Obama and the Politics of Race
During the many years that I lived in the United States, first as a university student, then as reporter for two Midwest newspapers and later as the Washington correspondent for the Star, I was always struck by the huge divide between blacks and whites.
As a Canadian from small-town Ontario, I was initially somewhat naive about the bigotry and anger shown by many whites, especially males, toward blacks. It didn’t take long, though, to learn just how deep-rooted those feelings were.
Over the years, I watched as ruthless white politicians, or at least their sleazy campaign strategists, played off those feelings.
There was Ronald Reagan trashing “welfare moms,” code words for single black mothers who didn’t work.
There were the campaign supporters for the first George Bush who ran the infamous campaign ads that criticized Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis for backing a weekend furlough program that let Willie Horton, a nasty-looking black serving a life sentence for murder, get out of prison temporarily, during which time he committed rape and robbery.
And today, while few U.S. politicians will dare say the current presidential campaign is about race, it clearly is.
Yes, an ugly wind is blowing across America again. This time it is heading straight toward Barack Obama, who will likely be the Democratic candidate for president. Obama’s victory Tuesday over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary in North Carolina virtually assured his nomination.
In the North Carolina primary, racial divisions were dramatic. Clinton won 60 per cent of white votes while Obama received 90 per cent of black votes.
And many of the whites who went to Clinton were working-class white males. Republican pollster Whit Ayres calls them “this year’s soccer moms,” referring to the favoured target group for politicians during the 1996 presidential campaign. “There’s no way on God’s green earth they’re going to vote for Barack Obama,” Ayres says of blue-collar white males. “They will vote for John McCain,” the Republican nominee.
Sadly, even Clinton has started indirectly playing the race card, reinventing herself as the defender of working-class whites, stooping so low that she even talked of how she loved to shoot guns.
And if Clinton is subtly raising the race factor, you can bet the Republicans will, too.
Obama realizes it. “We know the attacks are coming,” he told supporters Tuesday night.
Obama is seen by many voters as the candidate of hope and change. This is especially true for blacks, who see him — not Clinton — as the leader who could help them achieve real economic and social equality with whites.
For many blacks, the equality gains of the 1960s and 1970s are a faded memory. Currently, three times as many blacks now live in poverty than whites. Black unemployment is three times as high as white jobless rates; black educations levels are much lower; AIDS rates are 10 times higher than they are for whites; the rate of incarceration is three times that of whites.
What does all this mean for Canadians? Well, while it may be tempting to look smugly at America and say such things aren’t happening here, the truth is we suffer many of the same problems that plague America when it comes to inclusiveness in politics and business.
In cities such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, diversity and minorities are welcomed. But for the most part, the movers and shakers of Canada are still white, still male.
In Ontario, for example, the Queen’s Park Legislature is dominated by white males, as are city councils across the province.
And Quebec’s recent controversial hearings into “reasonable accommodation” show there is another, ugly side to the diversity debate in other parts of the country.
And yet our own political leaders rarely address these issues in any meaningful way, preferring instead to remain silent and do little about the inequality in our own midst.
To some extent, America has come a long way, but has much further to go. So, too, does Canada.
Hopefully, if Obama becomes president, America will truly change its attitude toward race and equality. And if that happens, then hopefully the same attitudinal changes will occur in Canada.
Bob Hepburn’s column appears every Thursday.
© Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2008
The author states that “Hopefully, if Obama becomes president, America will truly change its attitude toward race and equality.” This is certainly a laudable goal, considering how much suffering and abuse African Americans have had to endure over the centuries in America. But if Obama becomes president, the hope is that he would realize that other brown skinned people have grown to resent having American troops on their soil. It should be acknowledged that even after Obama’s phased withdrawal would finally take place, that he recommends that close to 100,000 U.S. forces should remain in Iraq or in the region near Iraq. What has received little attention is that Obama also wishes the American mercenaries to stay in Iraq. Obama also advocates that U.S. forces should remain in Afghanistan.
His proposal to keep troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan will never win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi and Afghani people, as they will continue to resent the presence of U.S. troops in their countries. One would think that a minority American would have tons of empathy for what the Iraqis and Afghanis have gone through at the hands of the American military. But apparently the word empathy seems to be non existent for that alleged agent of hope and change.
Harold Ford, Jr. of Tennessee, a black Democrat who lost a Senate bid narrowly in 2006 to Bob Corker, a white business type Republican KNOWS VERY WELL how running against a racist tide doesn’t necessarily work out so well.
He was on TV Tuesday night talking up the need for a unity ticket of Obama/Clinton. He’s right, (due to race realities and in spite of Hill/Bill difficulties), and I doubt the recent vote trends are lost on Barack for even a minute.
Barack must invite Hillary onto the ticket in a gracious manner. Whether she’ll accept or not, who knows? But he must invite her, even though she is “old” Washington and not the clean sweep “change” he would like. He must do this for himself and for all the people he seeks to represent, because it is the leadership step needed to stop Republicans from winning on racism to keep corporatism.
Look for Barack to “lead”. The only question is timing and style.
Comedian Argus Hamilton remarked a few months ago that a unity ticket is unlikely, because “He won’t be her driver,
she won’t be his secretary, and Michelle won’t get on the back of the campaign bus with Bill.”
Well, more is at stake. I’m looking for Barack to know so and to “manage” the problem. We’ll see.
Why not vote for Cynthia McKinney instead? She won’t sell out other blacks in self-interest and money grubbing (think: Wall Street) tactics. I’ve grown to despise the Obamaniacs, since they refuse to WAKE UP to reality and see this slimy politician for what he really is!! ):
Rich Griffin:
I voted for Obama in the primary though hardly consider myself an “Obamaniac.” I’m just trying to be realistic. If Obama does become the Dem. nominee, it’s a choice between Obama and McCain and if you don’t vote for Obama (i.e. vote for McKinney, Nader, etc), you’re voting for McCain. I remember when I too, thought there was a third (or fourth) choice. Then we got 8 years of Bush. Someday, hopefully we have the luxury of substantive choices, but if McCain gets in, we only get further away from that possibility. You have to adit, there is a HUGE difference between Obama and McCain.
Rich- your rants are tiresome. Please point out who these Obamaniacs are that you talk about after every story on this site. Quit telling me and the millions of other people that have voted for Obama to WAKE UP, it may be time for you to take a nap…
skeeterjones- a vote for McKinney is not a vote for McCain, it’s like not voting at all.
John ‘Bomb Bomb’ McCain just said that Hammas would like to see Barrack obamma as president.
Does that finally qualify him as disseminating hate speech and racism?
Draft Gore!!!
If Clinton is asked to join the Obama ticket, they may as well join CNN and all have a dream of changing the USA. The reality of it will go under water with climate change.
Skeeterjones:
What you did not address is that the American people will not vote for Nader or McKinney because their awareness of these candidates will be considerably diminished since the corporate media [along with the complicit approval of the Democrats and the Republicans] will make sure that Nader and McKinney’s views will not be heard during the presidential debates this summer. One would be remiss in not pointing out how the networks and the cable programs colluded in the summer of 2000 to make sure that Nader’s voice was silenced. The last thing that the corporate and political establishment desires to have happen is for their view point to be challenged. This is reminiscent of Orwell’s Animal Farm-two legs good, four legs bad. In this case, any candidate can run for office as long as that candidate is a Democrat or a Republican.
So much for the idea of democracy flourishing in the land of the free and what is erroneously referred to as the greatest country in the world.
Mr. Hepburn, I’ll try to stay “on topic.” We do sometimes stray a bit on these comments pages to promote our personal political agendas.
This “race card” matter tends to operate in a complex way in an American election. When you say Hillary Clinton “subtly” played the race card when she played up to the hunting crowd, you miss the mark because guns and hunting are not really race-based issues in the country and an approach to the white gun-hunting crowd may well be “pandering,” but is not an anti-black action; why would it be, when her husband was himself the recipient of huge black electoral support? I think that what might appear to be an overtly racist remark by a Clinton surrogate, former vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, might deserve a little more attention: when she told Obama that if he were not black, he would not be where he was (running for President). Grotesquely politically incorrect and personally hurtful as that statement may be, it is probably factually true, and therein lies another and truly “subtle” way in which the race card gets played. For Wall Street and other power brokers (white) interested in capturing the White House with one of “their own,” Barack Obama was a godsend precisely because he was a black. What other junior U.S. Senator with no more experience or identification with substantive issues could fit so well their need to find a black that they could groom, sponsor (with millions of campaign dollars Goldman Sachs kicked in a half million dollars for the “cause”); and they needed one who was not only black and pliable but also personally very attractive, one whom Opray Winfred could also sponsor from the “celebrity” side of the power elite in America. Obama’s decision to take the “white” side of the racial divide was shown unmistakely when, painfully and courageously, he threw “under the bus” the black man Jonathan Wright who sounded way too much like one of those “radical” blacks who have been scaring the pants off whites ever since the heyday of Martin Luther King. In playing THAT race card—what in older rhetoric was called playing the Uncle Tom or the “good nigger” to the white master, his sponsors insured that white “liberals” who needed to prove their own racial liberalism could do so by supporting a “black” candidate; and an essentially harmless one at that. And, as this card was one which in poker might be called a straight flush or somesuch, he could count on the understandable yearning of blacks to have “one of them” in the White House, even though the “one” would have about as much contact with the black community as that other black “celebrity,” O.J. Simpson. Obama truly WOULD NOT be where he now is, as Democratic Party nominee-apparent, had he not played that card to win primaries in a string of states with large black populations. Now THATS the way you play the race card (and win) with elections in the U.S. of A.; I don’t know about Canada.
I still say ‘Draft Gore’ with McKinney as Veep maybe
The Dems are dead with either Obama(I could be wrong) or Clinton(I know I’m not)
for more fodder on the latter, see:
Clinton Sends Letter Demanding Obama Recognize Michigan, Florida Votes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/m.s.-bellows/clintons-open-letter-to-o_b_100861.html
Check out the lies and innuendos it contains, let alone her broken promise on the whole topic!!!
Typical Clinton sleaze!
I feel like the author. It still is surprising how racially segregated America is. Even where I wouldn’t have assumed so. So no wonder this will, sadly, be an issue in the elections.
In Portland, Ore, considered one of these liberal places in the US of A, I counted exactly 10 blacks during 3 weeks, and I was surprised. 7 of them in one shopping mall. Why did African Americans never move to Portland, I wondered?
On the eve of my return trip back to Europe, I mentioned this fact at a dinner party. “You mean you haven’t shown him the ghetto?” people (all very liberal) asked my host.
Holy sh**, I thought.
Yep….America is so racially prejudiced that a black man has just aboout sewn up the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.
I was very pleased to see that the author acknowledged Canada’s own problem’s. refreshing.
A little less of the one way racism would be appreciated too. Black racism is just as bad, even worse than others. And don’t even start with
the justifications. Racists are racists. Racism is racism and there is no excuse for it. None.
It might be wekll to acknowledge how far we’ve come instead of the constant nit-picking.
I think that these blogs are following the example of what passes for journalism these days, which is partisan vitriol (name-calling, emotionally laden terms–such as Uncle Tom– and bashing other bloggers,) instead of interesting analysis.
I guess we all want play at being pundit. Even pundits do.
Anyhow, what may appear racist or sexist or any other -ist, often is not, as in the case of Ferraro’s clumsy observation. Likewise, just because Obama is black and dislikes emotionally laden, and therefore potentially divisive, outbursts from other angry black people concerning past abuse does not make him an Uncle Tom. It makes him a even-tempered, cool-handed, thoughtful man who sees the wisdom in solving difficult problems by appealing to the reason and intelligence in all of us.
Why don’t we all try this approach, right now, and see how good it feels. After all, the process reflects a lot about the parties involved.
Also, once again, a vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. I never did like that “strategic voting,” or whatever it’s called. In the name of transparency, a rare quality indeed, try voting your conscience this year.
Getting back to the article, there’s one line in there that’s all too familiar, and it drives me crazy: “In the North Carolina primary, racial divisions were dramatic. Clinton won 60 per cent of white votes while Obama received 90 per cent of black votes.”
I say: When a black man gets 40 PERCENT of the WHITE vote in the SOUTH (along with most of the black vote), he’s doing just fine!
ok, sarajeanne, Obama is wonderful, Clinton is ok, a vote for Nader is fine, it’s fine to derogate your pastor as an “old uncle” who doesn’t speak for the black community,McCain doesn’t really have horns and a tale, Obama didn’t really get where he is politically through his sponsorship by Wall Street bankers and lawyers, Clinton is the soul of honesty and rectitude, and let’s all clasp hands and sing about our solidarity as Americans. Pretty interesting analysis, what? Wake me when the campaign’s over.
“For many blacks, the equality gains of the 1960s and 1970s are a faded memory. Currently, three times as many blacks now live in poverty than whites. Black unemployment is three times as high as white jobless rates; black educations levels are much lower; AIDS rates are 10 times higher than they are for whites; the rate of incarceration is three times that of whites.”
Clinton is definitely playing the race card. If she had wanted to draw black as well as white support, she could have used her visibility to talk about these problems. Obama can’t talk about this stuff without stamping himself as the BLACK candidate, but she can. If race is a political issue, this is what it should be about, not useless identity issues.
I want to complicate race politics. Couldn’t we add the category of mixed race to “white” and “black”? That “black” includes mixed race people is a social legacy of the customary and arbitrary one-drop rule, not biology. Why continue letting white supremacism control our discourse? Obama is clearly mixed race, and so is Jeremiah Wright. But it would be asking the media to manage three categories instead of two, and that’s too many for them to handle.
The thing about Obama is that he is a race and class accomodator. Wake up to the realities of what he is proposing visa vi those two aspects of our culture: NOTHING.
When his presidency is over the great economic divide will be just as great: he’s not proposing to empower workers to keep more of the wealth they create.
When his presidency is over the great racial divide will be just as great: he’s given no indication that he’s read the Kerner Commission recommendations of 1968 about how to bridge the gap.
Nothing is going to improve folks. Actually read what he proposes. Look the beyond the pretty smile and the booming voice. Read his speeches carefully and study his proposals in detail.
There is a reason corporate America is backing Obama heavily. They aren’t betting on a radical change in social relations and a sudden outbreak of economic fairness. They wouldn’t be showering BO in all those huge campaign donations if they didn’t think Obama was a player.
The folks over at blackagendareport.com, particularly Glen Ford, Margaret Kimberley and Bruce Dixon have been chronicling the deficiencies in Obama’s failed approach for years. Check it out.
Amen, brother formernader voter!
Quoting Hillary Clinton about “…how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me”: note that she links “hard-working” with “white Americans”, snidely implying that blacks are not hard-working and, perhaps, not real Americans. If she is so hungry for power, she should immediately make a deal with McCain to be his VP running mate, because that’s as near as she deserves to get.
continually amused - while I agree with you that the average black person is as capable as the average white person, I disagree that individual effort can solve collective dysfunction.
Capitalism is set up so that some prosper and the rest work. Hard work ( and other, less admirable traits) may get some people ahead, but the majority are doomed to fall behind or fail.
We must all hang together or we must assuredly hang separately.
We need a society where all contribute and all share in the benefits.
This is off the topic of racism but the term “Obamaniacs” made me think of the phrases you hear all the time on talk radio. “I am an Obama fan”, or “are you a Hillary fan?”, or “I can tell that you are a McCain fan”. Its the use of the word “fan” which is normally used for sports or other entertainment venues. In politics the word “supporter” would seem more appropriate. Perhaps people have lost sense of the difference between cheering for someone and supporting them for their policies. Maybe its more indicative than we think.
Run, Ralph, run.
The media is out of control this election has shown us just how far it has gone to dumb-down the public. The recent move by ABC to remove candidates from the debates was outrageous. They are trying to determine the fate of the country and the world being mouthpiece for special interests and the government and to silence dissent.
Media censure is unheard, the FCC should rule for the public but like the EPA its teeth are continually drawn. The media has no right to exclude any politician who is running for office as happened recently with the ABC debate. The only exclusion under the rules used by ABC should apply to a candidate not sitting in public office. The license of ABC would be lifted if the rules were changed but the congress, with the exception of a few pushes for more media conglomeration supported by special interests. I hope that someone picks up on this thought. We have seen the obsession by FOX and CNN, particularly in the form of Wolf Blitzer, and the FOX rabid journalists constantly referring to the Rev. Wright controversy.
Blitzer’s bias is clear. He is quick to use every possible negative he can against Obama from the Flag Pin to anything else he could get his mouth around. His support for Clinton has been clear and inappropriate, for CNN to call itself a “fair and balanced” news network. I quote Mr. Nichols: ” The media pretense of being a fly on the wall has often been preposterous. In the real world of politics — where power brokers and manipulators proceed with the cynical axiom that perception is reality — the fly on the wall is the wall. The political press corps is not observing reality as much as redefining it while obstructing outlooks and constraining public perceptions.”
As usual, few are able to see the stampede of the public sheep created by media. I support the change that Obama represents! He is intelligent and wants America once again to be looked upon as a great nation that it could still be and once was. The present “lack of experience” cry of Clinton is preposterous. Could anyone having been near the White house as long as Bush done as badly for the USA? There is experience! However, the discovery of a job approval rating for him at about 28% of the American people speaks volumes about experience. No one could have been as bad as the Bush team! There is experience!
A flight from entrenched American politics is necessary . . .it has ruined this country and made greed the single value of importance. The young people once again embrace hope as a result of the Obama campaign. The Hillary political group and entrenched politics have virtually destroyed America with its policies and exclusive power clubs. She has believed this form government is America.
Clinton recently morphed to the Obama populist message, it was called, “finding her voice” while at the beginning of her stump showing her Madeline Albright, bomb the children image. Can anyone truly think that change is unnecessary? I guess not since all the politicos have adopted his message including McCain? The mistakes that Obama may make as president cannot be greater than those of the past seven years. It is also necessary to give him a democratic congress to make certain that the programs that Americans want can be enacted.
Mr. Gore Vidal, has pointedly criticized mainstream media as one of the major problems, and what is wrong with the USA. The corporate media conglomerates control the message and that message is perversely distorted and panders to its advertising portfolio! Wolf Blitzer one of the glaring examples of this criticism and shows clearly those distorted ideas with his reporting, which is nothing more than partially factual opinion dictated by his bosses.
He is a person who has no right to shape public opinion far from being the “fly on the wall” he espouses to be. We must remember flies morph from maggots. He displays ignorance as a virtue for the entire world to see, an example of what is considered, by many in America to be news reporting. If Blitzer were billed as a CNN commentator, at least the public would not be hoodwinked to believe his reporting to be the truth, while it is lack of concern for accuracy, rectitude and fairness to be considered to be news rather than opinion.
The people of the USA have been so ill informed as to what a change would really do and mean to this country and the change in leadership that is necessary, they have forgotten that no one could be worse than George Bush . . . No one, not even a dogcatcher, at least the dog catcher has compassion for
Animals!
The future leaders, Obama or McCain, should discuss the problems America and the world faces. The problem of public ignorance of the issues caused by the media is serious. In the heat of elections the media panders to voter ignorance. The emphasis, as we see on nightly, so-called news, is constant repetition of candidate’s miscues. The result of the media sensationalism becomes, the wrong problem and the wrong message at a crucial time in world history. The emphasis on having the politicians address a credible platform of ideas based on an American and global interaction in the world is critical.
There is not enough time left for civilization to focus on rubbish. The energy and environmental issues for example or food and health care are the problems the media should be focusing upon. But to use the Rev, Wright issue for one week, to try and hurt the candidacy of Obama is a travesty. The issues most pressing are once again avoided, those really important issues that must be put before the congress; the environment, continued funding of Iraq, energy issues, education, health care and so many others not dealt with, all impacting upon the economy, the failure of public dialog is outrageous!
The issue of this election will impact on the environment, economy and the future of the USA as no others. Still, if more than 50% of eligible voters cast their votes it will be a miracle, as a result of regressive US election laws and media obfuscation. It is compulsory for everyone to vote in Australia it should be so in the USA as well. Few of the candidates are really talking about the major points, even those who are the most erudite. The environment in association with the economy or health care and elections reform, to name some, are kept out of public dialog as a result of the nonsense punditry hours on end. The world looks at America and its “star struck reality” in wonder.
The political discussion rests on the complete lack of talking points in isolation, such as, Clinton’s health package or the nonsense gasoline tax rebate and it’s cost, rather than what is really at stake with energy issues, human survival. The candidates for the US presidency rarely talk about the complete interrelated package of the issues combined. Obama alludes to this deficiency in the media and public issues. When he asks for this to occur it lands on deaf ears because the media and special interests do not want this to occur.
The media reduces the public debate to its most simplistic level with pundits arguing about one inconsequential issue or another rather than the truly important issues of our time. The American people are kept from hearing and understanding the relationship of the entire package of issues, which a true leader must address and deal with for the very survival of America in the world within a global economy. The costs for the war would pay for every single need from health care to American infrastructure repair and education, as well as the alleviation of world hunger and energy research this is what is what is at stake.
The media deals with Rev. Wright and American Flag lapel pins instead.
The media keeps the public dumbed down for obvious reasons they represent the moneyed people. As a result the public becomes unable to talk about moving radically toward change and the related issues affecting their very life and the future. The issues of climate change, energy issues and the global economy not only American economy is the part of the mortgage crisis created by the “free market” system. All the other issues like people losing their homes as a result of Wall Street manipulation are tied to these fundamental problems. These is the first and major issue which affects all other issues and is completely related to the economic changes which must take place.
The media board rooms instruct their so-called journalists (news/opinion readers) to stay clear of those subjects that would attack advertising, consumption, tied together in the media collusion with special interests to maintain the consumer system killing the world. Media in collusion with government does not want the change that would result in the decline of their hundreds of millions of dollars in profits.
All environmental problems are in one way or another associated with the Western world’s consumption based lifestyle led by the USA. These issues are affected by consumer advertising much of it coming from the millions spent on advertising of irrelevant product and campaign advertising. The media should be dealing with true American and global issues in this campaign affecting the very basis of the so-called American Dream, fast becoming the global nightmare. This is what the next president of the USA must address!
One reason why race is being brought up by the corporate media is because that is what their audience (which graying and shrinking) expects. The major cleave point in this campaign between Hillary, McCain, & Obama is generational. Hillary and McCain represent Boomers and their predecessors, while Obama has largely captured the generations afterwards. The post-boomers increasingly get their media from non-traditional sources, while the boomers and before still rely on the corporate media available on the idiot box. Older types are more obsessed with race (sexual identity as well) than younger folks (who are generally much more socially tolerant than their parents), thus the corporate infotainment that has the temerity to call itself “news” goes with this as it what holds their audience’s attention so they can sell commercials.
Hillary Clinton will start her own new party defending the white majority, bombing Iran and winning the war in Iraq. She is a trail blazer ready to summon the worst instincts in everyone.
As much as I don’t like Hillary Clinton as a candidate, it does seem that she is suffering from the racist aspect of this campaign more than Obama is. Obama gets 40-50% of the white vote. Hillary gets 10% of the black vote. What does that tell you? The racial dynamic helps Obama and hurts Hillary.
How will this work in the general election if Obama is the nominee? We don’t know. I expect he will be helped again as the black vote turns out in record numbers in his favor.
I don’t know that there would be many voting against Obama that would otherwise vote for him if he were white. The whites that I know who are excited to vote for Obama are voting for him (in part) not in spite of hid being black, but BECAUSE he is black.
Whatever racial dynamic is at work (And I am not convinced it is very great) seems to be helping Obama.
Am I missing something?
Hillary started out with more black support than she has now. Remember when they were referring to Bill Clinton as the first black president? (what a load of bull). I can’t remember what the percentage was, but I think she had a respectable percentage of black supporters. That all changed after South Carolina, and it’s been down hill for her ever since.
Jerry Rose and fellow Obama bashers,
On topic the Clintons are not only playing the race card they are playing the Stupid White man with no College card.
Jerry you used to edit the 3rd decade magazine that was supposed to get to the bottom of the JFK cover-up. I thought I knew you.
The Bushes covered it up and the Clintons after them and now the Bushes again.
The Clintons only criticize the Bushes on the surface because they are connected politically and financially and worse. that is why they coverup how these two dynasties have been screwing the whole world… so let me know when Obama has that kind of record.
If you don’t care, people here can look it up over a million articles on Bush Clinton financial connections.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Bush+Clinton+financial+connections&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
I thought I knew you Jerry but if Obama is the “uncle tom, good nigger” as you suggest, what in the hell are You?
Jim, yep I’m the same Jerry who published the 3rd (and 4th) Decades on JFK assassination and I did then what I’m doing now: telling it like I’m seeing it regardless its popularity. People then didn’t want to look at “inconvenient truths” and many still don’t. I used those “bad words” as the way it would have been discussed in the “old rhetoric,” not terms that I would ever use as expressing my own prejudices. Anyone who knows me (and you don’t except in two limited areas of mutual interest) know that this is the case. Please get off the “who the hell are?” personal stuff okay, before we bore to death the other readers of these comments.
Johnny Mo, you’re not missing anything about who’s getting the benefit of the race card: you hit it right on the head; I said as much (though not as well) in my first post.
Johnny Mo, you are right. Those of us who do not like Barack Obama are being branded racists by Obama supporters. What about all the African Americans who are voting for him. Are they racist? Obama has the thinest resume of anyone who has run for president and if I hear his “Yes, we can!” chant again, I will probably throw up. In reality, I am afraid of him, not because he is black, but because people are following him like the Pied Piper mindlessly.
Obama got 90% of the black vote in North Carolina and he carried Georgia by a wide margin as well. If that is not playing the race card, I do not know what is.
The saddest set of American citizens is the Rust-Belt whites of PA, O, Indiana, WV, Kentucky. Semi-literate at best, grammatically and factually challenged, mean-sprited, racist, limited in their understanding of patriotism, they are really enough to destroy your faith in democracy. Perhaps Mr. Obama, with his incredible personal skills, will be able to transform them, so they can catch up with the rest of the country.
Re previous comment: “Obama got 90% of the black vote in North Carolina and he carried Georgia by a wide margin as well. If that is not playing the race card, I do not know what is.” As far as I (a white Caucasian male) am concerned, they simply voted for the better candidate, by far.
So Jerry,
You say “People then didn’t want to look at “inconvenient truths” and many still don’t. I used those “bad words” as the way it would have been discussed in the “old rhetoric,” not terms that I would ever use as expressing my own prejudices.”
So What are your own prejudices concerning the Clintons?
Why are there tons JFK documents not released by Clinton.
Why not a word from him about his Secret Service destroying documents about the plots in Florida a week before Dallas?
How could a researcher like yourself not know about the ongoing coverup of the Bushes and Clintons.
What about the Bush Clinton Financial connections?
You brought up the ‘Good Nigger” reference to Obama and hide behind the term in the “good old days” because he was not dangerous… Why should he be dangerous? It is the record of the Bush Clinton connections that are dangerous to the truth about the Racket of War that they are both criminal in directing and keeping the facts from the people under the cover of “National Security”.
This record is already history… JFK MLK RFK, Iran Contra, October Surprise, the Bushes and the Clintons cover for each other.
So lets forget the personal stuff now, I am curious now how you call these “inconvenient truths that people still don’t want to see”, as you see them now.
Hello. I am new to this blog. First, let me say that I am a “White-looking” senior citizen “African-American” woman. I see many sides to this issue of race in America.
Food for thought:
Being Black is a BIOLOGICAL condition, not a cultural condition (except for music). Therefore, among Black people there is a range of behaviors, from college-educated, all the way to the contrived “hip-hop” and rap generation. That being said, I have some observations that people seem to have missed if Obama gets nominated.
First, Obama is an excellent ROLE MODEL for young people, of all races. He is a person whose communication spans within and beyond the boundaries of the USA.
Second, Obama is putting his life on the line to run for President! NO OTHER CANDIDATE CAN SAY THAT! There are, no doubt, many bigots who would want to assassinate him!
Third, most of the people in the rest of the world are NON-Caucasian! The USA has had a “black eye” as to its treatment of people of color! Having Obama as president would do a world of GOOD for our standing in the international community!
Years ago, I saw a tee shirt that said, “I come, not to re-live the PAST, but to PRESENT THE FUTURE!” It could very well be Obama’s motto.
I think Obama is being too nice to Over-the-Hill-ary. “On Friday, Barack Obama publicly raised the possibility of helping Hillary Clinton pay off more than $25 million in debts, including the $11.42 million she loaned her own campaign to keep it afloat in recent months.” And is he REALLY going to offer her the vice presidency? What is with that??
*************************************************************
“As the Democratic primary nears its long-awaited conclusion, undecided superdelegates have been drowned under a sudden deluge of angry, sometimes vicious emails from Hillary Clinton supporters urging them to not fall in line behind Barack Obama.
The letter writing campaign picked up steam late Thursday evening when several superdelegates confirmed that a coordinated effort had been launched, apparently independent of Clinton’s campaign, to raise last-minute concerns about Obama’s candidacy and present the specter of voter defections should the Illinois Democrat become the nominee.
In more than dozen messages sent yesterday evening and shared with The Huffington Post, supporters of Clinton emailed a laundry list of political and exceedingly personal attacks on Obama’s candidacy, including criticisms of his prior associations and claims that he, not Clinton, had played the race card. The letters underscore the high emotional pitch of the late stage Democratic primary as well as the utter conviction among many supporters of both campaigns that their candidate is solely worthy of the nomination.”
The Huffington Post
Yet another Clinton-bashing article. There seems to be no end to them !
I love how the author criticizes Clinton for getting the support of so many whites … but doesn’t criticize Obama for getting the support of so many blacks. How can the former be racist and the latter not ? Isn’t the blanket hatred of whites by blacks a type of racism ?
We should also remember that the vast majority of blacks cheered when OJ was found not guilty. Their elation wasn’t because they thought he wasn’t guilty, it was because *finally* a black man beat the “justice” system that has for so long favored whites.
First, what’s with the “Obamamaniacs” thing? That seems to be like arguing a point with someone who thinks there’s something fishy about the official version of the 9/11 story by saying “Oh, so you’re one of those conspiracy theorists, are you?” You know, negating what someone says by negating them, instead of what they said.
As far as the article’s stating that blue collar males aren’t willing to vote for a black candidate, that’s goofy. If you’re poor or blue collar, whether black or white, Hillary Clinton is the last person you want to vote for. And maybe a black candidate is the first.
EVERYTHING about the clintons is about CORRUPTION!!!
and EVERYTHING about their supporters is about corruption OR dumb as a rock people who can’t see corruption…
we have in this forum people who pretend they are trying to reason on issues but instead are intentionally trying to be dishonest …. these are dishonest and immoral people . a couple of these are kem patrick and bob k..
now lets look at this thing called Everything with the clintons is about corruption!!!.
lets look at the voting of indiana…..marion county indianapolis and lake county where gary ind is …. marion county has LESS blacks as a percent of the population than lake county… with this one would predict that a higher percent of a win by obama would be in lake county…… BUT BUT BUT look at this… marion county obama won by 12%.. but in the county with a slightly less black percent he won by 34%… proving one thing.. THERE was big time corruption in lake county for clinton… and proving obama really won indiana..
the clintons are TRYING and working with the republicans to help with corruption… trying to help rush limbaugh work corruption with trying to get republican voters to PRETEND they are voting for hillary in order to make it SEEM obama is weaker than he is…. when doing this.. this WILL cause some to think he is.. but not the wise… .. the republicans doing this are crossing over and voting who will NOT be voting for a democrat or clinton in the election.. so its a fruad and false and phony vote..
now get this… the most easy way for these repubs to try to influence by corruption is with these polling with clinton aganst mccain and obama against mccain…. the republicans when presented with clinton will say they are for clinton instead of mccain and this makes it look like hillary is the stronger candidate against mccain..
now the clintons KNOW all this corruption is going on … they want it and encourage it..and this is why also her voters have the least education .. picking the most dumb is what the corruption people will do…and working them like a drum…
nearly all of her supporters in politics are also corrupt to the core people.. gov rendell of pa.. evan bayh of indiana…. black congressman charlie rengel of ny..
now rengals district is mostly black.. during the primary they voted more for hillary.. BUT there has been proven many precents did NOT even have a single vote for obama at first… then some who DID vote came out and challenged those totals so they had to revise and give some to obama…. so the truth is we do not know who really won rengels district hillary or obama….
BUT now the crooked rengel KNOWS he COULD be seen as crooked from his district and mostly black and him supporting clinton… he could be in trouble politically especially if the voting is carefully watched.. he MAY turn on hillary in order to PROTECT his crookedness… he seems to already be doing that blasting hillary for talking about hardworking whites won’t vote for obama… but rengel already with all this has been proven corrupt.. BUT now he will try to HIDE !!
hillaryz use of this flawed logic of saying obama won’t get dumb white votes… she should also be saying that SHE will not get a big group too…. the blacks and the independents and the young … so her saying that proves another corruption type of act…
hillary was proven corrupt with how she did the mich and fla primary.. first signing and agreeing that their election should not county cause of them pushing their primary in front of the super tuesday group.. doing so would have HURT all the super tuesday states .. the smaller 4 states before were selected to give candidates with less money and name recognition a FAIR shake and let the voters decide with alot of FAIR campaigning.. this is why no other states should go ahead…UNFAIR and hurts to find the true BEST candidate…
the clintons will find the BEST way to exit.. the BEST way is for them to lower obama as far as they can but not so far it will backfire on them big time.. also they will exit in a way to try to enrich themselves… maybe stayng to get fundraisers for them and more money for them…they will TRY to set it up like they are a HERO with their exit in order to get as much power and influence as possible and to lower obama as much as possible…
the clintons are the most corrupt politicians in the history of america…… and their supporters are either corrupt to the core people or dumb as a rock !!!! its just as simple as that!!!!
continually amused,
I do agree with you that each of us is responsible for the choices we make and the destiny we create. Yet, your words sound twisted with rage and hate.
It’s unclear to me just who is seeking your forgiveness. Certainly not the slave sellers, buyers and plantation owners that have been dead for a long, long time. But, if they were still alive, they would not seek your forgiveness nor would the dead presidents FDR or LBJ.
As you must know, Homo sapiens emerged in southern and eastern Africa about two hundred thousand years ago. Every living person’s original antecedents came from Africa. There is only one “race”, friend, the human race. There is no such thing as a disparate race of “black”, “white”, “brown” or “yellow” human beings. True, we humans have endless diviersity, but we are all the same race.
Why do you divide what’s whole? Perhaps, it’s a reaction to others?
Continually amused, instead of differing races, maybe you meant different cultures or sub-cultures when you wrote “whitey”, “spineless black traitors” etc. If so, then you are generalizing to absurdity. Which, I have learned is a common device here on Commondreams - construct a strawman from illusions and stereo-types then burn ‘em or “lynch” ‘em, as you wrote, with angry, reckless rhetoric.
You might be less amused, continually, if you recognize we are all human beings living among other human beings.