic primary electorate isn't necessarily the same as the general electorate.

Did she end up getting 20% of the black vote?

When you factor in California and New York I believe she came close. I honestly have not seen any nationwide statistics though.

Oh, and the reason Obama won the nomination - his race.

I think I've posted this before, but essentially, Obama is the latest in a long line of Democratic candidates who appealed less to the party's working class base but more to the better educated, middle-class members of the party. Hart, Bradley, Tsongas, and Brown are others who had this sort of support. The reason why none of them ever got the nomination is because they didn't get the support of black voters in the primaries. Obama did, and that was enough to make the difference for him.

Well, she got Charlie Rangel's vote. ;)

This statement is more ridiculous than anything Cafferty said. :shrug:

:lol: This is absurd. Obama had as much chance getting the nomination as a white junior senator with 2/3 of his first term completed as Palin had of getting the nomination of the GOP if she had run for president.

I also think race plays a bigger role than what we're willing to admit.


Race is playing a HUGE role in this campaign...it's the elephant (pardon the GOP pun) in the room no one is talking about. Sexism is too, but to a lesser degree, I think. I think sexism was more blatant in the Dem. primaries.

Whether you're "seeing" it or not all depends on what part of the country you live in...it's more prominent (or at least more evident) in the rural areas than the big cities and suburbs.

Race is playing a HUGE role in this campaign...it's the elephant (pardon the GOP pun) in the room no one is talking about. Sexism is too, but to a lesser degree, I think. I think sexism was more blatant in the Dem. primaries.

Whether you're "seeing" it or not all depends on what part of the country you live in...it's more prominent (or at least more evident) in the rural areas than the big cities and suburbs.

Yeah, because the "Democrats" in the big cities aren't just voting for Obama because he's black or anything.

Guilty white people all across America feel better about themselves by "making history" as well in voting for Obama. My take is the race factor mostly cancels itself out.

When you factor in California and New York I believe she came close. I honestly have not seen any nationwide statistics though.Not nationwide, but here's what I could get from the exit polls:

<b>Percentage of African-American vote received in 2008 Democratic Primary</b>
<table border = 1><tr><td align = "left" width = 200><b>State</b></td><td align = "right" width = 100><b>Clinton</b></td><td align = right width = 100><b>Obama</b></td></tr><tr><td align = "left">Alabama</td><td align = right>15</td><td align = right>84</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">Arkansas</td><td align = right>25</td><td align = right>74</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">California</td><td align = right>18</td><td align = right>78</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">Connecticut</td><td align = right>24</td><td align = right>74</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">Delaware</td><td align = right>9</td><td align = right>86</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">Florida</td><td align = right>25</td><td align = right>73</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">Georgia</td><td align = right>11</td><td align = right>88</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">Illinois</td><td align = right>5</td><td align = right>93</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">Indiana</td><td align = right>11</td><td align = right>89</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">Kentucky</td><td align = right>7</td><td align = right>90</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">Louisiana</td><td align = right>13</td><td align = right>86</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">Maryland</td><td align = right>15</td><td align = right>84</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">Massachusetts</td><td align = right>29</td><td align = right>66</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">Michigan</td><td align = right>30</td><td align = right>0</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">Mississippi</td><td align = right>8</td><td align = right>92</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">Missouri</td><td align = right>15</td><td align = right>84</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">Nevada</td><td align = right>14</td><td align = right>83</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">New Jersey</td><td align = right>14</td><td align = right>82</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">New York</td><td align = right>37</td><td align = right>61</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">North Carolina</td><td align = right>7</td><td align = right>91</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">Ohio </td><td align = right>13</td><td align = right>87</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">Pennsylvania </td><td align = right>10</td><td align = right>90</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">South Carolina</td><td align = right>19</td><td align = right>78</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">Tennessee </td><td align = right>22</td><td align = right>77</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">Texas </td><td align = right>16</td><td align = right>84</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">Virginia </td><td align = right>10</td><td align = right>90</td></tr><tr><td align = "left">Wisconsin </td><td align = right>8</td><td align = right>91</td></tr></table>

Race is playing a HUGE role in this campaign...it's the elephant (pardon the GOP pun) in the room no one is talking about. Sexism is too, but to a lesser degree, I think. I think sexism was more blatant in the Dem. primaries.

Whether you're "seeing" it or not all depends on what part of the country you live in...it's more prominent (or at least more evident) in the rural areas than the big cities and suburbs.

If it does exist (significantly), I would guess it is more regional around the country than based on "rural" and "big city." The idea that rural areas are racist and big cities are enlightened is old and stupid. But then, maybe elitism is playing a bigger role in this election than I thought. :lol:

Yeah, because the "Democrats" in the big cities aren't just voting for Obama because he's black or anything.

Guilty white people all across America feel better about themselves by "making history" as well in voting for Obama. My take is the race factor mostly cancels itself out.

Democrats will vote for Obama most likely because, get this,






























he's a Democrat.

I think the country has reached a point where, if Barack Obama loses this election, it won't be because he is black. It will be because he's from the same party that lost the last two elections it should have won.

Democrats will vote for Obama most likely because, get this,






he's a Democrat.



But Republicans will vote for McCain because, get this,










































they are evil racists who eat babies and want to kill the earth™



Or was it because he's a Republican?

But Republicans will vote for McCain because, get this,

they are evil racists who eat babies and want to kill the earth™

Or was it because he's a Republican?

That's a question I don't care about. I only was answering your ridiculous claim.

The election is going to come down to undecided/independent voters, obviously.

That's a question I don't care about. I only was answering your ridiculous claim.

The election is going to come down to undecided/independent voters, obviously.

You are saying the Dems will vote for Obama because he's a dem. A valid assumption, plausible. Is it not plausible then to suggest the Republicans will vote for their guy because he's a Republican? According to the subject of the OP, the Republicans are unenlightened racists who are voting against their interests to block a black man from the presidency.

The election is going to come down to undecided/independent voters, obviously.

In that case Obama's f*cked. Last I read he was 15 points behind McCain from likely indep voters. A far left liberal doesn't win these elections.

You are saying the Dems will vote for Obama because he's a dem. A valid assumption, plausible. Is it not plausible then to suggest the Republicans will vote for their guy because he's a Republican? According to the subject of the OP, the Republicans are unenlightened racists who are voting against their interests to block a black man from the presidency.

How do I make this clearer? I'M NOT DISPUTING YOUR CLAIM. Comprende?

In that case Obama's f*cked. Last I read he was 15 points behind McCain from likely indep voters. A far left liberal doesn't win these elections.

you forgot undecided voters.

I'd just like to point out that Obama is as much white as he is black :)

Considering that race is a social cosntruct, that's not true. He has a white parent and a black parent, but the course of his life has put him squarely in society's "black" box, not its "white" box.

And don't you believe that some of those 18 million voted for Obama simply because of the color of his skin? Given the razor thin margin of the primary, you don't believe that could make a difference?

I agree that some people voted for Senator Obama because he's a black man. I also believe that some people voted for Senator Clinton because Senator Obama is a black man. I tend to think there are more people in the latter group than the former, but there's probably no way to tell for sure.

Dems are whining about racism, Reps are whining about sexism.

Can't we all just agree that EVERYBODY is a bigot and move on?

I'd expect one of you people to take that view. -ohbfrank-

I'd expect one of you people to take that view. -ohbfrank-

And I'd expect that attitude from your kind.

The undecided voter: Do you believe the polls overstate the number of undecided voters 48 days before the election?

In that case Obama's f*cked. Last I read he was 15 points behind McCain from likely indep voters. A far left liberal doesn't win these elections.

As of today Obama is at 47% and McCain is at 45% according to the gallop poll. Basically a tie.

In that case Obama's f*cked. Last I read he was 15 points behind McCain from likely indep voters. A far left liberal doesn't win these elections.The most recent national poll I could find has Obama with a one-point lead among independents, which is a statistical tie.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1642854220080917

People on both sides will be shocked at how wide a margin McCain wins by and this is because there are just too many passive/aggressive racists that defy accurate polling. There are several subjects that trip polling up- sexual matters are one and race is another. People would not admit they have a small dick or can't get it up or are frigid over the phone to a stranger, just like they wouldn't admit that ultimately they will be guided by race in who they WON'T vote for.
Pallin gives these people the excuse to be progressive, just like the term "pro-life" gives (others) a feeling of striving for a positive rather than a negative ("no choice").
Anyone that thinks this election isn't a one issue election is in serious denial. Look at the gulf in tone between the two campaigns.
Can anyone say with a straight face that M/Ps campaign is about INSPIRING support. Nothing about that campaign has been inspiring- unless you count the installation of a tabla rasa future neo con tool like Pallin into the 'alternate' spot.
I'm sure the Rovian gutter-level campaign they are waging will make 'reaching across the aisle' a more do-able concept.
Meanwhile Virgil Tibbs has to hold his tounge, keep taking the high road, and then suck it up when we all see that temperment, articulation, energy, and sheer class of character aren't enough to defeat "4 more years" of 80% who feel this country is going the wrong way.

I agree that some people voted for Senator Obama because he's a black man. I also believe that some people voted for Senator Clinton because Senator Obama is a black man. I tend to think there are more people in the latter group than the former, but there's probably no way to tell for sure.

Overall, maybe. Out of Democrats, I suspect not.

This idea that there are millions of closet racists who will vote against Obama to block him simply because he is black is ridiculous. Every single person I know who is voting for McCain is doing so because either 1)They like McCain, 2)They don't want a liberal socialist with ties to terrorism and racist and radical pastors in the White House, or 3)a combination of both.

:lol:

ties to terrorism? you mean one fundraiser?

This idea that there are millions of closet racists who will vote against Obama to block him simply because he is black is ridiculous. Every single person I know who is voting for McCain is doing so because either 1)They like McCain, 2)They don't want a liberal socialist with ties to terrorism and racist and radical pastors in the White House, or 3)a combination of both.

I personally think most people that think Wright is racist are racist themselves. Lets face it if you think that obama is racist because he sat in a church for twenty years then you must think everyone raised by racist are racist. It wouldn't be possible for them to be any other way. All those people that protested against King would have spawned racist children. All those people that fought so hard against letting black people vote would have spawned racist. All those people that did nothing while black people (like Wright) were forced to eat outside of restaurants while they ate inside would have spawned racist. No other way around it.

People on both sides will be shocked at how wide a margin McCain wins by and this is because there are just too many passive/aggressive racists that defy accurate polling. There are several subjects that trip polling up- sexual matters are one and race is another. People would not admit they have a small dick or can't get it up or are frigid over the phone to a stranger, just like they wouldn't admit that ultimately they will be guided by race in who they WON'T vote for.
Pallin gives these people the excuse to be progressive, just like the term "pro-life" gives (others) a feeling of striving for a positive rather than a negative ("no choice").
Anyone that thinks this election isn't a one issue election is in serious denial. Look at the gulf in tone between the two campaigns.
Can anyone say with a straight face that M/Ps campaign is about INSPIRING support. Nothing about that campaign has been inspiring- unless you count the installation of a tabla rasa future neo con tool like Pallin into the 'alternate' spot.
I'm sure the Rovian gutter-level campaign they are waging will make 'reaching across the aisle' a more do-able concept.
Meanwhile Virgil Tibbs has to hold his tounge, keep taking the high road, and then suck it up when we all see that temperment, articulation, energy, and sheer class of character aren't enough to defeat "4 more years" of 80% who feel this country is going the wrong way.

Egads, we've set up the "reason why we lost" program already. But now instead of the usual "people are dumb" we have gone to "people are racist."

I suppose everyone has to find a reason other than, "people preferred the ideas of the other guy and I am not in the majority on that view." It would make for shorter threads. :lol:

I think the bigger elephant in the room is the ridiculousness that was the Democratic primary race. How many people are still talking about that? For a long time, a good chunk of the party faithful were focusing on Obama's negatives, saying he wasn't ready to lead, had questionable judgement in his choice of ministers, 'probably wasn't a Muslim', etc. IMHO, that's come around and bit them on the ass. Hell, the attacks on Obama were about as bad then as they are now and they were coming from the people that are on his side.

This is an election where the centrist vote was set to be served up to the Democrats on a platter and they spent months infighting and creating doubt about the candidate they ended up selecting. It obviously didn't destroy Obama's chances, but it definitely opened a door that otherwise would've been closed and the Republicans have capitalized. If Obama loses the election because of a tiny segment of people willing to vote against a candidate they agree with because of the color of his skin, he can thank the rest of his party for helping it become that close of a race in the first place.

I think the bigger elephant in the room is the ridiculousness that was the Democratic primary race. How many people are still talking about that? For a long time, a good chunk of the party faithful were focusing on Obama's negatives, saying he wasn't ready to lead, had questionable judgement in his choice of ministers, 'probably wasn't a Muslim', etc. IMHO, that's come around and bit them on the ass. Hell, the attacks on Obama were about as bad then as they are now and they were coming from the people that are on his side.

This is an election where the centrist vote was set to be served up to the Democrats on a platter and they spent months infighting and creating doubt about the candidate they ended up selecting. It obviously didn't destroy Obama's chances, but it definitely opened a door that otherwise would've been closed and the Republicans have capitalized. If Obama loses the election because of a tiny segment of people willing to vote against a candidate they agree with because of the color of his skin, he can thank the rest of his party for helping it become that close of a race in the first place.

That's assuming every voter has actually investigated a candidate's positions on issues, and further, that they trust him/her to follow those positions once in office.

Plenty of people vote based on looks, personality, or some other identifying characteristic that makes the candidate attractive. Or unattractive when voting against.

I totally agree with your statement that Dems had the centrist vote handed to them on a platter and blew it.

Egads, we've set up the "reason why we lost" program already. But now instead of the usual "people are dumb" we have gone to "people are racist."

I suppose everyone has to find a reason other than, "people preferred the ideas of the other guy and I am not in the majority on that view." It would make for shorter threads. :lol:

That might be possible if M/P were running a campaign that was based on ideas for governance, but they aren't. Their campaign is about phony outrage, just how pervy their opponent is, and the typical 'they still haven't caught on/works every time- He's worse for your pocketbook because he's a liberal socialist' canard. If race were out of the equation does anyone really think the Republicans would win this time based on whose better for your money?

I personally think most people that think Wright is racist are racist themselves. Lets face it if you think that obama is racist because he sat in a church for twenty years then you must think everyone raised by racist are racist. It wouldn't be possible for them to be any other way. All those people that protested against King would have spawned racist children. All those people that fought so hard against letting black people vote would have spawned racist. All those people that did nothing while black people (like Wright) were forced to eat outside of restaurants while they ate inside would have spawned racist. No other way around it.

Can anyone translate this nonsense?

No.

It's too nonsensical.

That might be possible if M/P were running a campaign that was based on ideas for governance, but they aren't. Their campaign is about phony outrage, just how pervy their opponent is, and the typical 'they still haven't caught on/works every time- He's worse for your pocketbook because he's a liberal socialist' canard. If race were out of the equation does anyone really think the Republicans would win this time based on whose better for your money?


Probably not, but I think the liberal factor is just as important.

The fact is that if the Democrats could have found a warm-blooded centrist to put up for the general, he or she would be talking to people about how to decorate the WH right now.

That's assuming every voter has actually investigated a candidate's positions on issues, and further, that they trust him/her to follow those positions once in office.

Plenty of people vote based on looks, personality, or some other identifying characteristic that makes the candidate attractive. Or unattractive when voting against.The work of Samuel Popkin, et. al., disputes this claim. Voters are actually quite good at taking small amounts of information about candidates and from that information making reasoned choices based on how those candidates stand on the issues.

For example, let's say we put the two candidates in boxes and labeled the boxes with a "D" and an "R". Even if we don't know anything else about those candidates, we would be able to accurately guess their views on tax policy, abortion, aid to education, affirmative action, gay marriage, universal health care, the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and any number of other issues. Even if we replaced the candidates with ones named "Clinton" and "Romney", our guesses would still be accurate.

Voters know where the two parties stand on most issues, and with that information alone they are able to guess with surprising accuracy how two competeting candidates stand on the issues. It's not perfect, but voters are better at choosing than you might think, even if they are just as poorly informed as you think them to be.

Yes, because we know race plays no part in politics in America. Cough, Willie Horton, cough.

I don't know if it will decide the election, but it's definitely one factor. There are plenty of people who won't vote for him because he's black.And there are plenty of people who are voting for him because he is black.

And there are plenty of people who are voting for him because he is black.Actually, most (probably almost all) of those people are voting for him because he's a Democrat.

That might be possible if M/P were running a campaign that was based on ideas for governance, but they aren't. Their campaign is about phony outrage, just how pervy their opponent is, and the typical 'they still haven't caught on/works every time- He's worse for your pocketbook because he's a liberal socialist' canard. If race were out of the equation does anyone really think the Republicans would win this time based on whose better for your money?


Step 2 in "why we lost' program. Back up racism with proof that the other side had no way to win because they did not even run a campaign that a sane person could vote for. Thus, those that did are both insane, and racist.

:lol:

What you say about M/P is the same as what the other side says about O/B.

The work of Samuel Popkin, et. al., disputes this claim. Voters are actually quite good at taking small amounts of information about candidates and from that information making reasoned choices based on how those candidates stand on the issues.

For example, let's say we put the two candidates in boxes and labeled the boxes with a "D" and an "R". Even if we don't know anything else about those candidates, we would be able to accurately guess their views on tax policy, abortion, aid to education, affirmative action, gay marriage, universal health care, the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and any number of other issues. Even if we replaced the candidates with ones named "Clinton" and "Romney", our guesses would still be accurate.

Voters know where the two parties stand on most issues, and with that information alone they are able to guess with surprising accuracy how two competeting candidates stand on the issues. It's not perfect, but voters are better at choosing than you might think, even if they are just as poorly informed as you think them to be.

I was talking more about swing voters.

Voters know where the two parties stand on most issues, and with that information alone they are able to guess with surprising accuracy how two competeting candidates stand on the issues. It's not perfect, but voters are better at choosing than you might think, even if they are just as poorly informed as you think them to be.

Two words-Reagan Democrats.
I agree that what you said applies to the hardcore bases- but I think it is trumped in the center by a host of other things like physical appearence, charm, charisma, demeanor, articulateness, and 'identification'.
I had thought based on the above that Obama had a good shot at this. I see the campaign of bald faced lies and irrelevancies that M/P are working...in a climate of profound outrage and disgust...and this think is polling neck and neck!? The guy is running as a blatant flip-flopper and throwing out everything just to see what sticks. Their campaign is mean spirited and breath-takingly transparent in it's pettiness and again, polls suggest 1/2 the voters are on it's side.
Even some conservative op-ed'ers are expressing shame and shock at this point.

But I guess people should believe that what is actually going on is voters are inspired knowing he has Phil Gramm to advise him on the economy.

I think the bigger elephant in the room is the ridiculousness that was the Democratic primary race. How many people are still talking about that? For a long time, a good chunk of the party faithful were focusing on Obama's negatives, saying he wasn't ready to lead, had questionable judgement in his choice of ministers, 'probably wasn't a Muslim', etc. IMHO, that's come around and bit them on the ass. Hell, the attacks on Obama were about as bad then as they are now and they were coming from the people that are on his side.

This is an election where the centrist vote was set to be served up to the Democrats on a platter and they spent months infighting and creating doubt about the candidate they ended up selecting. It obviously didn't destroy Obama's chances, but it definitely opened a door that otherwise would've been closed and the Republicans have capitalized. If Obama loses the election because of a tiny segment of people willing to vote against a candidate they agree with because of the color of his skin, he can thank the rest of his party for helping it become that close of a race in the first place.

Normally I don't think this is a big deal because both parties talk trash about their nominee competition and then kiss and make up after the convention. It was Gore that brought up Willie Horton initially, for example. The only real difference in this race is that McCain just absolutely ran away with the nomination (to my dismay) while Obama and Hillary had a protracted fight that was much more public. So probably a lot more people are aware of the negative things said about Obama than they are about what was said about McCain. There just wasn't any story on the GOP side after the first primary was over.

I was talking more about swing voters.Why do you think swing voters are any different in that respect?

Step 2 in "why we lost' program. Back up racism with proof that the other side had no way to win because they did not even run a campaign that a sane person could vote for.

That's unfair.

Some of us on this forum have been saying for years that a black man won't be elected President in our lifetime. I've always said the first minority President will be Hispanic.

I just don't see a black candidate getting elected because he will always have too much baggage - Wright, Sharpton, Jackson, Marion Berry and lots more. Voters will make conscious or unconscious associations, in enough numbers, to swing a close election.

Why do you think swing voters are any different in that respect?

Because, by definition, swing voters can go either way. Obviously, issues mean less to them than the base. How else can a swing voter vote for a Dem in one election and then a Republican 4 years later? The platforms don't change that much.

Can anyone translate this nonsense?

Arnold Schwarzenegger hates Jews.

What's funny to see is that this is a concerted effort. Gov. 'Sour Grapes' Sibelius also said specifically that it was republican racism that was the reason that Obama isn't winning by a landslide.

Because, by definition, swing voters can go either way. Obviously, issues mean less to them than the base. How else can a swing voter vote for a Dem in one election and then a Republican 4 years later? The platforms don't change that much.Voters punish the party in power during bad economic times and reward it in good times, e.g., 1980 and 1992. Stronger partisans are less likely to behave this way, but "swing voters", i.e., nonpartisans, are more likely. being nonpartisan, they are less prone to ideological arguments for voting one way or the other but are still aware of differences in party ideology.

http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-09/sibelius.htm

Sebelius says GOP using racial 'code language'
Posted on Tue, Sep. 16, 2008print email
Facebook Digg del.icio.us AIM
By NIGEL DUARA
Associated Press Writer
IOWA CITY, Iowa -- Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius accused Republicans on Tuesday of injecting race into the presidential campaign, arguing that they are using "code language" to convince Midwesterners that Democrat Barack Obama is different from them.

"Have any of you noticed that Barack Obama is part African-American?" Sebelius asked with sarcasm. "(Republicans) are not going to go lightly into the darkness."

Sebelius was responding to a question from the audience at the Iowa City Public Library about the tenacity of Democrats and whether they would fight for victory as hard as Republicans in the closing weeks of the election.

She did not elaborate on her comment.

Sebelius said recent presidential campaign polling in the Upper Midwest shows the region is still in play for both parties. She noted that polls indicate Obama has a wide lead in Iowa over Republican John McCain but that the race is a dead heat in Minnesota.

The Democratic governor said she remains optimistic that Obama will carry the region because she believes tax issues, energy policy and health care reform all favor the Democrat. She said the Obama campaign will focus on the economy and try to tie McCain's tax and economic plans to President Bush's policies.

"Iowa is likely to be a state that's decided by a couple percentage points either way," Sebelius said. "Sen. McCain's on his way here Thursday. He clearly feels that Iowa is in play."

Sebelius talked about a "neighborhood-by-neighborhood ground game" strategy to win votes in the region, but she acknowledged that it won't be an easy fight.

In Minnesota, a Minneapolis Star Tribune poll on Sunday showed each candidate is supported by 45 percent of likely voters in the state. That's a dramatic improvement for McCain from a Star Tribune poll in May that found him trailing Obama in the state by 13 percentage points.

"Minnesota is a state that's likely to be close," Sebelius said.

Of course, the AP cleansed the story when they realized that this would hurt democrats.

The work of Samuel Popkin, et. al., disputes this claim. Voters are actually quite good at taking small amounts of information about candidates and from that information making reasoned choices based on how those candidates stand on the issues.

Do you believe the majority of voters make reasoned choices?

I'm not sure they do at all.

I heard that on the radio BHK, I forget what one of the alleged 'code words' was, but it was so ridiculous, it was almost beyond belief, then I remembered how batshit crazy and desperate the Democratic party has become.

edit: I believe the latest term deemed "racist code" that the GOP is using to describe Obama is "Community Organizer" . Supposedly they were and are using this to slur Obama without being as direct as calling him the n word. This insanity is what the far left resorts to.

then I remembered how batshit crazy and desperate the Democratic party has become.<i>You have been warned about party bashing and generalizations before. You will stop them now.</i>

I heard that on the radio BHK, I forget what one of the alleged 'code words' was, but it was so ridiculous, it was almost beyond belief, then I remembered how batshit crazy and desperate the Democratic party has become.

And yet we had a bunch of southerners who came of age during the 50s and 60s swearing that they had absolutely no idea whatsoever that "uppity" had any racial connotations whatsoever!

The racism that will motivate anti-voting is not confined to Republicans. It is spread across every party at every economic and class strata.

And yet we had a bunch of southerners who came of age during the 50s and 60s swearing that they had absolutely no idea whatsoever that "uppity" had any racial connotations whatsoever!
So is "Community Organizer" code?

:lol:
Gov. Sour Grapes, people need code words to tell each other that Obama is not white.

So is "Community Organizer" code?

Yes it is. So is 'Messiah' and so is 'cult memeber'.

So is "Community Organizer" code?

The list is bigger than that:

List of 'Banned' words to describe Obama growing
Ed Lasky
What are we to do? So many words that might be used to describe Barack Obama are being shouted down as being "racist".

Here is the roll -- and it is an ever-expanding one:

"Clean and articulate" (remember those words, Joe Biden?)

"Skinny"

"Arrogant"

"The One" (David Gergen says that in the South -- it's always the South -- this term means "uppity"

"Exotic"

"Angry"

"Risky"

"Disrespecful"

"His middle name" (which shall not be used here)

"Community Organizer" : New York Governor David Patterson was merely the most famous person to register this charge -- it has been a popular one on the web.

David Shipler had an interesting riff a few months back on synonyms that revealed racism: "Elitist" is another word for "arrogant," which is another word for "uppity," that old calumny applied to blacks who stood up for themselves. Furthermore, casting Obama as "out of touch" plays harmoniously with the traditional notion of blacks as "others" at the edge of the mainstream, separate from the whole.

John Pitney, Jr. wrote in the National Review there is no authoritative racial codebook so the charge is easy to lodge and once lodged it chills free speech.

As Joe Biden probably knows by now, even a compliment can be considered an insult in this environment. When he called Obama articulate he was recogizing Obama's ability to project a great speech. But the New York Times -- arbiter of all politically sensitive speech -- suggested the word had a subtext: that the subject of the praise was "notably different from other black people". So you can damn with praise?

So now even compliments can be considered "racist"? Can anyone praise an African-American without being crticized as condescending or prejudiced? Is the Times itself racist by promulgating such a code of conduct by suggesting that most black people are not deserving of a range of compliments that can be made towards individual people?

Has the New York Times updated its Manual of Style and Usage? Are words being deleted?

With the ever increasing scope of words now being banned, what will we be able to say about Barack Obama? Have we reached a rhetorical dead end? What would Barack Obama-a former President of the Haravard Law Review and a former constitutional law professor-say about the chilling of free speech, the weakening of the First Amendment?
George Carlin-who had a legendary comedy riff about the words one could not say on television-where are you when we need you? Maybe he could mine some humor out of this racially charged mess.



There are links to each of those above charges from loony lefties here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/list_of_banned_words_to_descri.html

What about Vase?(you know, the 2 handled type).

http://76.162.72.166/images/Vase-green-2-handles_0.jpg

I may be changing my opinion. I could see voting against Obama because I am tired of hearing about people not voting for him being covert racists, racist code words being used, and everything being about race. I can see that if I believed I'd hear this drivel for the next 4 years every time Obama was challenged on something, I wouldn't want him in office. It's old, tiring, and insulting.

I feel the same way about religious people who see the devil in everything. Harry Potter is the devil, Proctor & Gamble's logo is satanic. Foosball is the devil
<img src=http://thestockmasters.com/images/Waterboy_Mom.gif>

It's the same damn thing.

I may be changing my opinion. I could see voting against Obama because I am tired of hearing about people not voting for him being covert racists, racist code words being used, and everything being about race. I can see that if I believed I'd hear this drivel for the next 4 years every time Obama was challenged on something, I wouldn't want him in office. It's old, tiring, and insulting.

I feel the same way about religious people who see the devil in everything. Harry Potter is the devil, Proctor & Gamble's logo is satanic. Foosball is the devil
<img src=http://thestockmasters.com/images/Waterboy_Mom.gif>

It's the same damn thing.

Well then you can't vote for Palin either, since you'd have to worry about sexism and anti-feminism.

Unless you're just a racist.

;)

Well then you can't vote for Palin either, since you'd have to worry about sexism and anti-feminism.

Unless you're just a racist.

;)

:lol: I know that Palin kills animals, so that's a plus. If I were to find out anyone running owned a horse, I'd vote against them.

Well then you can't vote for Palin either, since you'd have to worry about sexism and anti-feminism.

Unless you're just a racist.

;)

Anything can be lobbed at Palin, since she's "not a real woman", at least according to the traditional feminazi types from the coasts. I think its mainly because she's 1)attractive 2)self accomplished 3)has a loving family (with no abortions), and this one gets them the most upset, 4)she's happy.

The best part was seeing news anchor bimbettes that probably left their kids with someone else to be able to work questioning if Palin was doing the right thing by working.

...has a loving family...

Yea, I call her 17 year old loving....loving unprotected sex...loving getting knocked up...loving forcing her "BF" into a marriage (well we will see I guess)

Actually, I think she is a good speaker, was a great choice to solidify the base, and above all, has the values that most republicans wanted in McCain's running mate, etc...I just think the two (R) canadiates are pretty hypocritical, and lying a bit more than the (D) side. Plus I have more "liberal" values.

Anything can be lobbed at Palin, since she's "not a real woman", at least according to the traditional feminazi types from the coasts. I think its mainly because she's 1)attractive 2)self accomplished 3)has a loving family (with no abortions), and this one gets them the most upset, 4)she's happy.

5) petty. (see "Troopergate")

5) petty. (see "Troopergate")


PLEASE...She was under investagation BEFORE she was picked, and now you think she shouldn't be subjected to the investagation?

Let's wrap our VP in a soft fluffy blanket and protect her from all the bad liberals that are "crazy"

There's 2 to 3 redundancies in that above statement.

Yeah, how dare Palin fire an employee that serves at her discretion for insubordination. We need investigations up the wazoo for that.

6.) the perfect 'tool' for her neocon advisers since she has an attractive exterior, is cravenly ambitious, and most important- intellectually and geopolitically incurious.

McCain better hire a food taster.

Originally Posted by wendersfan
"Why do you think swing voters are any different in that respect?"

I may be changing my opinion. I could see voting against Obama because I am tired of hearing about people not voting for him being covert racists, racist code words being used, and everything being about race. I can see that if I believed I'd hear this drivel for the next 4 years every time Obama was challenged on something, I wouldn't want him in office. It's old, tiring, and insulting.

I feel the same way about religious people who see the devil in everything. Harry Potter is the devil, Proctor & Gamble's logo is satanic. Foosball is the devil

It's the same damn thing.


I rest my case.

PLEASE...She was under investagation BEFORE she was picked, and now you think she shouldn't be subjected to the investagation?

Let's wrap our VP in a soft fluffy blanket and protect her from all the bad liberals that are "crazy"

He's saying Palin is petty. RIF.

The kvrdave is beyond scientific inquiry. It is a phenomenon unto itself. ;)

There's 2 to 3 redundancies in that above statement.

Yeah, how dare Palin fire an employee that serves at her discretion for insubordination. We need investigations up the wazoo for that.

If the employee was fired for no legitimate reason, and has suspicions as to why he was fired, then yeah, investigation may be necessary.

He's saying Palin is petty. RIF.

:lol:

If the employee was fired for no legitimate reason, and has suspicions as to why he was fired, then yeah, investigation may be necessary.

Uh No. Anyone who serves "at the discretion of" can be fired by the person that they serve at the discretion of at any time and pretty much any reason.

Uh No. Anyone who serves "at the discretion of" can be fired by the person that they serve at the discretion of at any time and pretty much any reason.

But Palin welcomed the investigation.

Originally Posted by wendersfan
"Why do you think swing voters are any different in that respect?"




I rest my case.

:lol: I admit it. But this comes down to me not wanting to hear about the wahbulance come out every time Obama doesn't get what he wants. If Obama loses, it won't be because of racism but because of race baiting.

It won't be from Obama himself. I've never seen him play the race card. But the people that are trying to help him, will ultimately hurt him by doing this, imo. A self fulfilling prophecy of their own making.

But Palin welcomed the investigation.

When it was an investigation and not a witch hunt led by an Obama supporter who said the findings could be an "October surprise." I'm glad that they've learned this bit from democrats. I'm glad she's fighting this. One of the things I'm glad repubs have learned from the Clintons. Now all she needs to do is come out and admonish them for wasting time and money and then demonize Ken Starr. :lol:

BoH's post made perfect sense to me.

I don't know if Cafferty's claim is correct. Race is definitely a factor, as is age and sex. Whether it's a big factor, "the" factor, or inconsequential, I don't know.

If I were to guess a state as to where this might be researched, I would suggest Alabama.

:lol: I admit it. But this comes down to me not wanting to hear about the wahbulance come out every time Obama doesn't get what he wants. If Obama loses, it won't be because of racism but because of race baiting.

I won't be from Obama himself. I've never seen him play the race card. But the people that are trying to help him, will ultimately hurt him by doing this, imo. A self fulfilling prophecy of their own making.

Acknowledging that race is an issue isn't race baiting.

When it was an investigation and not a witch hunt led by an Obama supporter who said the findings could be an "October surprise." I'm glad that they've learned this bit from democrats. I'm glad she's fighting this. One of the things I'm glad repubs have learned from the Clintons. Now all she needs to do is come out and admonish them for wasting time and money and then demonize Ken Starr. :lol:

Actually, she welcomed it because she thought it would just go away, but now that she's in the spotlight, it most certainly won't.

Acknowledging that race is an issue isn't race baiting.

Claiming everything in the world is racism is.

I cannot believe anyone truly believes that Obama will end up with less net votes in the general election because of his race. But I can't believe anyone doesn't recognize that if he were white, he wouldn't be the nominee.

Claiming everything in the world is racism is.

Exaggerate much?

I cannot believe anyone truly believes that Obama will end up with less net votes in the general election because of his race. But I can't believe anyone doesn't recognize that if he were white, he wouldn't be the nominee.

There's never been a black presidential nominee before. This is all speculation, but it's based on that very fact. To ignore it is kinda silly. I thought Obama ran a better campaign than Hillary did. She played dirty at times, and it hurt her in the end. There are other factors besides Obama's race. To say he was nominated because he was black goes against history.

Have you noticed that it's always the other side that plays(ed) dirty? It's never the side I support. ;)

Hell I wish my side would play dirtier. I'm tired of Bush's "new tone" crap. All that got him was being repeatedly stabbed in the back.

Have you noticed that it's always the other side that plays(ed) dirty? It's never the side I support. ;)

Point out how Obama played dirty against Hillary.

by accusing her of playing the race card

BoH's post made perfect sense to me.

I don't know if Cafferty's claim is correct. Race is definitely a factor, as is age and sex. Whether it's a big factor, "the" factor, or inconsequential, I don't know.

If I were to guess a state as to where this might be researched, I would suggest Alabama.

I do not have much experience in Alabama, but I have spent a bit of time in Mississippi and Tennessee and I think people have a warped outlook on some of these states. They have large black populations and I see little racism and people that get along alot more then what I see at times in NY. Maybe these notions are a bit dated?

by accusing her of playing the race card

she did.

There's never been a black presidential nominee before. This is all speculation, but it's based on that very fact. To ignore it is kinda silly. I thought Obama ran a better campaign than Hillary did. She played dirty at times, and it hurt her in the end. There are other factors besides Obama's race. To say he was nominated because he was black goes against history.


Of course it is all speculation. Just like saying racism will cost Obama votes is speculation. All I can do is try to imagine if a white Senator who hadn't even complete a single term, had very little in the way of experience (in comparison to all others running), etc. would stand a chance. I don't think so.

by accusing her of playing the race card

His own running mate used "racial code words." I wonder if any blame will fall on him?

-wink-

Of course it is all speculation. Just like saying racism will cost Obama votes is speculation. All I can do is try to imagine if a white Senator who hadn't even complete a single term, had very little in the way of experience (in comparison to all others running), etc. would stand a chance. I don't think so.

If that were true, Jessie Jackson would've been elected.

Of course it is all speculation. Just like saying racism will cost Obama votes is speculation. All I can do is try to imagine if a white Senator who hadn't even complete a single term, had very little in the way of experience (in comparison to all others running), etc. would stand a chance. I don't think so.


Heck, look at John Edwards - and he was finishing up his term as a Senator in '04. Then he failed again.

If that were true, Jessie Jackson would've been elected.

Jackson was a bomb thrower. Obama is not.

Obama's been buddies with real bomb throwers.

she did.

It was the Obama campaign that played the race card.

It was the Obama campaign that played the race card.

Hillary was the one talking about how working whites liked her more.

That is also a fact.

If that were true, Jessie Jackson would've been elected.

Because of his experience as a Senator? What qualification did he ever have? He has the same as Ralph Nader.

Forgetting the fact that you are using someone who was prominent 20 years ago and I will grant that racism was different back then, Jessie Jackson never had a chance of election.

Hell I wish my side would play dirtier. I'm tired of Bush's "new tone" crap. All that got him was being repeatedly stabbed in the back.

"Cause Swift Boating was nothing"...Why not just put a hit out on the opponent?

God, why not tell us why McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden is better for the country? Or how they will help us?

You give an opponent shit when they sling mud, and lie about stuff (both sides) and you want MORE shit being slung? (But don't contiune with an ongoing investagation, because it's now a "WITCH HUNT"...Maybe McCain shouldn't have picked someone in the middle of an investagation if that meant democrats would "latch onto it" and force it to the front as an ISSUE)

Forgetting the fact that you are using someone who was prominent 20 years ago and I will grant that racism was different back then,...
Of course. We're clearly more enlightened as a society now.

BTW as far as Community organizer goes- put up a picture of an older, square jawed well groomed white man. If you say the phrase community organizer, what 'community' would a middle class white visually associate with him?
What about if it were Cindy McCain? What community would you visualize her 'organizing'?
Now toss up a picture of a black guy. what would his community look like? Obviously this is subjective but you don't think that even a modest strain of racial bias might conjure up 'black welfare queens' in a delapidated urban 'hood that whites have long ago flown? I mean, is that imagery more or less likely to be conjured up by suburban or rural whites who don't live in racially mixed areas?

I'm not saying this IS the way this phrase is working amongst some voters...just that I can envision this bias working in a subconscious way similar to this.

He's saying Palin is petty. RIF.

It was not a Reduction In Force!!! The guy was fired because Palin is petty!!!

Oh, wait. Never mind.

Of course. We're clearly more enlightened as a society now.

BTW as far as Community organizer goes- put up a picture of an older, square jawed well groomed white man. If you say the phrase community organizer, what 'community' would a middle class white visually associate with him?
What about if it were Cindy McCain? What community would you visualize her 'organizing'?
Now toss up a picture of a black guy. what would his community look like? Obviously this is subjective but you don't think that even a modest strain of racial bias might conjure up 'black welfare queens' in a delapidated urban 'hood that whites have long ago flown? I mean, is that imagery more or less likely to be conjured up by suburban or rural whites who don't live in racially mixed areas?

I'm not saying this IS the way this phrase is working amongst some voters...just that I can envision this bias working in a subconscious way similar to this.

obviously we all get different pictures in our heads on things like this. We all know that when the media talks about "urban youths" they mean inner city blacks. I've never known what to associate with "community organizer" because I have never really heard the term with any regularity until this year. Personally, I would asicate the term with obama as doing chritable works and with Cindy McCain as finding an excuse to hob nob with people while throwing some money at some pet project. I'd give more weight to the first of those. But even recognizing my own biases, I don't think they ultimately will sway net points away from Obama.

Because of his experience as a Senator? What qualification did he ever have? He has the same as Ralph Nader.

Forgetting the fact that you are using someone who was prominent 20 years ago and I will grant that racism was different back then, Jessie Jackson never had a chance of election.

My point, as you and others can't seem to grasp, is that Obama wasn't nominated simply because of his race.

That is also a fact.

Obama did better with blacks. Did you see him talking about it?

From author/activist Tim Wise...

-------------------

September 13, 2008

This is Your Nation on White Privilege

By Tim Wise

For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll “kick their fuckin' ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.”


White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.


White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.


White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.


White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.


White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look.”


White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.


White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.


White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a “trick question,” while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.


White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a “light” burden.


And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain…


White privilege is, in short, the problem.

My point, as you and others can't seem to grasp, is that Obama wasn't nominated simply because of his race.


Oh, I can grasp that. You couldn't just take any black guy and have them win the nomination. There is much more to Obama than his race. Far more. With more time in the Senate, possibly a stint as gov., etc. he could have everything he would need regardless of race. But my point, as you and others can't seem to grasp, is that no white candidate with Obama's credentials would have made it past the 3rd primary.

He's bright and charismatic. But he is also very inexperienced and has a very bland record behind him. He's been prepared by the Democrats since his speech at the DNC in 2004. He's led a very careful political life. I don't think they expected him to win the nomination. I think they just hoped for another great growing stage that would push him higher for 4-8 years down the road.

From author/activist Tim Wise...

-------------------

September 13, 2008

This is Your Nation on White Privilege

By Tim Wise



In short, white privilege is whatever we need it to be. :lol:

My point, as you and others can't seem to grasp, is that Obama wasn't nominated simply because of his race.

Obama would most certainly have not been nominated if he weren't black. Can anyone seriously contest that?

I've never known what to associate with "community organizer" because I have never really heard the term with any regularity until this year.


I still haven't a clue what it's supposed to mean.

Oh, I can grasp that. You couldn't just take any black guy and have them win the nomination. There is much more to Obama than his race. Far more. With more time in the Senate, possibly a stint as gov., etc. he could have everything he would need regardless of race. But my point, as you and others can't seem to grasp, is that no white candidate with Obama's credentials would have made it past the 3rd primary.

He's bright and charismatic. But he is also very inexperienced and has a very bland record behind him. He's been prepared by the Democrats since his speech at the DNC in 2004. He's led a very careful political life. I don't think they expected him to win the nomination. I think they just hoped for another great growing stage that would push him higher for 4-8 years down the road.


Yep. :thumbsup:

As for the careful political life, you couldn't be more right. I think he's had his eyes on office (or alternatively, the courts) since he graduated from law school. It's very likely why he never wrote one iota of scholarship as a law professor.

Y'all in danger of stirring up the wrath of our fervent Obama supporters on this forum.

I'd watch my step, if I were y'all.

Oh, I can grasp that. You couldn't just take any black guy and have them win the nomination. There is much more to Obama than his race. Far more. With more time in the Senate, possibly a stint as gov., etc. he could have everything he would need regardless of race. But my point, as you and others can't seem to grasp, is that no white candidate with Obama's credentials would have made it past the 3rd primary.

He's bright and charismatic. But he is also very inexperienced and has a very bland record behind him. He's been prepared by the Democrats since his speech at the DNC in 2004. He's led a very careful political life. I don't think they expected him to win the nomination. I think they just hoped for another great growing stage that would push him higher for 4-8 years down the road.

This is purely racist, and unfounded, but okay, stick with this point of view. And Jessie Jackson wasn't just some guy off the street. Fine, if you don't like Jessie, what about Shirley Chisholm? Oh, I know you'll just backpedal to make your point "valid," but my point, again, is that you really can't really say race, occupation, and experience are sole contributors. And if it is, then it is the first time in history, and the attitude this was just "given" to him is offensive.

Yep. :thumbsup:

As for the careful political life, you couldn't be more right. I think he's had his eyes on office (or alternatively, the courts) since he graduated from law school. It's very likely why he never wrote one iota of scholarship as a law professor.This seems to be a somewhat disturbing trend among candidates, or at least Democratic ones. President Clinton seemed to be grooming himself for the presidency from very early on, as did Senator Kerry. I wouldn't be surprised if soon, we only have candidates with these sorts of resumes.

Hasn't McCain groomed himself for the office?

How about George W. Bush?

his father

and Ronald Reagan

Who knows - there may some of our members who are grooming themselves for the job?

This is purely racist, and unfounded, but okay, stick with this point of view.I'm having trouble figuring out how it's even the least little bit racist.

Is it racist to point out Obama's race? Is it racist to point out he won the majority of the African-American vote in every primary he contested? Is it racist to point out that he is fundamentally different in many ways from other African-Americans who sought the Democratic nomination for the presidency? (I specified Democrats because Alan Keyes seems a basket of anomalies and I want to avoid getting into that.) How is it racist to point out that Obama is less experienced than normal for a major party nominee? Is every criticism of this candidate, nay, every comment that is not glowing, to be construed as racist by some of his supporters?

There is a lot to admire about Senator Obama. That doesn't mean he's beyond criticism or that all criticism of him is racially motivated.

Yeah but the people who call Obama a 'refreshing change,' would never use the words 'refreshing' or 'change' to describe those individuals.

Also, I don't think doing movies with monkeys when you're 40 is grooming oneself for political office.

wendersfan, see my previous post again and not just the first sentence. Thanks!

wendersfan, see my previous post again and not just the first sentence. Thanks!Honestly, I couldn't see what the rest of your post had to do with the first sentence. You see, you start out a sentence with what's known as a "thesis statement". Then, throughout the rest of the paragraph you bring up points that illustrate and amplify the introductory sentence. Your post started out with a reference to Dave's post as being purely racist, then went on to feigned dismissals of Jackson's and Chisholm's campaigns, which seemed out of place and totally incongruent with your argument, setting aside momentarily that I alluded to them in my post anyway.

I'm having trouble figuring out how it's even the least little bit racist.

Don't get him started. (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/8897864-post35.html)

Honestly, I couldn't see what the rest of your post had to do with the first sentence. You see, you start out a sentence with what's known as a "thesis statement". Then, throughout the rest of the paragraph you bring up points that illustrate and amplify the introductory sentence. Your post started out with a reference to Dave's post as being purely racist, then went on to feigned dismissals of Jackson's and Chisholm's campaigns, which seemed out of place and totally incongruent with your argument, setting aside momentarily that I alluded to them in my post anyway.

Of course you couldn't see the point, because your mind has already been made up. You clearly don't want to pay attention to history. You make such claims in your post that had nothing to do with mine. You bring up other things besides race, which was exactly my point. He wasn't picked simply because of his race. Could it possibly be that he ran the better campaign of anybody? No?

Don't get him started. (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/8897864-post35.html)

Nice digging, and from a different forum at that. Bored much?

Of course you couldn't see the point, because your mind has already been made up. You clearly don't want to pay attention to history. You make such claims in your post that had nothing to do with mine. You bring up other things besides race, which was exactly my point. He wasn't picked simply because of his race. Could it possibly be that he ran the better campaign of anybody? No?Before you talk about <i>my</i> mind being made up and <i>me</i> ignoring history you might want to take a look at some of the posts I've made in the past regarding Senator Obama and his campaign. There are numerous reasons why Senator Obama won the nomination, including his race. These reasons have all been discussed quite thoroughly here over the past several months and just because you aren't up to speed doesn't mean we should have to rehash every point we've all made just for your benefit.

Bored much?

No, your college freshman-like beliefs and debating style just made that much of an impression on me.

Before you talk about <i>my</i> mind being made up and <i>me</i> ignoring history you might want to take a look at some of the posts I've made in the past regarding Senator Obama and his campaign. There are numerous reasons why Senator Obama won the nomination, including his race. These reasons ha