Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 16, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

A Victory Lap for Obamacare




Paul Robeson: A Life


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Looking Beyond Race

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jan 28, 2008
Obama supporter
Flickr / Joe Crimmings

By Bill Boyarsky

Perhaps America is moving beyond racial politics.

I’ve had that thought the past several days as I followed Sen. Barack Obama’s grass-roots campaign in California, one of the big prizes on Feb. 5, Super Tuesday, when 22 states and American Samoa will choose delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Blacks, whites, Latinos and Asians were among the many volunteers I saw working together.

My feelings were reinforced Saturday when Obama overwhelmingly defeated Sen. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards in the South Carolina primary with 55 percent of the vote.

But most important, exit polls showed that 24 percent of the state’s white voters backed the African-American candidate, more than earlier surveys had anticipated. Half of white voters younger than 30 voted for Obama. About a third of whites with college degrees and with family incomes of more than $100,000 a year supported him.

Ben Szobody reported in the Greenville, S.C., Times that “counties and ... precincts high in nonwhite voters gave Obama a crushing advantage as expected, but he also won in eight of the 10 whitest counties in the state and in Augusta Road, Cleveland Street and Paris Mountain precincts where nonwhites are 8 percent or less of the registered voters.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Obama put it this way in his victory speech: ” ... We have the most votes, the most delegates and the most diverse coalition of Americans that we have seen in a long, long time. ... They are black and white, Latino and Asian and Native American. They are Democrats from Des Moines and independents from Concord and, yes, some Republicans from rural Nevada.  And we’ve got young people all across this country who’ve never had a reason to participate until now.”

Obama accomplished this in the face of a rough attack by Sen. Clinton and her husband, who waded into the fight with a fury atypical of a member of the ex-presidents’ club, a group usually known merely for being bland and picking up large lecture fees.

Although the Clinton camp denied it, the attacks seemed to be designed to bring up the racial factor in the South Carolina campaign, to portray Obama as a black candidate, rather than one who campaigns above race.

In fact, after the South Carolina vote, Bill Clinton kept it up. He compared Obama to the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who as an African-American candidate carried the state in 1984 and 1988, but was never given a chance to win the presidency. “Jackson ran a good campaign and Obama ran a good campaign here,” Clinton said.

Obama has worked hard to transcend race, as was clear on election night in South Carolina when he gave his victory speech on a stage with white men and women standing behind him.

The personal canvassing being used by the Obama campaign is well suited to this kind of electorate. It is up close and personal. The canvassers tell their stories, which, as I saw at the volunteers’ meeting, do indeed transcend race.

Such campaigning is a welcome contrast to the television advertising that dominates big-state politics. 

Television advertising, screaming for attention, emphasizes differences between people. Obama will use television, of course. But his army of volunteers is trying to bring people together. It would be nice to think that this will set the tone for the presidential campaign, but we all know much mud will be slung in the days ahead.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By jerry, January 31, 2008 at 5:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Samsnedegar is right. There is an obvious black vote for Obama. In South Carolina where 55% of the voters were black, Obama got 82% of that vote. In Nevada he got more tha 80% of the black vote and in the non-binding caucus in Florida he got more than 80% of the black vote.If the white voters vote 80% for a white candidate in November, you can kiss Obama goodbye if he were the Democratic nominee

Report this

By Maani, January 30, 2008 at 10:59 pm Link to this comment

Archeon:

“Anti female bigotry is ingrained in western judeo-christian-islamic culture and religion.  It is a bigotry that runs deeper than mere racism.”

I would add that it is not limited to the Abrahamic religions.  Anti-female “bigotry” (let’s just call it “sexism” and have do…) is also an ingrained part of most Asian cultures (particularly China and Japan), most African cultures, most South American cultures, and most historic cultures (Greece, Egypt, etc.).  As an interesting related aside, there was one female Pharoah(ess?) in Egypt.  However, the men who came after her obliteratged almost all records of her from Egyptian history; had Egyptologists not discovered her tomb (nowhere near the rest of the the tombs, and heavily vandalized), we would not even know she existed.

Peace.

Report this
archeon of thrace's avatar

By archeon of thrace, January 30, 2008 at 10:36 pm Link to this comment

I think calling me a moron is not helpful nor neccessary.

Report this
archeon of thrace's avatar

By archeon of thrace, January 30, 2008 at 10:34 pm Link to this comment

Ok, I must admit that I agree….........(in general)..

Report this
archeon of thrace's avatar

By archeon of thrace, January 30, 2008 at 10:32 pm Link to this comment

“What kind of a moron are you? “black men got the vote before white women…” Maybe they did but they still had to make it to the polls alive.”

They did get the vote before women….it’s a fact that can’t be denied.

““having a vagina is still more negative than having black skin…” Have you ever been to Baltimore, D.C., Detroit, Newark, Chicago, etc.,etc…..”

And exactly how are the men treating the women there?  And yes I have been to Chicago at least, but fail to see what that has to do with anything.  I haven’t been to Darfur, yet I know that women have it the hardest there.

I don’t see my statements as generalizations, I see them as stating the facts plainly and honestly.  Anti female bigotry is ingrained in western judeo-christian-islamic culture and religion.  It is a bigotry that runs deeper than mere racism.

But the fact remains that in the end the Democratic party will make history - it will have either an Afro-American or a woman as it’s candidate for president.  Thus the US will mark one more step on the road to true equality, justice, and liberty - come Novemeber it will have either an Afro-American or a female president.

In marked contrast to the Grand Old Party, which will just offer the same dried up impotent aging white men.

It is true that Hillary and Obama don’t differ too much on their platforms and positions.  My point was that this will not be decided on issues, it will turn on wether americans can see a woman or a black man as president.

Report this

By Maani, January 30, 2008 at 3:52 pm Link to this comment

Aegrus:

Hillary runs her “all-inclusive campaign” (blacks too!!!) as well…  And Hillary’s health care plan is better than Obama’s.  Call it “learning from one’s mistakes” if you will, but it is still better.

Peace.

Report this

By Frostedflakes, January 30, 2008 at 2:58 pm Link to this comment

I was actually responding to archeon of thrace, but understood and point taken.

Report this

By Maani, January 30, 2008 at 1:59 pm Link to this comment

FF:

I made it clear that, yes, even having been given the right to vote, blacks were often thwarted from exercising that right either by legal machinations (lawsuits, etc.) or by illegal machinations (i.e., lynchings, etc.).  But that is NOT the point.

The point is that the “white men” who created and governed this nation since its inception saw fit to give blacks the vote before women - by 50 years, and women had to FIGHT for it, where blacks did not (initially).  This is an irrefutable testament to the depth to which sexism is ingrained in this country (and around the world), both generally and especially vis-a-vis the political system, and why it will ALWAYS be that gender is a deeper, more ingrained political issue than race.

Peace.

Report this

By Frostedflakes, January 30, 2008 at 12:00 pm Link to this comment

I like Edwards too, but unfortunately the media hasn’t chosen him. Hillary is more of the same old crap. We’re talking 20 years plus of Clinton/Bush politics. Enough is enough. And as for Obama, he is basically the same as Hillary except for the fact that he isn’t a Clinton. Electoral politics in America has gone to the dogs. The people really have no voice; it is all ran by corporations and the military industrial complex. Real change will not come to America until there is another revolution, but the chance of that happening anytime soon is quite unlikely, especially since the once news media now uses it’s time informing you about the whereabouts of Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears. If only the zealotry of those who blog on sites such as this could trickle down to the masses of the American populce, maybe we can get our country back before it is too late.

Report this

By Frostedflakes, January 30, 2008 at 11:33 am Link to this comment

What kind of a moron are you? “black men got the vote before white women…” Maybe they did but they still had to make it to the polls alive.

“having a vagina is still more negative than having black skin…”  Have you ever been to Baltimore, D.C., Detroit, Newark, Chicago, etc.,etc…..

Generalizations are always lame, but you have taken it to a new art form.

Report this

By Frostedflakes, January 30, 2008 at 11:15 am Link to this comment

Come on Doug just say it one time,“Hillary for president.”

Report this

By Maani, January 30, 2008 at 9:57 am Link to this comment

Cyrena:

Although Obama is not a “member” of CFR, he is very much in support of most of CFR’s foreign policy objectives, as he stated in his speech to CFR.  As for Michelle Obama, she is on the Board of Director of the Chicago branch of CFR.

Re CFR itself, it would be naive to think that just because they do not state it openly, CFR’s goals do not include the elimination of global “borders and boundaries,” whether economic, geographic or otherwise.  How this might actually affect U.S. “sovereignty” is a legitimate question.

Re bringing the troops home, Blue Eagle specifically said “all” the troops.  And he is correct, since Obama (like Hillary) would leave some troops either in Iraq or nearby as a “presence.”

Re the Patriot Act, once again, I repeat that while you are right that he was not in Congress when it came up, he nevertheless voted twice to re-authorize it without modification.

Re the Real ID Act (national ID card), the only funding bill that has appeared was in July 2007, and Obama was a no-show for the vote.  However, he has stated that he did not vote for it ONLY because it was an “unfunded mandate” (his own words), and NOT because it was a bad idea.  This would certainly seem to indicate that he supports the idea of a national ID card.

Finally, I agree with you re the death penalty.  However, here are Obama’s own words on the subject: “While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes—mass murder, the rape and murder of a child—so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment.”

Clinton also supports the death penalty in certain cases.  As an aside, Kennedy has called for a moratorium on the death penalty until “a National Commission on the Death Penalty reviews the fairness of the imposition of the death penalty.”  Thus, it would seem he is not opposed to in principle, but only as it relates to the “racial” element of its imposition.

I would also caution you once again: you could easily have responded to Blue Eagle without accusing him of being stupid or a liar or a racist.  Why is it that you cannot discuss/debate issues without resorting to this type of unnecessary insult?

Peace.

Report this

By Aegrus, January 30, 2008 at 9:35 am Link to this comment

I guess you’re in the same boat as Marcia Pappas, Douglas Chalmers.

All this talk about strong women and how threatened men are by female power is really out of place in this campaign trail. What reasons do you have to support Hillary other than “it’s time for a woman president!”? Never do I hear a real issue being discussed in favor of her candidacy! Only remarks on how endorsing a man when a woman is running is sexist. Great job dividing the Democratic party.

Obama runs his all-inclusive campaign (women too!!!),  and Hillary has her health care plan. I like Obama. I’m not sexist. Barack WILL be the next President of the United States of America.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, January 30, 2008 at 7:26 am Link to this comment

#By archeon of thrace, January 29: “If race is not an issue, why is every one fixated on the fact Obama got 80% of the “black” vote in SC…....  Is his skin colour important or not…..... But it is more important to americans and american males….. that Hillary is a woman.  We hated the power our mothers had, and we certainly aren’t going to put up with it in our president…”

Thus, the voters are all children and the politicians are the grown-ups, archeon of thrace. Now that is a power relationship, ha ha. So much for the stupidity of democracy and the rule of the lowest common denominator. The ‘children’ vote (or can’t be bothered) and the ‘grown-ups’ decide their own way anyway, uhh. No wonder the USA has the kind of president it now has. Children finally got to vote (twice) for a childish mind in their own stupid image.

Well, many women hate their mothers too, though, but the real issue is the one men have with their dicks. They are usually found to be limp and the fright that this discovery gives men leaves them feeling insecure for the remainder of their lives. Thus, the power of women is as much implied by their constant vacuousness and mens’ inability to respond on demand, if I can put it in such a way.

Of course, it goes a lot further than that and anything and everything that a man’s (or woman’s) mother did or did not say or do has far-reaching ramifications in their psyches for decades hence. Then it will indeed be interesting to see how men do react when a mature woman takes the throne of the highest office in the land. The younger and middle-aged males will be particularly affected and it will be fun to watch. The old goats will simply all go off fishing…...

Report this

By Aegrus, January 30, 2008 at 6:28 am Link to this comment

Reason why many people are talking about 80% of the black turnout in SC? Bill Clinton’s remarks. After Obama’s victory, Bill took pride in diminishing the win by saying Jesse Jackson did well in SC too. This comment is implying 1) The win is invalid because Obama is black and 2)Black people don’t care about issues as much as they care about race.

Yes, race will play a factor in Obama’s campaign. It isn’t his choice, though. The man simply was born with dark skin, and that makes race an issue in his life. The man has taken the high road, however, by not interjecting (as you have clearly done)how important it is to vote for a “black candidate.”

Do you really not understand how you diminish Hillary with this pseudo-feminist rhetoric and playing her as victimized?

This campaign is filled with a lot of emotion, but any the democratic candidates are not bad people. There is no reason to hate John Edwards, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I don’t know why we have silly arguments like yours, which are devoid of substance, instead of a discussion on real policy and issues.

I feel Barack Obama’s inclusion politics is a great and important policy tactic, I like how his health care system doesn’t force everyone to buy in, I like his bold stance against the war in 2002 (Maybe he voted to fund, but it wasn’t a popular stance to run a Senate campaign on anti-war in that year), I like how he constantly practical and prudent decisions, I also like, in surmise, how he has the best Environmental record of any candidate.

Those are real issues, and I feel Obama performs better than every other candidate. Please provide reasons to vote for Hillary instead of victimizing rhetoric. Otherwise, you’re opinions are just not valid.

Report this

By cyrena, January 30, 2008 at 12:55 am Link to this comment

•  I don’t know where you stand on the issues. There are many that would give up liberty for security, believe that identifying every citizen is a good thing, waging war around the world keeps us safe, and we should give up our Constitution and live under UN laws. The thing is… I disagree with that direction for the country.
Well blue eagle,

I bet most of us agree with you, that the things you describe are bad, I certainly don’t agree with them either.
The thing is, at worst, what you’re saying is flat out wrong, and at best, you’ve taken it out of context.
On the CFR…Obama is NOT a member, and never has been, though I believe that his wife MAY have had an affiliation at one time. (I’d have to verify whether or not she did, and in what capacity). In my own professional circle, many of my colleagues have, at some point in history, done internships with the CFR. It’s an old institution. I don’t particularly like the collection of scholars and others that have been through there recently, but the same could be said for all the rest of the governments institutions of the past 7 or more years. To suggest however, that this ONE organization is dedicated to taking away our sovereignty is well….IGNORANT. Yep, just plain stupid.

As for Obama not being willing to end the wars and/or commit to bringing the troops home, that’s more than ignorant, it’s blatant false propaganda, since he’s been opposed to them from the start, knowing full well, and long before it was ever initiated, that these were illegal wars of aggression. So, on that, you’re not just ignorant, you’re lying.

There has been NO indication that Barack Obama would order a nuclear strike, and my own organization has actually spoken to him at length on the subject. (we are an old and established organization to halt nuclear proliferation).

That is equally true of the Patriot Act, because Barack Obama wasn’t in Congress TO vote on the Patriot Act when it was rammed through, immediately after 9/11, before ANYBODY had a chance to actually read it. So here again, you’re lying at worst, or creating misleading propaganda at best.

As for the National ID cards, I don’t know that there’s even been a ‘vote’ for such a thing, though it’s been long in the ‘talk’ since long before Barack Obama ever got to Congress. And there is nothing that I’ve heard of, that would FORCE anyone to get it.

Now I’m not the least bit happy about the fact that my new passport now contains an ‘electronic chip’. Nope, I’m pretty pissed off about that. On the other hand, I damn sure know it wasn’t Obama’s idea, and he didn’t help Cheney attack us on 9/11 either, which is what has lead to all of this.

Now, I DO have one complaint about him, except that he’s not alone. NOT ONE SINGLE one of these candidates, has uttered a single word about the death penalty, even though we are the only supposedly civilized nation left in the world to still use such a barbaric practice. And part of the reason I’m sure, is that it would mean they’d have to also address this ‘right to bear arms’. And of course NOBODY wants to talk about gun control, because Americans just so love their weapons. No doubt you do as well. But, not to worry, nobody is gonna ask for your ‘papers’ and nobody is calling for you to give up your guns.

Meantime, seems like I remember that you are a Ron Paul supporter, which could be why you’ve done all of this lying on Obama. He’s such a known racist, so it might just be that you are too.

Fortunately for ALL of us, (including you) we’re finally getting past that.

Cheers…

Report this

By BlueEagle, January 30, 2008 at 12:10 am Link to this comment

Maani - thanks for providing specifics on Obama’s voting record.

You are right, he voted Yes on the *reauthorization* of the Patriot Act, which stripped me of my liberties.

Obama was absent for the vote on Real ID and has said, “I do not support the Real ID program because it is an unfunded mandate, and not enough work has been done with the states to help them implement the program.” Unfortunately, he did not say the “federal government should never be allowed to demand papers from American citizens, and it certainly has no constitutional authority to do so”, like another candidate has.

By saying “no options are left off the table” Obama, like the other candidates in the Democratic party, other than Mike Gravel, is saying he IS willing to order a nuclear first strike against any country he feels poses a danger to the US. In my mind, Obama is a loose canon.

The CFR’s objective IS to strip the U.S. of its sovereignty among other policies. At least that is what it’s members proclaim as it’s main goal.

“The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful one world government.” - Admiral Chester Ward former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy

“The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England… (and) …believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.” - Carroll Quigley member of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) mentor to Bill Clinton

Of the Democrats, I’m really not sure who is the lesser of two evils to tell you the truth. Obama is the unknown candidate. He talks a good game, but nobody knows where he stands on any issue, because that is is campaign strategy - be vague, broadcast a message of hope and optimism, play off peoples emotions.

Fortunately, there is a pro-peace, non-CFR, pro-civil liberties candidate I can vote for.

Report this
archeon of thrace's avatar

By archeon of thrace, January 29, 2008 at 7:02 pm Link to this comment

If race is not an issue, why is every one fixated on the fact Obama got 80% of the “black” vote in SC?  Why even make a note of it.  Is his skin colour important or not?  I will not be foolish enought to claim it does not matter, it does.  But it is more important to americans and american males be they black, white, or checkered that Hillary is a woman.  We hated the power our mothers had, and we certainly aren’t going to put up with it in our president.

Report this

By Aegrus, January 29, 2008 at 1:22 pm Link to this comment

Of these many points made, only a few directly respond to my statements. Perhaps it is difficult with the level of frustration Hillary emboldens in her supporters to focus their arguments to meet their positions. It’s getting old.

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has gained much support without using his race as a focal point. Most Obama supporters and campaign workers play down the race aspect. All campaign capital gained by Obama has been acquired through an inspirational message of inclusion politics.

To the contrary, Hillary Clinton’s campaign workers continually interject race and gender into the discussion when we are supposed to be moving past such petty ideas. Supporters of Clinton continually cry and rush to her rescue from the evil media moguls and truth telling journalists who call out inaccuracies thrown at Obama by her husband and campaign officials. Clinton barely apologizes for these constant misrepresentations before plugging her own campaign.

None of the statements made in the above statement have anything to do with real issues. Just status quo Hillary Support of ad hominem attacks and victimizing of your candidate. I have waited patiently for over a year to hear or read a coherent argument to vote for Hillary. There is no argument to date, and John Kerry proved in 2004 how a campaign message “Anyone but this guy” fails.

Hope dictates you will see your ideas for what they are, and come to support the best candidate we have. Barack Obama

Report this

By Maani, January 29, 2008 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment

Blue Eagle:

“He voted Yes on the the Patriot Act, which stripped me of my liberties.”

Actually, he was not in the Senate when the Patriot Act was first voted on.  However, he, Hillary and Kennedy did ALL vote to re-authorize it the two times it has come since then.

“He voted Yes on the National ID card, so I can soon hear the words, “Let me see your papers.””

Not quite.  He was absent for the vote on the Real ID Act.  That said, it doesn’t show much “principle” or spine for him to have been absent from such an important civil liberties-related vote.  As an aside, Kennedy is one of the most full-throated supporters of the Real ID Act in all of Congress.

“He won’t end the wars and won’t commit to bringing all US troops home from Iraq ever.”

The positions of all three Dems on Iraq are largely the same, the only difference being in the details; i.e., NONE of them have committed to bringing ALL troops home from Iraq.

“He is willing to order a nuclear first strike on countries that pose no danger to the US.”

That is not exactly what he said.  He did say (as did Hillary) that “no option should be left off the table” in the case of certain circumstances.

“He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which wishes to strip the US of its sovereignty.”

Again, not quite.  CFR is a think tank and policy organization.  And while they do have influence on U.S. (and other countries’) foreign policy, they do not wish to “strip the U.S. of its sovereignty.”  If anything, they wish to help the U.S. regain its status as the “hyperpower” of the world.

That said, all three of the Dem candidates have strong ties to CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg and/or other NWO organizations.  So it would be wrong to single out Obama in this regard.

Peace.

Report this

By BlueEagle, January 29, 2008 at 12:38 pm Link to this comment

This is why I can’t vote for Barack Obama.

He voted Yes on the the Patriot Act, which stripped me of my liberties.
He voted Yes on the National ID card, so I can soon hear the words, “Let me see your papers.”
He won’t end the wars and won’t commit to bringing all US troops home from Iraq ever.
He is willing to order a nuclear first strike on countries that pose no danger to the US.
He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which wishes to strip the US of its sovereignty.

I don’t know where you stand on the issues. There are many that would give up liberty for security, believe that identifying every citizen is a good thing, waging war around the world keeps us safe, and we should give up our Constitution and live under UN laws.

The thing is… I disagree with that direction for the country.

Report this
archeon of thrace's avatar

By archeon of thrace, January 29, 2008 at 12:01 pm Link to this comment

Hillary is both outside because she IS A WOMAN, and inside because she is a upper middle class white person.

No, we don’t want candidates with teeth, we want some that are not overinflated windbags.

I stand by my earlier comments that america, and esp. american males of all colours and politics hate and fear women.  That this is rooted in the mysogynistic religion of abraham and transends mereskin colour.

Obama is an ass, and if he is elected we will regret it.  He is not on the left, the right, or the middle, he is nowhere.  And seriously, why would we give a fuck that Caroline Kennedy has endorsed him?  What exactly has she done?  Just another knownothing-donothing celebrity leach, famous for nothing more than the fact that she is the late presidents child.

Change is more than a word, and it for it’s own sake is pointless, trivial, and dangerous.

I will however grant, that any of the Democratic candidates are a far far better choice than those on the other side.  Who again are a collection of impotent dried up old white men.  A mormon? A evangelical? A womanizer? A brain damaged POW?  Give me a break.  Given that a puppet idiot is the president now anything is possible.

Scott Ritter: Yes Hillary is Zionist operative, and Obama is a Muslim one….....What are you smoking?  You are sounding like my father and his daily tiraids against the “international money jews”.  Shrill, bigoted, ignorant, and stupid.  Do you do a “Siegheil” before the mirror every morning?

Report this

By Aegrus, January 29, 2008 at 10:55 am Link to this comment

How can Hillary be construed as both an outsider and an insider, yet any association of Obama with JFK and MLK is a disgrace?

It is understandable how many individuals want a candidate with teeth, but the Clinton campaign is rabid. Partially, the former president is muddling the facts, and Mark Penn creates the rest of the misrepresentations.

Do I consider Hillary a bad person for assigning a man working for Burson-Marsteller (PR agency for Blackwater USA)? No, as I’m sure he is qualified. Disregarding the fact of the Blackwater ties to Mark Penn is a decision of dubious intent, however. It’s hard to understand what people see in Hillary Clinton’s campaign these days.

Report this
archeon of thrace's avatar

By archeon of thrace, January 29, 2008 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

Trying to associate him with JFK or MLK is an insult to the memory, and most importantly the work they did.  Obama has none of their intelligence, none of their experience, none of their understanding.

I agree the potential candidates that would bring “change”, progression, and growth have long been eliminated by the media, the parties, and the churches.

The only “outsider” left in the field is paradoxically the one who is also the most “inside” - Hillary.

Report this

By Matthew, January 29, 2008 at 10:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Saying something is there doesn’t mean it is there.
To assume people are not voting for Obama because he is black is appalling.
I know plenty of people in the South who are white who will vote for him.
Most people here in California I know want to vote for Hillary because they ‘like’ her, but can’t tell you a single policy stand she has. The people I know who want Obama do so because of where he stands on things, and the fact he hasn’t been changing his story every time he is asked.
Clinton is safe, easy and more of the same.
I will never vote for her, even if it comes down to her being the candidate.

Report this

By Aegrus, January 29, 2008 at 10:34 am Link to this comment

Just because the black agenda report has an article doesn’t qualify the opinion as gospel. Routing for Kucinich (which I am also saddened to see get shafted by the MSM) after he dropped out of the presidential race is counter productive.

Also, understanding this article is about Obama’s transcending of racial politics makes it seem slightly prejudiced and narrow-minded to post an opposing article from a minority publishing specifically. Not to mention the fact of the matter is when people post links instead of their own thoughts, it demeans both their position and the position of the article to which they try to exploit.

Report this
archeon of thrace's avatar

By archeon of thrace, January 29, 2008 at 10:33 am Link to this comment

I think Obama, and his camp, his “posse” (oprah, etal…) are the ones to keep bringing race into his candidacy from the beginning.  Everyone has emphsised his “blackness” all the while trying to supress his “whiteness”.  It is infact they who are pushing this to the forefront - in my mind because he is ultimately a overinflated windbag. With little to nothing of substance to say. Bringing almost no experience to the table.  Obama coming from the priviledged social strata that he was born into due to his “white” mother, seeks to associate himself with the struggle of the underclasses because he is “black”.  Ultimately the US and the underclass will pay, if he is elected as president, with another pointless, corrupt, and destructive presidency, simply replacing the right wing figure head of incomptence with a left wing one.  Obama, by and due to his inexperience, will be swayed by his advisors in the same what Bush the shrub has been, advisors who remain in the shadows, and never have to show their hand to the voting public.

Let’s face it, black american male culture is not one that supports female emancipation, nor is it one that values women/femals as equals.  It is by and large a bastion of mysognistic patriarcial world views.

But to be fair, white american male culture is also backward and medieval when it comes to male/female interaction.  By and large, male culture in the USA hates, fears, and loaths women - (they can’t get over the fact that women bleed and they fear female sexual power).  The judeo-christian-islamo female hating religion that dominates the USA does nothing to promote female equality and emancipation, infact it fears it.

Not that American christianity has a great record when it comes to race (esp concidering that southern churches where segregated for a long time).  Christians (evangelicals and catholics and mormons et-all) would rather see a black man than a white woman holding the most powerfull office in the world.

Just imagine if the phrase would be “most powerfull woman in the world”!  Christ even a petty dictators self agrandizing titles would have more cache than “woman”.  Finally American male (white, black, latino, etc) view of women can be distilled to: Women are impure, unstable, unreliabe, and stupid.

I as a male find this disgusting and depressing.  Looking at the Repulican field is even more so - a gaggle of shrivelled up impotent old white men.  What a joke.  Land of the free or land of the stupid?

Report this

By Max Shields, January 29, 2008 at 9:40 am Link to this comment

Hate to rain on everybodies lovefest Obama parade.

But maybe a closer look at what BAR has to say as they replay what seemed all to clear to me when I first heard the Obama interview where he brings in Reagan (that’s before the pundits got a hold of it and completely glossed over it). I heard a very clear statement of praise for the Reagan era that was a response to the excesses of the Democratic party that stood for ending the war in Vietnam, civil rights, women’s rights, affordable housing. Reagan Democrats scrambled to vote out the Dems. and this is what Obama harks back to?

So much for real choice: Hillary/Obama. The real progressive was assasinated by the media - Dennis Kucinich.

Obama is a standard establishment, pro-USA imperialist interventionist of the neoliberal school, except he’s a black neoliberal. Just like Condi Rice is a full blown right-wing neocon who is a black women neocon.

Let’s get passed the hype. If this guy becomes president, he and we will have to come to terms with what this glossing over ultimately means. I remember Much th happy talk about a compassionate conservative refrained a couple of campaigns ago and look what we got!

From Black Agenda Report:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=501&Itemid=1

Report this

By Uncle Ernie, January 29, 2008 at 8:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A couple of thoughts on Obama. Same ole, same ole and a bigot too! Consider big media is pushing him and that should give you some pause! I know as a leftist I could never vote for him, which is of course the point of him! The only candidate I could have voted for was destroyed by the media, you know the People’s candidate Dennis Kucinich. You want a women, you want a real black I’d suggest Barbara Lee and yes, she’d get my vote!

Report this

By Aegrus, January 29, 2008 at 8:13 am Link to this comment

When people transcend partisanship of party, faith, class and race in America, it is a big deal. Barack’s all-inclusive stances are what provides him the edge to put his skin color out of the debate. No other candidate has a broader reach with their voice.

Being an idealist is hard because every candidate will drop the ball, and it is impossible to please everyone. Most of the opposing prospects on any party platform follow an idealism fueled by partisanship. Obama support demonstrates the importance of unity to Americans. We want to be one nation again.

So, which prospective candidates believe in one nation in solidarity? Does Edwards? Clinton? Romney? McCain? The answer is the same name which will be elected president of the United States this year. Barack Obama.

Report this

By Expat, January 29, 2008 at 2:37 am Link to this comment

^ Not in my lifetime unfortunately: But maybe it won’t matter so much when we look at the sorry bunch of candidates on both side of the isle.  The media killed off the best ones long ago.  Obama is an orator and it’s been a long time since we had one who is presidential.  Robert Byrd, the last orator in the senate, is old and it’s time for a changing of the guard.

Report this
driving bear's avatar

By driving bear, January 29, 2008 at 2:33 am Link to this comment

The democratic party may be in trouble come November.
If white democratic voters do not vote for Obama in the Primaries and Hillary Gets the nomination will black voters support her in November? I think that is the $64,000 question. I don’t blacks will vote republican out of spite, but they might stay home on election day in November which would give the GOP the win.

Also Bill Clinton bringing race into campaign has giving talk radio new ammo as Rush Limbaugh said today ” we have moved from Bull Conner to Bull Clinton”

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, January 29, 2008 at 2:29 am Link to this comment

“They are Black and White, Latino and Asian and Native American - #By Mr. Unite Us, January 28 : “They are black and white, Latino and Asian and Native American…. should read…”

What you should be complaining about is the racial profiling which the USA so continues to indulge in, Mr. Unite Us. Most probably nowhere else in the world do such eugenics exist in a pretentiously politically-correct society.

The USA is not like Russia or the EU countries at all. Its main history is as a “settler society” built on genocide, domination and exploitation. Multi-ethnic underclasses and slave classes all existed to some degree or another at some time. In effect, they still do as the USA does not function nearly as well as it presumes as a multi-racial society.

The fact that hopelessly broad racial statistics are assigned to the voting population is one stark example. There are “whites, blacks, Hispanics” and nothing else. Asians are simply shoved into the Hispanic category and I guess that Islanders from wherever are stuck with African-Americans if their skin is dark.

Of course, Arabs, Turks and Persians do not really exist, do they? And the term “alien” is no longer used for someone from another planet, uhh, but for all “auslanders” from outside the fenced-in supposedly secure but utterly fearful “homeland” http://allcountries.org/uscensus/477_voting_age_population_percent_reporting_registered.html

”By archeon of thrace, January 28: “Having a vagina is still more negative than having black skin…. Interesting to me is that Obama isn’t black at all, he is white…. Obama has no cultural links to afro-americans…. Obama finally is the “black” MAN that white people don’t have to fear, cause it’s only his skin…”

Yes, sadly the real issue many Americans really do have is with their mothers, archeon of thrace. For the males in particular, that means that they are somehow unable to successfully reconcile the fact that they were ever born out of the belly of a woman.

So, it is true that this IS a matter in which we do have to “look beyond race” as it also gets down to male sexuality and their utterly vulnerable egos in that respect. That they feel threatened by intelligent women is one thing. That they now have to contend with a senior woman who is not only intelligent but somehow represents a mother figure is more than they can cope with yet.

Of course, Hillary is not their mother and she would be the first to remind them. The problem is still in men’s perceptions, though, because the underlying issues for them are really their unresolved fears about women in general. Thus, a half-white MAN, as you say, is far more preferable to them in their unadmitted desperation, ha ha.

Report this

By cyrena, January 29, 2008 at 2:18 am Link to this comment

humm,

As a woman of color,(myself) I think you’ve just got it really ALL wrong archeon…sorry you’re so disenfranchised, but that has little to do with the bigger picture. (I’m disenfranchised too)

Hang in there though, it’s usually types like you who benefit the most…if only you ever figure it out.

I might add, in relation to your question about what he knows about being a black woman…the fact that he happens to be married to one, to whom he is obviously quite devoted, clearly gives him a lead there. And, he’s made it very clear in the past, and on more than a few ocassions, how much direction he has received from her, as well as his own WHITE mother, and his own BLACK father.

So, I’d say he knows a whole lot about what it means to be a black woman, and he has two daughters to top it off. Should I add that they are black as well, or can you manage to figure that out?

As for being the black man that white people don’t have to fear…that’s a joke. Racist white people will always fear black folks, that’s just the way it is, and will always be, and it doesn’t matter how light or dark their skin happens to be.

On the other hand, those who can transcend that issue, (and you’ve obviously not been able to accomplish that yourself, proving that racists do indeed come in all colors…we call yours ‘internalized racism’)will gain from it, and   people like you will eventually become insignificant in your anger toward the world at large.

Meantime, I’m quite sure that he DOES have an understanding about being under privileged, because his career has been focused on civil rights and social justice. The thing is though, it’s not HIS particular ‘fault’ that these inequalities exist. It’s only important that he is passionate about resolving them, and even you might benefit, despite yourself, and your misdirected anger.

Report this

By Vay, January 29, 2008 at 1:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

hmmm… you’re quite obviously an idiot.

Report this

By Expat, January 29, 2008 at 1:49 am Link to this comment

By scott ritter, January 28 at 8:02 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

AMERICANS LITSEN!

Nah, not the Ritter who was a Weapons Inspector.  Can’t be.

Report this
archeon of thrace's avatar

By archeon of thrace, January 28, 2008 at 11:41 pm Link to this comment

Remember black men got the vote before white women….....

Having a vagina is still more negative than having black skin.

Interesting to me is that Obama isn’t black at all, he is white. (if he is black because his father was black, then he is white because his mother was white)

Obama, has NO connection to the black american experience.  Obama has no cultural links to afro-americans.

Obama is in social, political, and cultural outlook an “old white man”!  Obama finally is the “black” MAN that white people don’t have to fear, cause it’s only his skin that is black.  I ask what does he know about being a black woman? or woman? NOTHING.  He also has no understanding about being under priveleged.

Report this

By Mr. Unite Us, January 28, 2008 at 11:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Note to Bill Boyarsky,
Please capitalize when referring to
White and Black Americans they same as you
do for other groups. Also lose the hypen
between African and American. You don’t
write Irish-American. See APA STYLE

“They are black and white, Latino and Asian and Native American.”

should read.

“They are Black and White, Latino and Asian and Native American.”

See the difference.

Now as to content.

Edwards received more of the White vote than Clinton.

Obama received more White male votes than
Clinton.

Obama also received the highest grade for
his economic stimulus plan.

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, January 28, 2008 at 9:11 pm Link to this comment

Unless the ticket is Clinton and Obama…

Then what?

I suppose, there are many who will vote for people based on their race of gender.

However I’m not one of them. I would prefer Edwards, but I have no qualms about voting of Obama, or Clinton if they are ones who are Nominated.

On The Republican side it’s only white men, I wouldn’t vote for any of them. It wouldn’t matter to me it there was an African American man running on the Repblican ticket say Colin Powell, or a Woman lets say Laura Bush. I still wouldn’t vote for a Republican. 

Huckabee, might make a good candidate for people who have lost weight. (He lost 100 pounds. I’ve lost weight recently too.)I still wouldn’t vote for Huckabee.

I guess I don’t have to vote for someone who refects my own race or gender, or someone who has had problems like mine.

So I wouldn’t want to vote for someone who has had problems balancing their check book, or who has gone through a painful divorce, and has had to answer phone calls from his wife in the middle of a speach. (Though a girlfriend once made me carry a pager. That was when I was younger.)

Does anyone else feel how ridiculous this is. If I vote for Obama, or Clinton or Edwards, it’s because they offer the best chance for some real hope for a change. Not another neocon, con job.

It’s change I can believe in.

Report this

By scott ritter, January 28, 2008 at 9:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Americans, Please Forget your INDIVIDUALISM for now, for the sake of HUMANITY coz your inability to think collectively has given IZREAL or JIZHELL to get you to fight for them like crazy and hence help their ANTIHUMAN agenda to go go go! so QUIT thinking INDIVIDUALIST and help humanity to get things done before too too many of HUMANS are killed for your follies.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE talk to people around you and get this thing going in some sensible direction, stop SUPPORTING ZIONISTIC WARS and START SUPPORTING HUMANITY!
DO NOT SUPPORT HILLARY EVER! BUT BE CAREFUL THAT THE ONE YOU VOTE FOR IS NOT ZIONISTIC UNDERCOVER AGENT.
ZIONISM MEANS WORST POSSIBLE KIND OF RASISM!
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TRY TO FREE AMERICA OF THE ZIONISTIC CLUTCHES AND HENCE help the normal people of the WORLD LIVE!
I DO NOT know if OBAMA IS NON ZIONISTIC but you people should do your homework and VOTE AND ELECT a non ZIOISTIC Person. KICK anyone that Lieberman supports, remember LIEBERMAN starts with LIE! and litsen to the speeches of Ray McGovern & Scott Ritter and reccomend those to others to litsen too. you can find then on google in the video section.
Please Please Please stop this war madness, Stop the bloody Genocides, Natives been obliterated, the Red people been obliterated and many other been destroyed too NOW its tiem to let PEACE AND LOVE REIGN!
REMEMBER ZIONISTS ONLY CARE ABOUT ISREAL AND OTHER IDIOTS AND NOT FOR YOU AND THAT IS WHY YOUR ECONOMY IS IN SHAMBLES, STOP FUNDING YOUR OWN DEATH AND THEN THE DEATH OF OTHER NORMAL HUMANS!

NEVER EVER SUPPORT ISRAEL OR THE ZIONISTS AS THAT MEANS DEATH TO THE NORMAL HUMANS AND THE NORMAL HUMANS THE ZIONSISTS CARE NOT FOR.
FREE USA FROM ZIONISTS CLUTCHES AND PLEASE LET HUMANITY LIVE!

Report this

By SamSnedegar, January 28, 2008 at 8:45 pm Link to this comment

South Carolina was about NOTHING if not race.

Clinton and Edwards split three quarters of the WHITE votes, and Obama would have finished dead last but for the black votes of which he got nearly all.

Promoting a black man as the Democrat’s candidate all but assures that the Republicans will win the white house this year, and the appearance is that the Republican chosen will be the Bushitter’s yes man, none other than the lying John McCain.

Ideals are wonderful things to have, but the Rove forces have seen to it that the Democrats today will either put a black man or a white woman up for the Presidency, and neither of them can win it unless Hillary manages somehow to get many millions of women registered and voting, women who have never registered and voted before.

Americans are STUPID to let the media run this election; but of course we have to have the oil from Iraq, and none of the Democrats are apt to continue the rape of Iraq as will the compliant McCain who has already noted that he planned for our being a force in Iraq for a hundred years to come.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook