Obama shouldn't be elected because he's a warmonger and a corporate sellout. Who cares what his skin color is?

Oh and HAHAHAHAHA to Stoddard calling Obama an immigrant. READ THE CONSTITUTION, moron.

is powell, rice, thomas black enough? is gonzales brown enough? enough is the only word that isn't used ENOUGH!!!

Calling them journalists is a mistake. They are entertainers, just like professional wrestlers. But calling it irresponsible is just completely wrong. They are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. Follow the script. They are put out there to fill the time with, at best, worthless pablum, and at worst, deadly propaganda. The real problem exists much higher up the food chain. These are the guys who will convince us that mandatory "brown shirts" are actually fashionable. "It can be cool to wear them".
Hoa binh

You know there's always this strange atmosphere when a white panel like this one decides to have one of these supposed "discussions" about race...it's almost as though they're indulging in some sort of porn..I get the feeling that they're excited by a feeling of something taboo: "Ooooh, look at us...we're talking about BLACK people, BLACKNESS, ooooh....see how far we've come!! We're not afraid to deal with something really, really edgy like whether or not a black man is BLACK ENOUGH!!"

It totally creeps me out!
(BTW, I am also a white person with an African American partner and, no, no white person can ever speak to the experience of what it means to be black...but I sure can cringe for my white peeps when they embarrass themselves like this!)

lewis lapham, when asked about the don imus hoohah, said, "he's just saying what we all think." (lewis lapham, no less!) get a group of MSM pundits together and ask about the state of black america and i guarantee 90% of the discussion will be on rap music, the other 10% on absent fathers. when murray's 'the bell curve' came out 15 yrs ago, many MSM pundits bought it hook line & sinker: "see, we knew there was a biological reason why white people become pundits!"

there are new codewords in the mainstream, but the same old racism is very alive & well in this country.

I don't know why anyone would expect better of Tucker Carlson and people like him.

Blackness, whiteness, eh. Isn't that part of the problem.

Let's ALL try to prove how "colored" we are!

Eh, I'm too white too. I listen to power metal.

I wonder if Asians get called out for not being Asian enough.

I don't like Barack Obama. Not because he's "too white" or "too black" but for me he's not progressive enough.

I don't like Tucker Carlson not because he's "too white" but because he's a conservative rich-boy hack. Sometimes I hope he inherits that Swanson frozen-food fortune so that he can retire from being a professional Alex P. Keaton impersonator and so I don't have to see him anymore. Maybe he'll then become a coke addict or something. People like that often self-destruct when they have nothing better to do.

What does it mean to be black enough? It means that a black American has ancestors who were humiliated enough during slavery and segregation, which means, by definition, that foreign blacks are not black enough. Black = American ancestry = humiliation. Get it? Only the American experience produces blackness! It is just one more of the little parochial quirks Americans of all shades share.

By the way, I will not reveal whether I am black, brown, white, or yellow or the race or admixture of my partner or children because, whatever our race, we all can talk about slavery, segregation, and racism in the US or elsewhere for that matter. Humiliation and the quest for justice are universal enough to make it so.

It's always been the job of white people to decide who is black enough -- to be sold, bred, whipped, lynched, massacred, etc.

The only reparations that the descendants of slaves will ever receive in the US is to be measured for their electoral fitness by white reporters & pundits.

Tucker Carlson is apparently white enough

The "electable" candidates are owned enough

And green is the color Americans worship...then they go to church a couple of Sundays a year..read from their fairytale book and listen to the man wearing a dress to get forgiveness for their evil actions and avoidance of goodness

Tucker Carlson, what a little prick. Why anybody would give a shit what he or anyone else on his "show" says is beyond me. Enough already.

I live proudly knowing I saw the actual last time good ol' Fucker Carlson was on CNN's "Crossfire" and our mental savior Jon Stewart was the guest. Once Stewart refused to be the day's comedy monkey, going instead for a solid critique of the CNN farce-o-rama, Carlson kept twittering at him saying "you're really boring" until the graphics came up for a commercial. "And you're as big a DICK on this show as you are everyplace else!" Stewart shouted as the picture cut away; and that was that! You mustn't upset little Tucker you know! "Halliburton Halliburton Halliburton!" is how he always "responded" to talk critical of Cheney---He gives "media whores" a good name...

On the MSNBC "Morning Joe" show, the "replacement" host made a comment about Dennis Kucinich having trouble seeing over the podium. I haven't seen them stand back to back but I think Dennis may be as tall as Hillary. Anyway the comment was made in a snide way. The only thing MSNBC has going for it is Keith Olbermann's "Count Down".

A CNN newsman was commenting on some Code Pink women in the background at a Senate hearing. He never used the words code pink and just said that they seemed to be anti-Bush, so I don't think he really knew anything about them. He did object to them being at hearings even though the were only shown just sitting there. I guess he is just a folksy newsman who is allowed to express an opinion without really knowing anything. I thought CNN had higher standards. Now I know better. I changed the channel and won't be viewing CNN ever again.

"I thought CNN had higher standards. Now I know better. I changed the channel and won't be viewing CNN ever again."

Amy Goodman produced a brilliant report on the difference between CNN International's coverage of the invasion of Iraq and the footage CNN USA showed. She still believes that if Americans were shown the unvarnished footage, they would actually rise up & refuse the lies of the rulers.

Ted Turner has expressed regret at having sold CNN to Time/Warner.

Chuckle, chuckle, chuckle! Sorta reminds me of all the 'China Experts' discussing China and not one Chinese expert among them...

Next, Glen Beck asks: "Is Mitt way too white, not to mention an idiot and a liar, to be President?"

Obama's new campaign song: "Am I Black Enough For Ya," Schooly D, from the "King of New York" soundtrack. Old school and totally appropriate.

Wonder what Tucker's gonna do for work once what's left of his party is drown in the bathtub...

Tucker Carlson is a dick. What difference does it make?

Politicians should not be judged by the blackness of their skin, but by the blackness of their hearts.

That's a great line, canuckchuck

Frank Zappa said in 1966 in his very first album in the song "Trouble Every Day" which was about the Watts riots:

Hey, you know something people?
I'm not black
But there's a whole lots a times
I wish I could say I'm not white

We haven't learned much have we?

"When I have children, they will be bi-racial, like Obama, and will no doubt one day face the question: Am I black enough? I'd like to be able to tell them: Someone just like you was elected president, not because he was black enough, but because he was good enough."

Unfortunately for Barack, and possibly for us since the elite have every intention of continuing to shove him down our collective throat, his problem is not his "blackness" or lack there of, but his competence, or lack there of. Barack Obama is not "good enough" to be president. He is a poser in every respect, and we shall rue the day if he becomes president.

Yea I know we already rue the day our Bush was placed in office, twice. I do not know that Barack would be any worse, but I doubt he would be any better.

Tucker Carlson is not a journalist. He received his 'Blackness' question from his neo con superiors. Tucker's previous comments on Obama show him to be a racist.

I suppose we would bar blacks from a panel to discuss whether Obama acts too "white". The author should find something else to worry about, other than this.

A perfect example of how the talk show hosts in today's media are actually slaves to their corporate masters. KUCINICH is our only hope!!!!!

As is always accomplished: the oppressors continue to skew history.

Better hurry if we want the charade to fade. It is never a question of blackness or whiteness. It is the question of simply being human enough to represent all groups of people instead of a few of the elitist crowd...

Tucker Carlson's Obama panel is the direct result of people who think they have insight on the black experience by watching episodes of "The Cosby Show". Pathetic.

If Mr. Obama were to try hailing a cab in New York or any other US city, there'd be more than enough proof that he's black enough -- not to be picked up.

Maybe I'll get crucified for saying so, but wasn't there a lot of speculation at the beginning of the Obama campaign, from his "exploratory committee" on, that perhaps he had a lot of work to do to win over the black community?

I seem to recall there was a lot of initial skepticism from the black community, and that some of those interviewed expressed concern openly that perhaps he did not represent the community well. Or, that they were cautious to endorse him as they did not know enough about him, but specifically in relation to his advocacy for black America. Al Sharpton was openly skeptical. And, almost immediately, reports came out that Daniel Glover was supporting Edwards.

So -- I guess my question is -- didn't this question of the "blackness" of Barack Obama start within the black community?

Another question -- should a black candidate worry about his or her "blackness"? You bet, the way the country is now -- if he or she wants to get anywhere.

The ideal scenario would be race is irrelevant. That ideal scenario is far from a reality. So, race and gender become relevant discussion points in elections analysis as things stand. In the case of Obama's "blackness," I think it could be argued that this subject was raised by the black community.

In the ideal scenario, where race is a non-issue, the racial composition of the panel that is discussing the question should also be irrelevant. If Obama's "blackness" is a disgusting topic for election analysis, then the "whiteness" of the discussion panel is also off limits.

One cannot have it both ways.

Bush isn't black enough, and he got the job.

with all due respect, what a bunch of absolutely ridiculous drivel mirf59.

You said:
"So — I guess my question is — didn't this question of the "blackness" of Barack Obama start within the black community? Another question — should a black candidate worry about his or her "blackness"? You bet, the way the country is now — if he or she wants to get anywhere. The ideal scenario would be race is irrelevant. That ideal scenario is far from a reality. So, race and gender become relevant discussion points in elections analysis as things stand. In the case of Obama's "blackness," I think it could be argued that this subject was raised by the black community."

Does that mean because black kids say n****r in rap music that it's okay for white kids too? hell no! if a group of people with a shared history of 400 years of oppression want to have a conversation about their community, it is not an invitation for elitist, rich white people to sound off.

Then you go ahead to say:
"In the ideal scenario, where race is a non-issue, the racial composition of the panel that is discussing the question should also be irrelevant. If Obama's "blackness" is a disgusting topic for election analysis, then the "whiteness" of the discussion panel is also off limits. One cannot have it both ways."

Does the world exist in a vacuum? cuz it sure seems to me that the startin line for whites in this country was a little further up. the "whiteness" of the group was particularly relevent because in this case it represents the 400-year old mouthpiece of the oppressor class. we're not talkin about a few poor white people, or even a multi-racial panel having an educated discussion. we're talkin about a group of silver-spooned whitey's oiling the machine of hegemony. The very people you seem to want to insulate with your colorblindness are the same ones that are driving the wedge between people of different skin tones. them being identified by their whiteness is not about their skin tone in an equal world. it is about their behavior as whites in service to the machine in an unequal world.

I sometimes watch the 'Tucker' show for satirical entertainment since Saturday Night Live has gone downhill.

True, Mr. Swanson McNear Carlson doesn't realize he's producing segments of rare satire -- such as asking a white panel if Obama is black enough -- but he is nonetheless.

Mr. D, a poster to another website had your thought in mind:

"The reason Tucker Carlson wears his bow tie tied so tightly is to keep the foreskin from creeping up over his collar!"
-- Comment by Mmgpsyche at "The Full Disclosure Tucker Carlson Isn't Making," Huffington Post, Feb. 28, 2006.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-full-disclosure-tucke_b_16530.html#commentTop

Yes, even though the Bow-Tie Boy has taken to wearing long ties these days, I believe the same purpose is achieved, and it actually heightens the comic effect, like watching a TV dinner melt to inedible goo in the hot Klieg lights, especially if it's perched on the host's moptop head.

Since few people watch the GOP shill disguised as a 'Libertarian Independent,' I suspect his brand of unintentional hilarity is soon headed for the dumpster, answering the real question: "Is Tucker Carlson smart enough to host a cable news show?"

censeable,

Part of what I'm saying is that race is obviously still a factor in politics in this country. That makes it fair game for the political pundits.

You claim they are deliberately pushing race and ensuring that it continues to be an issue. That may be true, in which case it is deplorable and the spirit of your criticism is correct and I'm behind you all the way.

It could also be true that these are just journalists doing their jobs, giving the people what they want, and discussing the relevant aspects of the election -- one of which is, unfortunately, the race or gender of the candidate.

Do you have any evidence of an evil motive on the part of these pundits? If so, great. If not, I think you are engaging in exactly the type of activity you are hoping to eradicate -- judging based solely on race.

I'm a white guy who is disagreeing with you. Does this make me a white hegemonist? Am I part of some sinister plot to keep people of darker skin down?

I assure you I am not.

I think you do yourself a disservice buying into this type of thing, and you will be much more effective and persuasive if you can identify and acknowledge the complexities at play here. White=bad is not going to get it done.

dear mirf-

how wrong you have it...LOL. you missed the whole point. you are right about two things though: 1) white does not equal bad and 2) it is far more complex than simply white and black. it's so ironic that all you mistakenly understood is that i think white=bad. What's so funny is that I AM A WHITE GUY DISAGREEING WITH YOU TOO! i just know the difference between between race and racism. apparently you don't.

it's pretty plain that the ruling/corporate class doesn't want to lose power. whether that event in particular was meant to be divisive is irrelevant. the point is we're not talking about random white folk expressing opinion on the issue. we're talking about corporate ruling class elites employed as infotainment providers, and NOT responsible journalists delving into a delicate issue. it is racism (as well as classism). you must understand that the power dynamic here is what is of consequence - not specifically race. your desire to see past skin tone and look to ideas is admirable, but that doesn't make a history of BOTH racism and classism negligible.

skin tone has very little to do with genetic similiarity among/between people. ideas for change are what is important. but what is it that we seek to change? i mean if everything is hunky dory regarding race and class, then wtf is the point of this website?

i'm assuming you like most here desire a free and fair world, where all people are afforded rights, and have opportunity. but you can't turn a blind eye to history in the name of colorblindness. addressing poverty and a system that creates poverty is essential. while those at the top could give a flying f*** about race really, and are willing to screw over anyone in the name of money and power, a history where more often its been people of darker skin tone getting screwed must be considered.