NationStates Jolt Archive

This should be a proud moment for almost all the people of the US, and it should be happily remarked upon by most of the world.

Regardless of anyone's opinions or thoughts on Mr. Obama personally, this is the first time ever that the US (or to my meager knowledge, and correct me if I am mistaken, any European heritage "1st world" nation) has had a serious non-white contender for head of state.

This is a monumentous day in history, which is deserving of a thread of it's own. I hope you all remember it.

I'll ask that those wishing to make partisan comments in the appropriate threads. I'll be asking the mods to keep an eye out here.

Fo shizzle my nizzle!

I agree. It occurred to me as I was watching Obama's 'victory' speech that this is exactly the sort of event that my kids and grandkids will be reading about in their history books. Who knows, maybe someday one of my grandchildren will come up to me and say "Grampa, we have to do an essay on the time when America had its first non-caucasian Presidential candidate. Can you tell me what it was like?"

And I will remember today.

This should be a proud moment for almost all the people of the US, and it should be happily remarked upon by most of the world.

Regardless of anyone's opinions or thoughts on Mr. Obama personally, this is the first time ever that the US (or to my meager knowledge, and correct me if I am mistaken, any European heritage "1st world" nation) has had a serious non-white contender for head of state.

This is a monumentous day in history, which is deserving of a thread of it's own. I hope you all remember it.

I'll ask that those wishing to make partisan comments in the appropriate threads. I'll be asking the mods to keep an eye out here.

In short, then all this thread is intended to be is bland, homogenous panegyric, in which dissentient opinions will be removed?

Wonderful.

Regardless of anyone's opinions or thoughts on Mr. Obama personally, this is the first time ever that the US (or to my meager knowledge, and correct me if I am mistaken, any European heritage "1st world" nation) has had a serious non-white contender for head of state.

hey, i hadn't thought about that, but i think you are right. i mean, there have recently been a bunch of latin american countries breaking away from the colonial caste system to some extent, but i can't think of any in the european 'first world'. quick, somebody point out my usian ignorance!

quick, somebody point out my usian ignorance!
I don't think it is ignorant. I can't think of anybody either.

Who knows, maybe someday one of my grandchildren will come up to me and say "Grampa, we have to do an essay on the time when America had its first non-caucasian Presidential candidate. Can you tell me what it was like?"
And you'll say, "Well, that was long before the Great Xeno-Tiger War of 2020... and we only had two arms back then... kids these days..."

Regardless of anyone's opinions or thoughts on Mr. Obama personally, this is the first time ever that the US (or to my meager knowledge, and correct me if I am mistaken, any European heritage "1st world" nation) has had a serious non-white contender for head of state.Ancient Rome had a number of black emperors; so I guess we have finally caught up to their level of civilization.

In short, then all this thread is intended to be is bland, homogenous panegyric, in which dissentient opinions will be removed?

Wonderful.

Nope. If you have a dissent on the import of the occurance of the first serious non-white presidential candidate for the US presidency, please post it. If you can tell me I'm wrong that and that this candidate is not the first from a European or North American nation, let me know.

But please keep the partisan Obama/Hillary fight in the pig pen set aside for it.

And you'll say, "Well, that was long before the Great Xeno-Tiger War of 2020... and we only had two arms back then... kids these days..."

Damn straight

Ancient Rome had a number of black emperors

my roman history is not so good. names?
(not that i don't believe it, the concept of 'race' was rather different at the time)

Nope. If you have a dissent on the import of the occurance of the first serious non-white presidential candidate for the US presidency, please post it. If you can tell me I'm wrong that and that this candidate is not the first from a European or North American nation, let me know.

But please keep the partisan Obama/Hillary fight in the pig pen set aside for it.

To be honest, I really couldn't care less about it; he'll be just as great a disappointment as every other politician trumpeting "change" and a "new start", and, within a decade, appear every inch as much the corrupt, vacuous and morall bankrupt politician as the contemporaries against whom he shines so brightly.

In short, then all this thread is intended to be is bland, homogenous panegyric, in which dissentient opinions will be removed?

Wonderful.

It's certainly possible to dissent without making that dissent partisan.
One might disagree, for example, by noting that there have been non-caucasian candidates before (although they have not gone as far or been taken as seriously) who have helped pave the way for Obama.
One might disagree by noting that this election has been equally important and historic in its offering of a serious female candidate.
One might disagree by noting that today*shouldn't* be an historic day, that the U.S. should have had a female or non-caucasian president before now, and discussing the reasons why this hasn't happened.
See, nothing partisan there.

my roman history is not so good. names?
(not that i don't believe it, the concept of 'race' was rather different at the time)

From http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/rome.htm
Interestingly, at least ten Africans became Emperors of Rome. They are listed on the historical record as the following: Macrinu, Firmus, Emilianus, Septimius Serverus, Pescennius Niger, Aquilus Niger, Brutidius Niger, Q. Caecilus Niger, Novius Niger, and Trebius Niger who was a proconsul in Spain.
Quite a bunch of Nigers ;)

Quite a bunch of Nigers ;)
Their wives were named "Nigeria". :D

This is the first anything serious contender for America - non-white, non-christian, non-male.

I mean, if we're going for political minorities, this is pretty much it for America.

It's all good, it's an amazing, and indeed, historic step but it's still the first.

As Lao Tzu said though, the journey of a thousand miles and all that jazz...

hey, i hadn't thought about that, but i think you are right. i mean, there have recently been a bunch of latin american countries breaking away from the colonial caste system to some extent, but i can't think of any in the european 'first world'. quick, somebody point out my usian ignorance!
I don't think it is ignorant. I can't think of anybody either.

Hence the pause to point out a remerkable point in history. ;)

And you'll say, "Well, that was long before the Great Xeno-Tiger War of 2020... and we only had two arms back then... kids these days..."

Heheheh

Ancient Rome had a number of black emperors;

I'm going to tread a fine line there and just say that there's a remarkable amount of dispute on that question that I'm not about to start sorting out. ;)

so I guess we have finally caught up to their level of civilization.

Yes in some respects and no in others....

I think that it's sad you feel the need to praise the fact that he's black. If we really were blind to colour these days, that shouldn't make a shred of difference - it's only 'remarkable' if you think it 'remarkable' that a black man had the [insert generic racist stereotype] to get through the campaign.

The worrying question is how many people voted for him simply to prove how 'enlightened' they are, so they can say 'what a remarkable day it is'.

Ancient Rome had a number of black emperors; so I guess we have finally caught up to their level of civilization.

No, they didn't. At all. Ever.

Egypt may well have had Black Pharoahsm which should not be of any great shock given their proximity, and relationship with Nubia, however, Rome never had a black Emperor.

I think that it's sad you feel the need to praise the fact that he's black. If we really were blind to colour these days, that shouldn't make a shred of difference - it's only 'remarkable' if you think it 'remarkable' that a black man had the [insert generic racist stereotype] to get through the campaign.

The worrying question is how many people voted for him simply to prove how 'enlightened' they are, so they can say 'what a remarkable day it is'.

Excellent post.

A moment for the history books to those who only look at racial politics. Too bad the first black man nominated by any political party for the Presidency has to be Obama.

The Democrat party has nominated a far left candidate in the tradition of George McGovern, albeit without McGovern’s military and political record. The Democrat party has nominated a far-left candidate in the tradition of Michael Dukakis, albeit without Dukakis’s executive experience as governor. The Democrat party has nominated a far left candidate in the tradition of John Kerry, albeit without Kerry’s record of years of service in the Senate. The Democrat party has nominated an unvetted candidate in the tradition of Jimmy Carter, albeit without Jimmy Carter’s religious integrity.

Unlike most of you, I don't see this as a step forward. Obama is a poor choice for candidate by anyone's standard and none of it has to do with the color of his skin.

I think that it's sad you feel the need to praise the fact that he's black. If we really were blind to colour these days, that shouldn't make a shred of difference - it's only 'remarkable' if you think it 'remarkable' that a black man had the [insert generic racist stereotype] to get through the campaign.

The worrying question is how many people voted for him simply to prove how 'enlightened' they are, so they can say 'what a remarkable day it is'.

Agreed. I consider him analagous to Baroness Warsi (how in God's name does she merit a title?); a standard around which those inclined to see politics as a racial exercise might rally.

This is the first anything serious contender for America - non-white, non-christian, non-male.Non-christian? Which one would that be?

I'm going to tread a fine line there and just say that there's a remarkable amount of dispute on that question that I'm not about to start sorting out. ;)I suppose that explains why it's so much harder to find anything definite on the question than I was led to believe by the TV show i think I got it from. Well, there's that book of the site I linked to; but technically it just said they're from Africa (might well have been immigrant romans)

No, they didn't. At all. Ever.

Egypt may well have had Black Pharoahsm which should not be of any great shock given their proximity, and relationship with Nubia, however, Rome never had a black Emperor.Well, considering you're the leading expert on ancient Rome, I guess I'll have to take your word for it. ?

Marcus Opellius Macrinus, Emperor of Rome for fourteen months, "was a Moor by birth."

Non-christian? Which one would that be?

That's the point.

I think that it's sad you feel the need to praise the fact that he's black.

Go back and read the OP. All I've done is simply point out that this is a historical moment.

If we really were blind to colour these days, that shouldn't make a shred of difference - it's only 'remarkable' if you think it 'remarkable' that a black man had the [insert generic racist stereotype] to get through the campaign.

It's remarkable in that it is a step towards realising a color-blind society, a goal that we have yet to achieve. If we had achieved that color-blind society, an ethnicly black candidate would not need to be remarked upon - I'd be sitting here saying "meh, whatever" .

The worrying question is how many people voted for him simply to prove how 'enlightened' they are, so they can say 'what a remarkable day it is'.

There probably have been some votes that way. But there will always be some voters who vote to show off.

I'm going to take a wild stab and say South Africa?

edit: and on non-white terms I think Southern Europe might give you a run on that :p

SNIP

whats the worst that could happen?

I suppose that explains why it's so much harder to find anything definite on the question than I was led to believe by the TV show i think I got it from. Well, there's that book of the site I linked to; but technically it just said they're from Africa (might well have been immigrant romans)

Well, considering you're the leading expert on ancient Rome, I guess I'll have to take your word for it. ?

Better qualified to judge than yourself, I warrant. Rome did indeed have "African" emperors, elevated to the purple both by political, and military means. Indeed, the province of "Africa", not that you'll know how it was delineated, was crucial to Rome, providing the better part of its grain supply. However, that they would be black is highly unlikely; Patrician Rome inherited a Hellenic disdain for colour, derived from the ideological aftermath of the Persian conflicts, and the issue of Medism that arose therin. Moreover, the purple tended to move in an exclusive Patrician circle, prior to 375, and therafter ever more in Gothic and Frankish barbarians eminent in the army; neither of these groups tended to be populated by blacks.

Excellent post.

No, actually. A reply to a self errected strawman does not make a good reply to the OP.

A moment for the history books to those who only look at racial politics.

Yes and no.

Yes, in that it represents a first case where the US has stepped away from excluding a major minority.

No, in that it marks a step closer to a color-blind society.

-snip-
The intra-DNP quibbling belongsa in a different thread, please.

Better qualified to judge than yourself, I warrant. Yes, I'll bet you warrant that. Good luck with that.

I'm going to take a wild stab and say South Africa?

south africa was more like latin america, with a racial caste system where the minority ruled over the disenfranchised majority. not really the same dynamic.

If we really were blind to colour these days

We're not. That's the point.

I'm going to take a wild stab and say South Africa?

edit: and on non-white terms I think Southern Europe might give you a run on that :p

Quibbles both.

Do you really consider any of the former colonies in Africa non-ethnically-white? How much European heritage do Mbiki or Mugabe have.

And Southern Europe's not being ethnically "white"/European is highly questionable.

I think that it's sad you feel the need to praise the fact that he's black. If we really were blind to colour these days, that shouldn't make a shred of difference - it's only 'remarkable' if you think it 'remarkable' that a black man had the [insert generic racist stereotype] to get through the campaign.

The worrying question is how many people voted for him simply to prove how 'enlightened' they are, so they can say 'what a remarkable day it is'.

What the fuck? Since when were we ever even supposedly 'blind to colour'?

Better qualified to judge than yourself, I warrant. Rome did indeed have "African" emperors, elevated to the purple both by political, and military means. Indeed, the province of "Africa", not that you'll know how it was delineated, was crucial to Rome, providing the better part of its grain supply. However, that they would be black is highly unlikely; Patrician Rome inherited a Hellenic disdain for colour, derived from the ideological aftermath of the Persian conflicts, and the issue of Medism that arose therin. Moreover, the purple tended to move in an exclusive Patrician circle, prior to 375, and therafter ever more in Gothic and Frankish barbarians eminent in the army; neither of these groups tended to be populated by blacks.

With every response of yours I see, I can't help but imagine that you have an exceedingly arrogant smirk on your face as you type it.

No offense. ;)

Yes, I'll bet you warrant that. Good luck with that.

I will be. I guarantee it.

whats the worst that could happen?

It does boggle the imagination.

With every response of yours I see, I can't help but imagine that you have an exceedingly arrogant smirk on your face as you type it.

No offense. ;)

Of course.

We're not. That's the point.

What the fuck? Since when were we ever even supposedly 'blind to colour'?

Well, that's your loss if you're not. But I haven't been seeing this as a campaign between 'the black man' and 'the woman', and it's sad that so many of you think those factors are important.

The OP says:

Regardless of anyone's opinions or thoughts on Mr. Obama personally, this is the first time ever that the US (or to my meager knowledge, and correct me if I am mistaken, any European heritage "1st world" nation) has had a serious non-white contender for head of state.
To which my response is a great big, unequivocal, 'so what?'

Quibbles both.

Do you really consider any of the former colonies in Africa non-ethnically-white? How much European heritage do Mbiki or Mugabe have.

And Southern Europe's not being ethnically "white"/European is highly questionable.

Previously Ottoman domains in the Balkans have tended to have significant Islamic populations, often in empowered positions, and to have been linguistically "Ottoman" rather than European.

Well, that's your loss if you're not. But I haven't been seeing this as a campaign between 'the black man' and 'the woman', and it's sad that so many of you think those factors are important.


Nobody is saying it is an important factor in relation to who you should choose. We're just saying it is an important event because it is a significant mark in our history of gradually becoming more and more colour blind in the west (we're not yet).

Nobody is saying it is an important factor in relation to who you should choose. We're just saying it is an important event because it is a significant mark in our history of gradually becoming more and more colour blind in the west (we're not yet).

What kind of planet are you living on if you think that the political elite selecting a black man means we're any closer to that goal? It's the people on the street that matter, the everyday feelings that people keep to themselves but subconsciously act upon.

The politicians should be selecting the best person for the job, no matter who that is. If that's Obama, then I stand by my 'so what?' comment. Because to say that this is 'remarkable' because the people who bloody well should be above colour politics picked a black man strikes me as nothing more than self-congratulation for being so 'enlightened'.

What kind of planet are you living on if you think that the political elite selecting a black man means we're any closer to that goal? It's the people on the street that matter, the everyday feelings that people keep to themselves but subconsciously act upon.


Do you honestly not think that a black man as president will not have any affect at all, whatsoever, on the morale of black people on the streets, rather than some rich old white guy? Not only this but it would be clear evidence in a shift in social opinion if the majority of the people voted for a black person, 30 years ago this would never happen.


The politicians should be selecting the best person for the job

Nobody disagreed with this at all, ever.

Do you honestly not think that a black man as president will not have any affect at all, whatsoever, on the morale of black people on the streets, rather than some rich old white guy? Not only this but it would be clear evidence in a shift in social opinion if the majority of the people voted for a black person, 30 years ago this would never happen.
The fact is, when you're talking about western politics these days you have to be careful about calling a winner the 'choice of the people'.

60% of people in America won't vote. Half of those who do will vote Republican. The other half shouldn't care whether Obama is black, white, or green with purple spots. If he wins, is that a shift in anything?

Well, that's your loss if you're not. But I haven't been seeing this as a campaign between 'the black man' and 'the woman', and it's sad that so many of you think those factors are important.

You still haven't quite grasped what I'm pointing out.

I'll say again please go back and read the OP. Actually read what I said this time, and not what you want me to have said.

Stopping for a moment to say "hey, we've finally broken the 'color barrier'" is not the same as "this campaign is all about the BLACK man.

To which my response is a great big, unequivocal, 'so what?'

Hey we landed a person on the Moon. So what?
Same difference.

60% of people in America won't vote.

evidence?

and so what? a major milestone has been reached. cheer the fuck up.

What's wrong with you people?
This is an excellent opportunity for a party, i'm game if anyone else is.
It's certainly a victory for Obama, and as far as i know he's a decent guy for Presidency.

However i'll only say this is a great day if he gives me the secret to winning elections.THEN I CAN TAKE OVER THE WORLD.

oh damn, i said the loud part quiet and the quiet part loud.

evidence?
A small snail in my garden told me.

and so what? a major milestone has been reached. cheer the fuck up.
Yes, it's a milestone. Yes, it's good that it can now happen. But no, I won't be shouting about it, and those who are make me worried about the reasons why Obama was selected.

Was he picked as the best candidate, or as part of the 'greater racial revolution'? If it's the latter, then I think this is a sad day for America in general, not a 'remarkable' one.

You still haven't quite grasped what I'm pointing out.

I'll say again please go back and read the OP. Actually read what I said this time, and not what you want me to have said.

Stopping for a moment to say "hey, we've finally broken the 'color barrier'" is not the same as "this campaign is all about the BLACK man.

Actually, what you're trying to do is limit the implications of your OP to avoid criticism. If you wanted to post your own views somewhere where no one could dispute them, get a blog.

Ancient Rome had a number of black emperors
No. The only one who came close was Pescennius Niger, the "darling of the east" from upriver Egypt, who contended against Clodius Albinus (not actually albino, but the contrast between his pale skin and the darkness of Pescennius was considered amusing), the "darling of the west" from Britain, and Septimius Severus, nobody's darling, from a mixed Italian-Syrian family, during the fallout from Commodus' assassination.

The actual story of how Commodus died would have made a better movie than "Gladiator": he died roaring drunk at a costume party on New Year's Eve, dressed as Hercules, after he raped the girlfriend of the commander of the Praetorian Guard and mockingly said that nobody would do anything about it (this proved to be mistaken). The Senate elected an Emperor Pertinax, and the Guard sold the Imperial title to the highest bidder, Didius Julianus; both of these were promptly murdered by supporters of the other, and then the three regional candidates emerged (this was called the "Year of Five Emperors", worse than the Year of Four Emperors after Nero's demise, but not as bad as the Year of Six Emperors which would follow some decades later).

Albinus was from the "British Claudians", descendants of a daughter of Claudius Caesar who was married to a British chieftain, the only collateral descendants of the original Imperial family left; Albinus considered this a much more impressive claim to the throne than anybody else appeared to. He declared for Severus, angling for some co-Emperor arrangement, but didn't actually commit any of his troops, hoping Severus and Niger would cut each other up. Instead, Severus won handily, and support for Albinus evaporated.
[/end historical-trivia threadjack]

Yeah, I'll go ahead and say that its really not important, because as I see it anyway, most people who voted for him probably still considered race when they did so. Theres probably no way to prove whether people cared about him being half-black or not, unless they admit that they did.

Actually, what you're trying to do is limit the implications of your OP to avoid criticism. If you wanted to post your own views somewhere where no one could dispute them, get a blog.

:rolleyes:

Learn to read.

It's great that we are living in a time where a mans skin color is no longer a barrier to his ability to gain popular support as a presidential nominee.

I doubt he is the nominee because of his skin color.

There is no doubt that there are people who voted for/against each candidate based on their gender/skin color but it seems they are a small minority these days.

That is indeed something to celebrate


*pops champagne cork*

It's great that we are living in a time where a mans skin color is no longer a barrier to his ability to gain popular support as a presidential nominee.

I doubt he is the nominee because of his skin color.

There is no doubt that there are people who voted for/against each candidate based on their gender/skin color but it seems they are a small minority these days.

That is indeed something to celebrate


*pops champagne cork*

Finally, someone gets the idea. jeez when someone wins something it's celebration time folks.
that's your first lesson on how to have fun.

It's great that we are living in a time where a mans skin color is no longer a barrier to his ability to gain popular support as a presidential nominee.

I doubt he is the nominee because of his skin color.

There is no doubt that there are people who voted for/against each candidate based on their gender/skin color but it seems they are a small minority these days.

That is indeed something to celebrate


*pops champagne cork*

^^^ Exactly.

Getting a black man as the nominee is important because, finally, his being black didn't rule him out for the candidacy. It's not that it qualified him in some extra way; it's that it was not so significant a stumbling block that he was unable to get the nomination.

Brava! Bravo! Bravissimo!

Finally, someone gets the idea.

Whoever isn't 'getting the idea' is probably only doing so to be argumentative. Or maybe they are upset that the US isn't as racist as it used to be *shrug*.

In short, then all this thread is intended to be is bland, homogenous panegyric, in which dissentient opinions will be removed?

Wonderful.

Come on. He's looking to keep it from being a Blue v Red or Clinton v Obama threadwank, is all. That's happening elsewhere, and I find it's absence so far in this thread to be refreshing.

Ancient Rome had a number of black emperors; so I guess we have finally caught up to their level of civilization.

Ah yes, Roman "civilization". I can't wait for the vomtiariums and the gladiatorial deathmatches. Well...I suppose bulimia and reality TV/UFC come fairly close. Also, what happened to Rome? Oh yeah. I find it amazing that my country appears to be as chronically myopic as the Romans were. I do not wish the same fate for us, but it's hard not to see it coming.

I think that it's sad you feel the need to praise the fact that he's black. If we really were blind to colour these days, that shouldn't make a shred of difference - it's only 'remarkable' if you think it 'remarkable' that a black man had the to get through the campaign.

The worrying question is how many people voted for him simply to prove how 'enlightened' they are, so they can say 'what a remarkable day it is'.

IF that is the case, and I'm not sure how many would admit it openly, then you've got a point.

Well, that's your loss if you're not. But I haven't been seeing this as a campaign between 'the black man' and 'the woman', and it's sad that so many of you think those factors are important.

That's because it is. It will cease to be important when it becomes common. Look at it this way -- the farther north you live, the more you get to see the aurora borealis. If you live in Toktayuktuk, NWT, it's not that big of a deal. However, when I saw the Northern Lights in suburban Seattle and once more 20 years later here in Bismarck, ND, I was ecstatic.

You seem to think that "we're there" when it comes to race and gender equality and political power. We're simply not. We are farther than the nation has ever come, but for a while longer, it's going to be a novelty, regardless of whether or not you think it should be. Mostly because the majority of the population still have long enough memories to know when "******" wasn't an adjunct to pop culture conversation and rap music, but an indicator of how to keep a part of the nation "in its place."

Now I know you're going to come back at me with some scathing sarcastic rebuttal, but I ask you -- were you around to see or experience institutional racism or assumptions about gender? If not, you might want to talk to someone in your family who was.

It's great that we are living in a time where a mans skin color is no longer a barrier to his ability to gain popular support as a presidential nominee.

I doubt he is the nominee [I]because of his skin color.

There is no doubt that there are people who voted for/against each candidate based on their gender/skin color but it seems they are a small minority these days.

And here's where I disagree. Think about this -- take Obama's skin color COMPLETELY out of the mix and look at his qualifications. If he were a white male with his limited record of experience, would he be anywhere near this close to the White House? If you're honest, you know the answer. I would much rather that Obama had been chosen as the VP candidate, but then I wanted Daniel Inouye to run against Sam Nunn in 1988.

I have to be honest and say that I'll probably vote of Obama, largely because McCain is MOTS (more of the same), and if it hasn't worked in eight years, how will more be any better? Also, I'm not a fan of appeasing the Evangelical Inquisition when it comes to freedom and the imposition of others' Biblically literalistic ideas about what I can do with it.

I am honest and I believe that Obama's speeches, record and not being the status quo is what has gotten him the nomination. It's not a matter of facts that we can argue here though, it's a matter of opinion because we can't know for sure.

Like I said, some voted based on skin color but I personally think that most people just don't want MOTS as you call it.

Hey we landed a person on the Moon. So what?
Same difference.

Hardly. Landing on the moon was an achievement for humanity as a whole and a triumph of technology and human innovation.

Nominating Obama is hardly new since we have had our fair share of corrupt, well-connected con-men as Presidential nominees. Been there and done that.

And here's where I disagree. Think about this -- take Obama's skin color COMPLETELY out of the mix and look at his qualifications. If he were a white male with his limited record of experience, would he be anywhere near this close to the White House? If you're honest, you know the answer. I would much rather that Obama had been chosen as the VP candidate, but then I wanted Daniel Inouye to run against Sam Nunn in 1988.

I have to be honest and say that I'll probably vote of Obama, largely because McCain is MOTS (more of the same), and if it hasn't worked in eight years, how will more be any better? Also, I'm not a fan of appeasing the Evangelical Inquisition when it comes to freedom and the imposition of others' Biblically literalistic ideas about what I can do with it.

I think there's a good chance that he would still be where he is. The fact that he has little experience in Washington DC is a plus in a lot of people's minds. He's young, energetic, a brilliant orator, and comes touting a message of vast, bipartisan change. That's going to be popular right now regardless of what skin suit you sport.

Nominating Obama is hardly new since we have had our fair share of corrupt, well-connected con-men as Presidential nominees. Been there and done that.

Kewl, because a statement like that doesn't require justification or anything.

It's great that we are living in a time where a mans skin color is no longer a barrier to his ability to gain popular support as a presidential nominee.

I doubt he is the nominee because of his skin color.

There is no doubt that there are people who voted for/against each candidate based on their gender/skin color but it seems they are a small minority these days.

That is indeed something to celebrate


*pops champagne cork*

Finally, someone gets the idea. jeez when someone wins something it's celebration time folks.
that's your first lesson on how to have fun.

Cheers both of ya'll. Good to have somebody along who can read an OP. :)

I am honest and I believe that Obama's speeches, record and not being the status quo is what has gotten him the nomination. It's not a matter of facts that we can argue here though, it's a matter of opinion because we can't know for sure.

Like I said, some voted based on skin color but I personally think that most people just don't want MOTS as you call it.

It is, however, what they will get. However well intentioned he may be, both in order to win the presidency, and once president, he will simply become mired in the political intricacies, compromises and general inefficiencies of democratic government. Like every other politician who has propounded radical change and reform.

Hardly. Landing on the moon was an achievement for humanity as a whole and a triumph of technology and human innovation.

Nominating Obama is hardly new since we have had our fair share of corrupt, well-connected con-men as Presidential nominees. Been there and done that.

Ahhh now I get it, you're just butthurt.

Hardly. Landing on the moon was an achievement for humanity as a whole and a triumph of technology and human innovation.

Nominating Obama is hardly new since we have had our fair share of corrupt, well-connected con-men as Presidential nominees. Been there and done that.

An achievement for humanity? Ask those who were starving or living in abject destitution whether or not a moonshot mattered a whit. Yes, yes, I know the trickle-down-technology argument, but it seems to me that more minds not being in poverty would be better suited to producing even more scientists and innovators.

Sorry, but I'm a firm believer in taking care of our own before looking for ET.

I think there's a good chance that he would still be where he is. The fact that he has little experience in Washington DC is a plus in a lot of people's minds. He's young, energetic, a brilliant orator, and comes touting a message of vast, bipartisan change. That's going to be popular right now regardless of what skin suit you sport.

Two words: John Edwards. Strong orator, charismatic, represented new ideas and a new focus, limited experience, white male. Vice Presidential candidate.

As Lao Tzu said though, the journey of a thousand miles and all that jazz...

Jazz...yet another triumph for the glorious Chinese Nation.

Whoever isn't 'getting the idea' is probably only doing so to be argumentative. Or maybe they are upset that the US isn't as racist as it used to be *shrug*.

Excellent point. It must be racism and/or a desire to argue that makes one not cheer this momentous occasion.

Not the fact that a person with no real political/executive experience, no real substance or policy, and who is a product of one of the most corrupt political systems in the country is one step closer to being President. I guess pointing this out means I hate black people. *shrug*

I think Ferraro hit the nail on the head. But you guys continue your self-congratulation session. *high-fives all the enlightened ones*

i liked what ezra klein wrote last night (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=06&year=2008&base_name=a_new_normal):

Obama's speech tonight was powerful, but then, most all of his speeches are. This address stood out less than I expected. It took me an hour to realize how extraordinary that was. I had just watched an African-American capture the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States of America, and it felt...normal. Almost predictable. 50 years ago, African Americans often couldn't vote, and dozens died in the fight to ensure them the franchise. African-Americans couldn't use the same water fountains or rest rooms as white Americans. Black children often couldn't attend the same schools as white children. Employers could discriminate based on race. 50 years ago, African Americans occupied, in effect, a second, and lesser, country. Today, an African-American man may well become the president of the whole country, and it feels almost normal.

It was, to be sure, not entirely unpredicted. On March 31st, 1968, Martin Luther King Jr. preached his final Sunday sermon. "We shall overcome," he said, "because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." Four days later, he was murdered. But 40 years later, his dream is more alive than he could have ever imagined. Not only might a black man be president, but at times, many forget to even be surprised by it.

Kewl, because a statement like that doesn't require justification or anything.

Which part do you require information on? I know that most Obama supporters live in a echo-chamber but Obama is exactly what I called him.

Excellent point. It must be racism and/or a desire to argue that makes one not cheer this momentous occasion.

Not the fact that a person with no real political/executive experience, no real substance or policy, and who is a product of one of the most corrupt political systems in the country is one step closer to being President. I guess pointing this out means I hate black people. *shrug*


No, you just probably buy into bullshit propaganda from people who hate black people.

Come on. He's looking to keep it from being a Blue v Red or Clinton v Obama threadwank, is all. That's happening elsewhere, and I find it's absence so far in this thread to be refreshing.

Indeed.

And here's where I disagree. Think about this -- take Obama's skin color COMPLETELY out of the mix and look at his qualifications. If he were a white male with his limited record of experience, would he be anywhere near this close to the White House? If you're honest, you know the answer. I would much rather that Obama had been chosen as the VP candidate, but then I wanted Daniel Inouye to run against Sam Nunn in 1988.

I have to be honest and say that I'll probably vote of Obama, largely because McCain is MOTS (more of the same), and if it hasn't worked in eight years, how will more be any better? Also, I'm not a fan of appeasing the Evangelical Inquisition when it comes to freedom and the imposition of others' Biblically literalistic ideas about what I can do with it.

And this is where we'll have to part ways.

For me, the autoknockout this year was HRC. Next criterion was anti-Iraq war from the start. The next question was an intwined one of diplomatic potential and leadership. The "Third Culture Kid"'s experience having lived overseas and knowing what that brings with it by my stint as an expat was what sold me on Obama.

Go through my posts. I have not once said anything to the effect that a candidate should be chosen on the basis of sex, sexulality, or ethnicity. Nor have I said so today. Pointing out that an important step in social blindness has been made is adamantly not advocating social preferences.

No, you just probably buy into bullshit propaganda from people who hate black people.

I'm not sure as to the rest, but political experiance he certainly lacks. That may not, given the posters opinion upon the "corrupt" system from which Obama has emerged, be a bad thing however.

He strikes me as being not unlike Tony Blair; a centrist candidate advocating "change" and a "new start" after the apogee and demise of a rightwing administration.

No, you just probably buy into bullshit propaganda from people who hate black people.

Like Hillary Clinton? How about Edwards? Both of them brought up some very good points about B. Hussein Obama's lack of experience and dubious ties to the Chicago machine.

But I forget that the facts of Obama's rise to power, his inexperience, and his socialist leanings are now falling into the realms of propaganda. And now, according to you, such facts are mere delusions created by "people who hate black people".

How convenient.

I'm not sure as to the rest, but political experiance he certainly lacks. That may not, given the posters opinion upon the "corrupt" system from which Obama has emerged, be a bad thing however.


It doesn't matter too much, he IS intelligent, I'd rather have an intelligent man with less experience (Obama) than an idiot (Bush) or a clone of an idiot (McCain).

Like Hillary Clinton? How about Edwards? Both of them brought up some very good points about B. Hussein Obama's lack of experience and dubious ties to the Chicago machine.


Yeah, because getting facts from people who are straw grasping in order to get more votes is a really reliable way to get info!


But I forget that the facts of Obama's rise to power, his inexperience, and his socialist leanings.

Again, you're clearly just butthurt. Oh no! He has socialist leanings! That must mean he is EVIL.

I'm not sure as to the rest, but political experiance he certainly lacks. That may not, given the posters opinion upon the "corrupt" system from which Obama has emerged, be a bad thing however.

I reckon most people here don't know about the cesspool of politics that is Chicago. I lived there and saw it with my own eyes. Obama was a major player in that system as the Rezko scandal demonstrates. He is not a breath of fresh air but the stagnant odor of corruption and politics at their worst.

I really don't expect anyone to actually research Obama outside of his own writings and recollections. Hope. Change. Repeat...

i liked what ezra klein wrote last night (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=06&year=2008&base_name=a_new_normal):

I liked these especially, among the comments:

I am very excited because Obama is showing there are no limitations for people whose ears stick way way out. He is an inspiration to all of us who were denigrated as Dumbo, Eyore, or Nestor.

I also hear he is black so that is good too.

Posted by: Colbert | June 4, 2008 5:08 AM


and plus, he's got a penis.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 4, 2008 6:12 AM

It doesn't matter too much, he IS intelligent, I'd rather have an intelligent man with less experience (Obama) than an idiot (Bush) or a clone of an idiot (McCain).

Stalin was a terribly intelligent man.

Stalin was a terribly intelligent man.

Stalin was also a paranoid sociopath. I have yet to see evidence that Obama is either;)

And this is where we'll have to part ways.

For me, the autoknockout this year was HRC. Next criterion was anti-Iraq war from the start. The next question was an intwined one of diplomatic potential and leadership. The "Third Culture Kid"'s experience having lived overseas and knowing what that brings with it by my stint as an expat was what sold me on Obama.

Go through my posts. I have not once said anything to the effect that a candidate should be chosen on the basis of sex, sexulality, or ethnicity. Nor have I said so today. Pointing out that an important step in social blindness has been made is adamantly not advocating social preferences.

I never said you did. You're defending yourself to the wrong person. I still maintain that if Obama were white, he'd be a solid VP choice at best, given his experience.

Like Hillary Clinton? How about Edwards? Both of them brought up some very good points about B. Hussein Obama's lack of experience and dubious ties to the Chicago machine.

But I forget that the facts of Obama's rise to power, his inexperience, and his socialist leanings are now falling into the realms of propaganda. And now, according to you, such facts are mere delusions created by "people who hate black people".

How convenient.

If not "racists" then how about "complete morons" instead? 'Cause that's what you come off like when you post his name like that. Scared, paranoid, racist and ignorant. Attack the man's positions and leave the scare-mongering for Hannity and Rush, m'kay? Unless you are going to somehow prove that his middle name has anything to do with, well, ANYthing.

I agree with you about Obama's inexperience and some questions about his rise to power, but shit fire and save matches, man, be reasonable.

Like Hillary Clinton? How about Edwards? Both of them brought up some very good points about B. Hussein Obama's lack of experience and dubious ties to the Chicago machine.

But I forget that the facts of Obama's rise to power, his inexperience, and his socialist leanings are now falling into the realms of propaganda. And now, according to you, such facts are mere delusions created by "people who hate black people".

How convenient.

I'm not familiar with the "Chicago machine" or Obama's political roots, however, the post above does inadvertantly stumble upon one problem I foresee with Obama; much of the criticism levelled at him, however meritorious, can, and I imagine will, be flat batted with the race card.

Stalin was a terribly intelligent man.

Ehh, actually he wasn't that intelligent. In fact he had the least educated background of the politburo, I believe.

It doesn't matter too much, he IS intelligent, I'd rather have an intelligent man with less experience (Obama) than an idiot (Bush) or a clone of an idiot (McCain).

Hence, Obama will be getting my vote.

Yeah, because getting facts from people who are straw grasping in order to get more votes is a really reliable way to get info!

I am sure it never occurred to you to investigate such facts for yourself.

Again, you're clearly just butthurt. Oh no! He has socialist leanings! That must mean he is EVIL.

Who can argue with that? Absolutely brilliant! Next time I will just say "Butthurt FTW!".

I never said he was evil because he is a socialist. I said he was a wrong-headed, pandering politician who has used his race to deflect any gaffes and unwanted questions.

A point that you demostrate very effectively. I clearly can't dislike the man's politics and political backers without being called a racist.

Ehh, actually he wasn't that intelligent. In fact he had the least educated background of the politburo, I believe.

The revolutionary politburo? He certainly had less academic credibility than Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Kamenev and Zinoviev, however, he had rather more base cunning and manipulative ability than them, both of which are equally relevant indicators of "intelligence". Harold Wilson was equally oleaginous, however much I might despise the man.

I am sure it never occurred to you to investigate such facts for yourself.



Who can argue with that? Absolutely brilliant! Next time I will just say "Butthurt FTW!".

I never said he was evil because he is a socialist. I said he was a wrong-headed, pandering politician who has used his race to deflect any gaffes and unwanted questions.

A point that you demostrate very effectively. I clearly can't dislike the man's politics and political backers without being called a racist.



Do me a favour. Show me one quote, just one, of OBAMA (not his supportes) playing the race card.

Because I can show you several of him saying race is not and should not be a factor.

The acts of the supporters are not the acts of the man.

Stalin was also a paranoid sociopath. I have yet to see evidence that Obama is either;)

Neither had Russia until he was secure in his position as General Secretary of the party, and hence able to exploit the nomenclatura and attain personal power, and the demise of his rivals.;)

I think Obama won based on a combination of being the "new guy", some racial support, and his sheer charisma.

This is a momentous occasion, even if McCain wins. I personally hope McCain wins - I like his policies better than Obama's - but I don't think Obama is the Antichrist. Hillary, on the other hand...

Anyway, it is now a fact that race is no longer a barrier to political advancement. I'd say the same is true of gender.

Neither had Russia until he was secure in his position as General Secretary of the party, and hence able to exploit the nomenclatura and attain personal power, and the demise of his rivals.;)


True enough. If Obama starts marching people off to Gulags, Ill be the first to admit you were right.:D

I am sure it never occurred to you to investigate such facts for yourself.


Oh I'm well aware of the corruption in Illinois, I'm aware of Obama's links to the "machine", being a brit however I haven't studied it thoroughly, though from what I have read, it's nothing worth whining over.

I clearly can't dislike the man's politics and political backers without being called a racist.

But when you say this: "used his race to deflect any gaffes and unwanted questions." that point becomes questionable.

Do me a favour. Show me one quote, just one, of OBAMA (not his supportes) playing the race card.

Because I can show you several of him saying race is not and should not be a factor.

The acts of the supporters are not the acts of the man.

Largely irrelvant in a wider political context. Irrespective of whether Obama, or those associated with him, condone, and further, reference of his race to either check and silence dissentient voices, or providehim with political capital, it will occur. Whether in an official capacity, through media source and "personalities", or simply in discussions between voters, Obama's race will be used to his advantage at some point, and, in stifling dissonant voices, it will be a travesty.

True enough. If Obama starts marching people off to Gulags, Ill be the first to admit you were right.:D

Deal.:D

The revolutionary politburo? He certainly had less academic credibility than Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Kamenev and Zinoviev, however, he had rather more base cunning and manipulative ability than them, both of which are equally relevant indicators of "intelligence". Harold Wilson was equally oleaginous, however much I might despise the man.

True. He was intelligent in some ways, I guess I should take back my point anyway, intelligence certainly does not mean you'll be certainly good as a politician, I didn't really mean it that way, I just meant that Obama seems to have a much better policy (barring his economic one) than the others and at least seems much better informed, especially about the constitution, given his background in law.

I am sure it never occurred to you to investigate such facts for yourself.



Who can argue with that? Absolutely brilliant! Next time I will just say "Butthurt FTW!".

I never said he was evil because he is a socialist. I said he was a wrong-headed, pandering politician who has used his race to deflect any gaffes and unwanted questions.

A point that you demostrate very effectively. I clearly can't dislike the man's politics and political backers without being called a racist.

While you clearly have strong opinions about Chicago politicians and Obama specifically, and this may all be well and good, it is completely unfair and disingenuous to assume (or believe, however you happened upon that belief) that he has or will use race to his advantage. He has never done so, as has been pointed out by other posters.

As to the claims that he is wrong-headed and pandering, I'd ask you to elaborate on these points, though I have a feeling we'll only agree to disagree on the wrong-headedness.

Largely irrelvant in a wider political context. Irrespective of whether Obama, or those associated with him, condone, and further, reference of his race to either check and silence dissentient voices, or providehim with political capital, it will occur. Whether in an official capacity, through media source and "personalities", or simply in discussions between voters, Obama's race will be used to his advantage at some point, and, in stifling dissonant voices, it will be a travesty.

But you can't exactly blame Obama for that unless he plays the race card himself.

But you can't exactly blame Obama for that unless he plays the race card himself.

Not at all. However, to deny that it will occur, and that it will be to the detriment of politics, and society at largem would be equally wrong.

Isn't Obama half white?


Don't say he is the first "black" canidate.

He is the first "mulatto" canidate.

I think Obama won based on a combination of being the "new guy", some racial support, and his sheer charisma.

This is a momentous occasion, even if McCain wins. I personally hope McCain wins - I like his policies better than Obama's - but I don't think Obama is the Antichrist. Hillary, on the other hand...

Anyway, it is now a fact that race is no longer a barrier to political advancement. I'd say the same is true of gender.

I think we can say that race is no longer a barrier in the Democratic party. But unless Obama wins the general election, there will still be a question of whether or not it is a barrier in the wider spectrum of the US. After all, the Republican party is the one largely painted as racist, and if a majority of the country cannot come to terms with the race barrier, then it will still be an issue regardless of this primary.

True. He was intelligent in some ways, I guess I should take back my point anyway, intelligence certainly does not mean you'll be certainly good as a politician, I didn't really mean it that way, I just meant that Obama seems to have a much better policy (barring his economic one) than the others and at least seems much better informed, especially about the constitution, given his background in law.

Meh. Policies are damn subjective, and I suspect if I spent any time upon it, I'd call for McCain, despite what I hear of his stance on abortion. As for his legal background, I'd be cautious as to whether it equips him any better than his counterparts. Most politicians have a degree in either PPE, Law or History, and they tend to equally malleable in their approach to constitutional affairs, civil rights and the like.

Not at all. However, to deny that it will occur, and that it will be to the detriment of politics, and society at largem would be equally wrong.

But you must agree that that alone does not justification to not voting for him.

Isn't Obama half white?


Don't say he is the first "black" canidate.

He is the first "mulatto" canidate.

"The first candidate with a significant portion of his recent ancestry being traceable to Africa" has less of a ring to it than "the first black candidate," eh?

But you must agree that that alone does not justification to not voting for him.

Not sure. I could envisage it being highly significant on certain issues, but no, I would still elect a candidate upon policies, and nothing more. Hence why I'm fucked for the General Election.:D

Not at all. However, to deny that it will occur, and that it will be to the detriment of politics, and society at largem would be equally wrong.

You know what? Just for being so damned reasonable, if you ever so much as question any of Obama's policies, I will immediately decry you as a racist and harp on how glad I am that you cannot vote in my country's elections.

"The first candidate with a significant portion of his recent ancestry being traceable to Africa" has less of a ring to it than "the first black candidate," eh?

True, but let's call a strike a strike and a ball a ball.

If he is running as the "black" candidate then that is already deceiving since he is half white.

Most politicians have a degree in either PPE, Law or History

That may be the case for the UK, not sure about the USA however. Does PPE even exist over there?


, and they tend to equally malleable in their approach to constitutional affairs, civil rights and the like.

Well, looking at that other thread on McCain and his comment on wire tapping, he seems to be a rubbish judge at what the constitution says.

That may be the case for the UK, not sure about the USA however. Does PPE even exist over there?



Well, looking at that other thread on McCain and his comment on wire tapping, he seems to be a rubbish judge at what the constitution says.

He may be a wonderful judge at what it says. I suspect he just isn't all that bothered provided nobody finds out...

True, but let's call a strike a strike and a ball a ball.

If he is running as the "black" candidate then that is already deceiving since he is half white.

Meh, I wouldn't call it "deceiving." Perhaps "less than 100% accurate."

As sort of a side note, have you seen the episode of "The Office" (British version) where David Brent argues about Spock and whether he's Vulcan or half-Vulcan? Because that's a lot what this is like.

If not "racists" then how about "complete morons" instead? 'Cause that's what you come off like when you post his name like that. Scared, paranoid, racist and ignorant. Attack the man's positions and leave the scare-mongering for Hannity and Rush, m'kay? Unless you are going to somehow prove that his middle name has anything to do with, well, ANYthing.

I agree with you about Obama's inexperience and some questions about his rise to power, but shit fire and save matches, man, be reasonable.

I was wondering if anyone would catch that.

Pray tell, why would printing a man's name be a sign of paranoia or racism? Is it not interesting that a man's name, the one given him by his father, is not fit to print without such accusations?

That is how out of control this has become.

... this is the first time ever that... any European heritage "1st world" nation) has had a serious non-white contender for head of state.

N. Mandela, who actually became head of state of a former british colony of South Africa does not count?????

N. Mandela, who actually became head of state of a former british colony of South Africa does not count?????

Quite!


I do however think it is great that there is the potential for the hegemonic power to have a black candidate. However I hope that Americans follow democratic principles and vote for Obama on his politics not his ethnicity. May the end of America's dynastical presidency begin.

I was wondering if anyone would catch that.

Pray tell, why would printing a man's name be a sign of paranoia or racism? Is it not interesting that a man's name, the one given him by his father, is not fit to print without such accusations?

That is how out of control this has become.

The reason that particular tactic smacks of racism is that it is a clear attempt to bring attention to his middle name, and why would one want to bring attention to a candidate's middle name unless he/she saw it to be particularly incriminating (or exalting, I suppose)? The only plausible reason to write his name that way is to try and play on people's fears that his name has any connection to anything "not fit to print." There is nothing whatsoever wrong with his middle name, and it has nothing to do whatsoever with his policies or platform, but to draw attention to it asserts that you think it is important and/or it does have something to do with his policies or platform.

This, my smiling friend, is the very definition of fear-mongering. ;)

Imagine John McCain's middle initial was W. It wouldn't be right for his opponents to constantly call him John W. McCain, would it? No, it would be a disingenuous scare tactic. (Perhaps the W. initial wouldn't be clear enough, but you get the idea.)

Meh, I wouldn't call it "deceiving." Perhaps "less than 100% accurate."

As sort of a side note, have you seen the episode of "The Office" (British version) where David Brent argues about Spock and whether he's Vulcan or half-Vulcan? Because that's a lot what this is like.

I personally can not accept the principal of "less than 100% accurate", it is still choosing a side to play off of, which I'll give him credit for using it well to win.

Yeah I have seen that episode. I agree that this is like that, I dont really care that he his black or half black. It all comes down to policies.

Isn't Obama half white?


Don't say he is the first "black" canidate.

He is the first "mulatto" canidate.

usian culture doesn't really make that distinction. shit, until frighteningly recently we were working on a one drop rule.

That may be the case for the UK, not sure about the USA however. Does PPE even exist over there?
I don't even know what "PPE" means. Anyone care to enlighten me?

I don't even know what "PPE" means. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Politics, Philosophy and Economics, quite a good subject I reckon.

Politics, Philosophy and Economics, quite a good subject I reckon.

Thanks.
A double major in Poli Sci and Econ, or one of those and Philosophy, might occur in the US, but not the triple combo you describe.

Do me a favour. Show me one quote, just one, of OBAMA (not his supportes) playing the race card.

Because I can show you several of him saying race is not and should not be a factor.

The acts of the supporters are not the acts of the man.

I forget, Obama cannot, in any way, be tied to the workings of his campaign. By the way, didn't he give a huge speech based on saying that any criticism of Wright is due to misunderstanding black churches and black anger? Never mind the charge, totally untrue, that the CIA was responsible for AIDS, it is ignorant, racist white people who don't understand how black people worship God.

Or how about his charge that “anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan coalition". Gee, having lived through that period of time I can say that this is a gross misrepresentation of history.

His grandmother, "a typical white person", was "a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." That is a typical white person? Gee, Jesse Jackson has said those very same things. Does he hate black people?

Look in the other posts, Obama's campaign have even made his middle name a racist taboo.

I could go on but proof and fact never changed anyone's mind.

The reason that particular tactic smacks of racism is that it is a clear attempt to bring attention to his middle name, and why would one want to bring attention to a candidate's middle name unless he/she saw it to be particularly incriminating (or exalting, I suppose)?

Another reason to draw attention to his middle name is to draw attention to the fact that his middle name is now off-limits and to use his middle name in any way, shape, or form is to open yourself to being called a racist.

I suppose you and many others will stop referring to Bush as "W"? I mean middle names are no longer allowed.

I see it as a blatant attempt to control his brand name through racist means. Anyone noting his middle name will be so branded. Anyone swayed by his middle name most certainly cannot get past the color of his skin already and this tactic is a clever way to brand legitimate critics who dare to state his full name.

If I were Obama I would toss it aside as a silly argument and declare my love for the name my father gave me. But he finds it a convenient tool as do you.

Excellent point. It must be racism and/or a desire to argue that makes one not cheer this momentous occasion.

Not the fact that a person with no real political/executive experience, no real substance or policy, and who is a product of one of the most corrupt political systems in the country is one step closer to being President. I guess pointing this out means I hate black people. *shrug*

I think Ferraro hit the nail on the head. But you guys continue your self-congratulation session. *high-fives all the enlightened ones*



yep... If someone is thinking that this isn't a historic moment (USA's first non-white presidential nominee) which deserves celebration for what it means, then I'm guessing that they must either be racist or just want to argue.

Your other crap belongs in the political threads about the election (not sure if you read the OP). This is more about a milestone in US history.

I forget, Obama cannot, in any way, be tied to the workings of his campaign. By the way, didn't he give a huge speech based on saying that any criticism of Wright is due to misunderstanding black churches and black anger? Never mind the charge, totally untrue, that the CIA was responsible for AIDS, it is ignorant, racist white people who don't understand how black people worship God.

Obama's opinion on his church was clearly stated, time and again, and you have apparently (though most likely innocently) misunderstood it. First, he said that he did not agree with many of Wright's comments, which includes the claim that the US government is responsible for AIDS. Second, he claimed that there is a misunderstanding of black churches and black anger. This I think is pretty true, unless someone can show me otherwise. I don't think that either of us would admit to having a full understanding of black churches and black anger. Be careful not to assume that anything having to do with race is automatically Obama or his camp playing the race card.

Or how about his charge that “anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan coalition". Gee, having lived through that period of time I can say that this is a gross misrepresentation of history.

You'll have to clarify this point, as I'm not sure what you're referring to or what you mean.

His grandmother, "a typical white person", was "a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." That is a typical white person? Gee, Jesse Jackson has said those very same things. Does he hate black people?

When he said "a typical white person," I do not believe that that referred to the following comment about her being racist. It would be fair to say that he was not simply reiterating his first point with his second statement, but that he was instead making a separate but related point. If by "typical white person" Obama really meant "racist person," why even make the second statement, as it would just be redundant? It's pretty apparent, I think, that Obama is not Malcolm X or a Black Panther. At the worst, Obama used poor phrasing and misrepresented his idea. I'm sure you'd appreciate some slack on McCain's slip-ups, so I think it's only fair to afford Obama the same luxury. Come to think of it, this is where so much animosity comes from in politics: double standards and generosity to one's own point of view and too much cynicism to the views of another.

Look in the other posts, Obama's campaign have even made his middle name a racist taboo.

I've responded to this, and until you muster a counter, I SHALL ASSUME VICTORYYYY! MWAHAHAHA!

I could go on but proof and fact never changed anyone's mind.

Ah, so you're jaded. Probably rightfully so, as I think many of us are. But don't let this get in the way of reasoned argument and well-thought-out points, lest this thread (like so many before it) be reduced to a vulgar flamewar.

I think that it's sad you feel the need to praise the fact that he's black. If we really were blind to colour these days, that shouldn't make a shred of difference - it's only 'remarkable' if you think it 'remarkable' that a black man had the [insert generic racist stereotype] to get through the campaign.
Who said we're blind to color?

The worrying question is how many people voted for him simply to prove how 'enlightened' they are, so they can say 'what a remarkable day it is'.
Maybe, but plenty of people did not vote for him because he was black, and saw that as normal enough to tell pollsters. Not a lot, but more than you would think, and they at least canceled out the people who only vote for Obama because of his race.

This should be a proud moment for almost all the people of the US, and it should be happily remarked upon by most of the world.

Regardless of anyone's opinions or thoughts on Mr. Obama personally, this is the first time ever that the US (or to my meager knowledge, and correct me if I am mistaken, any European heritage "1st world" nation) has had a serious non-white contender for head of state.

This is a monumentous day in history, which is deserving of a thread of it's own. I hope you all remember it.

I'll ask that those wishing to make partisan comments in the appropriate threads. I'll be asking the mods to keep an eye out here.

Thank God! Now we have finally achieved the racial equality that we fought forty long years for! ;)

Quite a bunch of Nigers ;)

"Niger" just means black, y'know...

Another reason to draw attention to his middle name is to draw attention to the fact that his middle name is now off-limits and to use his middle name in any way, shape, or form is to open yourself to being called a racist.

I suppose you and many others will stop referring to Bush as "W"? I mean middle names are no longer allowed.

I see it as a blatant attempt to control his brand name through racist means. Anyone noting his middle name will be so branded. Anyone swayed by his middle name most certainly cannot get past the color of his skin already and this tactic is a clever way to brand legitimate critics who dare to state his full name.

If I were Obama I would toss it aside as a silly argument and declare my love for the name my father gave me. But he finds it a convenient tool as do you.

Obama has not commented on his name one way or the other, excepting his comments that his opponents label him as "having a funny name." This is far from "find[ing] it a convenient tool." As a matter of fact, he has made light of it in said remarks, doing the very thing you indict him for not doing.

As to the point about Bush's middle initial, clearly this is a fallacious analogy. George's middle name is not inherently supposed to denote "evil" as Obama's often is. There is no negative connotation to the letter W, other than its affiliation with George Bush, so clearly it is permissible in reference to George Bush himself.

Your more general point about people who use Obama's middle name being branded racist has a certain amount of validity. Someone should not be called names simply for using a man's name. However, you must admit (and have, sort of) that the motives behind drawing attention to his middle name are rarely benevolent, and it is indeed most often used as a scare tactic. If you do not believe his name to say anything bad about him, and you do not intend it as a scare tactic, then make that clear and we will all applaud you for it. But you cannot blame people for assuming that your motives are less than honorable when quite often people who do mention his middle name are just that: less than honorable.

GA where the hell do you get off making reasonable, well-written arguments?
:sniper: :sniper: :sniper:


:p



If people were saying George WMD Bush, then it might be a different story

For the record, I wanted Alan Keyes back in 2000. I wasn't old enough to vote, though....

GA where the hell do you get off making reasonable, well-written arguments?
:sniper: :sniper: :sniper:


:p



If people were saying George WMD Bush, then it might be a different story

Yeah, I try not to, but I forgot my Beahugedick pills at home. (Not implying that anyone is doing so. Don't want to start a flame war here.)


"George WMD Bush"... Hmm.... While it is wrong and has no place in reasoned discussion, it is pretty hilarious.

:)

Well, that's your loss if you're not. But I haven't been seeing this as a campaign between 'the black man' and 'the woman', and it's sad that so many of you think those factors are important.

The OP says:


To which my response is a great big, unequivocal, 'so what?'

If you didn't care about skin color, black people getting the vote didn't matter either. No landmark there. Gosh, how boring. People were voting for centuries in the US alone before black people first did it. It's not there was evidence of a systemic problem of racism that might have prevented them from doing so. /sarcasm

You can pretend like people voted for him because he's black but the evidence does not support that. In Illinois, black politicians are relatively common and we're just as gaga over him out our way. Whether YOU like him or not, he was elevated for his political prowess, not his skin color and all the evidence supports this. And THAT is a demonstration that we are moving toward the color blindness that so many of us hope for, which is what makes this historical.

This should be a proud moment for almost all the people of the US, and it should be happily remarked upon by most of the world.

Why? Why must it be remarked on by the rest of the world? Why must it affect us in any way shape or form? Not our country, not our politics, not our problem.

Just because you're being LOUD about your elections doesn't actually mean we should care.

Regardless of anyone's opinions or thoughts on Mr. Obama personally, this is the first time ever that the US (or to my meager knowledge, and correct me if I am mistaken, any European heritage "1st world" nation) has had a serious non-white contender for head of state.

I disagree, all contenders, regardless of colour, are serious, they just aren't all taken seriously by the voters. It was bound to happen sooner or later, people in the US have been making stories, and grousing about not having a black pres for an AGE... eventually someone would turn up at JUST the right point to end up being picked. He just happened to be running alongside a woman at the time as well. Which made it more 'interesting' for the majority of the populace that doesn't like voting.

I think what people think of Mr. Obama personally should be taken into account very seriously. His colour is not going to be whats running your country, it's him and his politics.

Try to vote for someone you actually AGREE with. Believe me, if you don't agree, don't vote for. It's not like no other black person will ever run for president again. They have before, they will again. They just haven't exactly been in the people's 'Eye' before.

This is a monumentous day in history, which is deserving of a thread of it's own. I hope you all remember it.

I'll ask that those wishing to make partisan comments in the appropriate threads. I'll be asking the mods to keep an eye out here.

Why is 'TODAY' a monumentous day? He hasn't even WON yet... when he's sworn IN that will be a monumentous day if any.

Personally, wake me when it's a Black, Pagan, Homosexual, Female, disabled and single mother President. Now THAT would be something interesting to see. That covers about all the minority interest groups...

You do remember that the African American people did actually adopt Bill Clinton as the '1st Black President' even if he was Caucasian? Right? Or are we ignoring that one?

Are you excited because he's part of a 'ethnic minority'? Can someone please explain to me exactly what an ethnic minority is, since as far as I can see the world is pretty even in all colours and shapes and the like of humans. I am counted as part of the ethnic majority where I live. Boy you wouldn't think it though, White, British, born in this country and county (OF Britain)... that puts me in a fair minority group in my neighbourhood.

I apologize if this has been found to be rude or offensive. But I've never had much tact and tend to be a blunt 'say as I see' kind of person. Even if I don't see the whole picture the whole time.

Why? Why must it be remarked on by the rest of the world? Why must it affect us in any way shape or form? Not our country, not our politics, not our problem.
That's rather naive.

The POTUS, and the US administration in general, has a massive sway on world politics, economics, etc. It certainly affects the rest of us outside US borders.

That's rather naive.

The POTUS, and the US administration in general, has a massive sway on world politics, economics, etc. It certainly affects the rest of us outside US borders.

Troo dat.


But I also understand how everyone else could be pretty damn sick of hearing about an election in which they have no say. I think I'd probably be pretty tired of it. I already rarely make it all the way through British political threads.

There is no negative connotation to the letter W, other than its affiliation with George Bush, so clearly it is permissible in reference to George Bush himself.
It was Dubya himself who promoted the usage.
For the record, I wanted Alan Keyes back in 2000. I wasn't old enough to vote, though....
I hope it was purely because he was black: surely you didn't want him for his ideas, I trust ;)

First, he said that he did not agree with many of Wright's comments, which includes the claim that the US government is responsible for AIDS.

Even though he had no problem listening to 20 years worth of such sermons...

Second, he claimed that there is a misunderstanding of black churches and black anger. This I think is pretty true, unless someone can show me otherwise. I don't think that either of us would admit to having a full understanding of black churches and black anger. Be careful not to assume that anything having to do with race is automatically Obama or his camp playing the race card.

Did you listen to his speech?

You'll have to clarify this point, as I'm not sure what you're referring to or what you mean.

Okay, clearly you didn't listen to his speech or were so enraptured with Obama's style that you missed the actual words.

When he said "a typical white person," I do not believe that that referred to the following comment about her being racist. It would be fair to say that he was not simply reiterating his first point with his second statement, but that he was instead making a separate but related point. If by "typical white person" Obama really meant "racist person," why even make the second statement, as it would just be redundant? It's pretty apparent, I think, that Obama is not Malcolm X or a Black Panther. At the worst, Obama used poor phrasing and misrepresented his idea. I'm sure you'd appreciate some slack on McCain's slip-ups, so I think it's only fair to afford Obama the same luxury. Come to think of it, this is where so much animosity comes from in politics: double standards and generosity to one's own point of view and too much cynicism to the views of another.

Quite an apologist for Obama aren't you? I am not a McCain fan either and really am in quite a quandry as to what to do with my one vote. McCain is bending over backward to sweep up Hillary's droppings and is alienating his own party with his stupid cap and trade schemes. But this isn't about McCain, this is about Obama and your interpretation of his words and motives to suit the decision you based on his skin color.

I have listened to both and found both wanting. Obama is just the turd that floated to the top of the Democrat cesspool. His skin color does nothing to shield him from his negatives.

All the spinning in the world does not remove what Obama said, in his own words, are characteristics of "typical" white people.

I've responded to this, and until you muster a counter, I SHALL ASSUME VICTORYYYY! MWAHAHAHA!

So much for assumptions:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Robocall_trashes_Barack_Hussein_Obama.html

The only thing this robocall does is inform about B. Hussein Obama taking money from lobbyists. Which he does. What is the Obama campaign implying?

How about his wife? Is she considered a part of Obama's campaign? Her she is talking about her husband's middle name as a "fear bomb". An opinion you seem to hold while trying to tell me that Obama had nothing to do with that designation.

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/michelle_obama_name_hussein_is.html

Ah, so you're jaded. Probably rightfully so, as I think many of us are. But don't let this get in the way of reasoned argument and well-thought-out points, lest this thread (like so many before it) be reduced to a vulgar flamewar.

Jaded and informed. Reasoned arguments I can deal with. Knee-jerk race-baiting I cannot. I hold Obama accountable for his words and his lack of substantial deeds. To say that this is a mile stone is false. Obama would, with his lack of policy understanding and lack of experience, is only in the game because people are enraptured with mere words and the color of his skin. I am not.

A moment for the history books to those who only look at racial politics. Too bad the first black man nominated by any political party for the Presidency has to be Obama.

The Democrat party has nominated a far left candidate in the tradition of George McGovern, albeit without McGovern’s military and political record. The Democrat party has nominated a far-left candidate in the tradition of Michael Dukakis, albeit without Dukakis’s executive experience as governor. The Democrat party has nominated a far left candidate in the tradition of John Kerry, albeit without Kerry’s record of years of service in the Senate. The Democrat party has nominated an unvetted candidate in the tradition of Jimmy Carter, albeit without Jimmy Carter’s religious integrity.

Unlike most of you, I don't see this as a step forward. Obama is a poor choice for candidate by anyone's standard and none of it has to do with the color of his skin.

Umm, you obviously have an American definition of 'far-left'. Obama is barely beyond centrist. I also don't see what's wrong with lacking religious integrity, but anyway.

There is absolutely no serious left-wing force in American politics. The Democrats are centrist/slightly right wing, and only look at all leftist in comparison to the Republicans. Try coming over to Europe sometime, and see what real leftist parties look like. Or go read up on proper left wing political theory. Then you'll realise the stupidity of trying to define Obama as 'far-left'.

Umm, you obviously have an American definition of 'far-left'. Obama is barely beyond centrist. I also don't see what's wrong with lacking religious integrity, but anyway.

There is absolutely no serious left-wing force in American politics. The Democrats are centrist/slightly right wing, and only look at all leftist in comparison to the Republicans. Try coming over to Europe sometime, and see what real leftist parties look like. Or go read up on proper left wing political theory. Then you'll realise the stupidity of trying to define Obama as 'far-left'.

This is American politics I am discussing. Who really cares what you Euros believe to be left/right? European leftist/fascist policy is exactly the type of thing I wish to avoid.

Obama has not commented on his name one way or the other, excepting his comments that his opponents label him as "having a funny name." This is far from "find[ing] it a convenient tool." As a matter of fact, he has made light of it in said remarks, doing the very thing you indict him for not doing.

As to the point about Bush's middle initial, clearly this is a fallacious analogy. George's middle name is not inherently supposed to denote "evil" as Obama's often is. There is no negative connotation to the letter W, other than its affiliation with George Bush, so clearly it is permissible in reference to George Bush himself.

Your more general point about people who use Obama's middle name being branded racist has a certain amount of validity. Someone should not be called names simply for using a man's name. However, you must admit (and have, sort of) that the motives behind drawing attention to his middle name are rarely benevolent, and it is indeed most often used as a scare tactic. If you do not believe his name to say anything bad about him, and you do not intend it as a scare tactic, then make that clear and we will all applaud you for it. But you cannot blame people for assuming that your motives are less than honorable when quite often people who do mention his middle name are just that: less than honorable.

The majority of people here don't know Hillary Clinton's middle name is Diane. Or that John McCain's is Sidney. It's not coincidence. We use the W in GWB because his father was president and had the same name (like John Quincey Adams).

Can anyone seriously claim that we know Barack Obama's middle name because we need to use it to keep from mixing him up with other Barack Obamas?

This highlights exactly why this was such a historic event. If we were truly as enlightened as some would like to claim, his middle name wouldn't be a controversy and people wouldn't be trying to dredge as much as they can to paint him as some big black boogieman.

But I also understand how everyone else could be pretty damn sick of hearing about an election in which they have no say. I think I'd probably be pretty tired of it. I already rarely make it all the way through British political threads.
It is rather tiring, I'd admit; but then this has been a rather unusual Primary season.

Still, you'd never get that in UK politics. Imagine Brown or Cameron running up and down the country telling us their vision for around a year. There'd be bloody revolt!

*snip*

This thread is not about whether or not Obama is the scary black man trying to steal our collective purses. This thread is about the historical context of being the first serious contender for the Presidency.

There is a thread where you can talk about Obama as you please. We were asked by the mods to keep such discussions there. Please respect their request and the request of the OP.

A moment for the history books to those who only look at racial politics. Too bad the first black man nominated by any political party for the Presidency has to be Obama.

The Democrat party has nominated a far left candidate in the tradition of George McGovern, albeit without McGovern’s military and political record. The Democrat party has nominated a far-left candidate in the tradition of Michael Dukakis, albeit without Dukakis’s executive experience as governor. The Democrat party has nominated a far left candidate in the tradition of John Kerry, albeit without Kerry’s record of years of service in the Senate. The Democrat party has nominated an unvetted candidate in the tradition of Jimmy Carter, albeit without Jimmy Carter’s religious integrity.

Unlike most of you, I don't see this as a step forward. Obama is a poor choice for candidate by anyone's standard and none of it has to do with the color of his skin.

Umm, you obviously have an American definition of 'far-left'. Obama is barely beyond centrist. I also don't see what's wrong with lacking religious integrity, but anyway.

There is absolutely no serious left-wing force in American politics. The Democrats are centrist/slightly right wing, and only look at all leftist in comparison to the Republicans. Try coming over to Europe sometime, and see what real leftist parties look like. Or go read up on proper left wing political theory. Then you'll realise the stupidity of trying to define Obama as 'far-left'.

What's interesting is that none of the people he mentioned even fit the American definition of "far-left." Maybe McGovern, but I think that association comes more from the sort of people who supported him. Michael Dukakis was very centrist. It was his talent as a governor, not his ideology, that appealed to Democrats. In fact, before the smear campaign, a group of Republicans told Bush that though Dukakis was the more conservative of the two. John Kerry is similar, his only "crime" being a senator from Massachusetts. Before taking that trip to Europe, you may want to look at how things are here.

Tying it back to the historicalness of Obama being the first black nominee, I don't think it is a coincidence that he appears more centrist than black candidates in the past. I think it's fitting that the man behind this event is pretty close to the views of most Americans.

This thread is not about whether or not Obama is the scary black man trying to steal our collective purses. This thread is about the historical context of being the first serious contender for the Presidency.

There is a thread where you can talk about Obama as you please. We were asked by the mods to keep such discussions there. Please respect their request and the request of the OP.

And I was saying that I see no reason to celebrate his nomination considering his politics.

But hey, consider me silenced and good day!

And I was saying that I see no reason to celebrate his nomination considering his politics.

But hey, consider me silenced and good day!

And you remarkably did this with out mentioning a single one of his policies! Good day to you too!

And you remarkably did this with out mentioning a single one of his policies! Good day to you too!

Did I need to? Don't you know them already? I do.

I think it's inprobable for anyone sitting in the White House nowadays to really DO something that deserves a paragraph in a history book. Even as President (not just a candidate), Obama will be renowned for one thing: his skin colour. Face it: you have to be deep in the pit of lobbyists and special interest groups to get ANYWHERE in US politics, and winning the election means that you'll have to appeal to the same people who elected Clinton and Bush. I don't see CHANGE written all over that kind of future.

Please, wait until he DOES something for you to be proud of witnessing, THEN start to write a speech you'll give to your grandchildren. It's not impossible, just very, very inprobable.

I think it's fitting that the man behind this event is pretty close to the views of most Americans.

*chokes*

I thought we couldn't post our views on Obama. Only how wonderful a black man is a nominee for President.

I am thinking that perhaps only good things are allowed? How enlightened.

You can pretend like people voted for him because he's black but the evidence does not support that. In Illinois, black politicians are relatively common and we're just as gaga over him out our way. Whether YOU like him or not, he was elevated for his political prowess, not his skin color and all the evidence supports this. And THAT is a demonstration that we are moving toward the color blindness that so many of us hope for, which is what makes this historical.

Exactly. Obamaniacs in Chicagoland dig Obama because he's playing for the Jane Addams team, not the Bill Thompson team.* (Not that everybody's as big an Algren nut as I am, so they probably phrase it differently.)

*"Not that there's been any lack of honest men and women sweating out Jane Addams' hopes here -- but they get only two outs to the inning while the hustlers are taking four. When Big Bill Thompson put in the fix for Capone he tied the town to the rackets for keeps....The best any mayor can do with the city since is just to keep it in repair.
Yet the Do-Gooders still go doggedly forward, making the hustlers struggle for their gold week in and week out, year after year, once or twice a decade tossing an unholy fright into the boys. And since it's a ninth-inning town, the ball game never being over till the last man is out, it remains Jane Addams' town as well as Big Bill's.
The ball game isn't over yet.
But it's a rigged ball game."
-- Nelson Algren, "Chicago: City on the Make"

Did I need to? Don't you know them already? I do.

Yes I know them, and they seem alright (not great, but alright). You need to explain why they aren't, but instead you chose to go into some bullshit about the Chicago Machine, totally unrelated to his policies.

Even though he had no problem listening to 20 years worth of such sermons...



Did you listen to his speech?



Okay, clearly you didn't listen to his speech or were so enraptured with Obama's style that you missed the actual words.



Quite an apologist for Obama aren't you? I am not a McCain fan either and really am in quite a quandry as to what to do with my one vote. McCain is bending over backward to sweep up Hillary's droppings and is alienating his own party with his stupid cap and trade schemes. But this isn't about McCain, this is about Obama and your interpretation of his words and motives to suit the decision you based on his skin color.

I have listened to both and found both wanting. Obama is just the turd that floated to the top of the Democrat cesspool. His skin color does nothing to shield him from his negatives.

All the spinning in the world does not remove what Obama said, in his own words, are characteristics of "typical" white people.



So much for assumptions:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Robocall_trashes_Barack_Hussein_Obama.html

The only thing this robocall does is inform about B. Hussein Obama taking money from lobbyists. Which he does. What is the Obama campaign implying?

How about his wife? Is she considered a part of Obama's campaign? Her she is talking about her husband's middle name as a "fear bomb". An opinion you seem to hold while trying to tell me that Obama had nothing to do with that designation.

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/michelle_obama_name_hussein_is.html



Jaded and informed. Reasoned arguments I can deal with. Knee-jerk race-baiting I cannot. I hold Obama accountable for his words and his lack of substantial deeds. To say that this is a mile stone is false. Obama would, with his lack of policy understanding and lack of experience, is only in the game because people are enraptured with mere words and the color of his skin. I am not.

Since this is indeed a threadjack (for which I am admittedly partially to blame), I'll keep my response brief.

I have certainly been nothing but light-hearted, concilliatory, and polite to you thus far, and for you to repeatedly accuse me of supporting Obama only because he is black is patently offensive, as it questions my intellectual capacity and integrity. On top of that, your tone has been more than condescending, and it only serves to stifle intelligent debate. Rest assured that my reasons for supporting Obama are more plausible than skin color.

From now on, let's be civil towards one another instead of condescending and asinine.



EDIT: Also, I am well aware that you will likely count this as a win in your column. I am perfectly okay with this, as continuing this debate in this thread with you would likely lead to a temporary ban for one or both of us. Avoiding the appearance of being beaten in a debate (if that is indeed how you interpret my last post) is not worth a mandatory break from the forums in total.

Yes I know them, and they seem alright (not great, but alright). You need to explain why they aren't, but instead you chose to go into some bullshit about the Chicago Machine, totally unrelated to his policies.

Considering his claim to be above Washington politics he hides his origins in one of the most brutal, corrupt political arenas in the country. His ties, if he were a Republican or a white man, would have finished him off long ago.

How about his disarmament promises? How about his retreat "strategy" for Iraq? How about his socialized healthcare system? How about his raising taxes? Would any explanation of his stupidity in these areas have affected your so-called understanding?

I didn't think I needed to spell it out, considering I was voicing my opinion, but perhaps I gave too much credit to your intelligence. I shall not make that mistake again.

Considering his claim to be above Washington politics he hides his origins in one of the most brutal, corrupt political arenas in the country.
"Hides"? Is there anyone in the US who doesn't know he's from Chicago? Maybe a couple people have been inattentive, but they probably don't know where their polling place is either.
His ties, if he were a Republican or a white man, would have finished him off long ago.
I doubt that very much. McCain has survived much worse.

How about his disarmament promises? How about his retreat "strategy" for Iraq? How about his socialized healthcare system? How about his raising taxes?
A majority of Americans support his stances on those issues.

Considering his claim to be above Washington politics he hides his origins in one of the most brutal, corrupt political arenas in the country. His ties, if he were a Republican or a white man, would have finished him off long ago.

How about his disarmament promises? How about his retreat "strategy" for Iraq? How about his socialized healthcare system? How about his raising taxes? Would any explanation of his stupidity in these areas have affected your so-called understanding?

I didn't think I needed to spell it out, considering I was voicing my opinion, but perhaps I gave too much credit to your intelligence. I shall not make that mistake again.

Damn, you are a flame-baiter and a half.


Could you take this to the other thread? I really think it would be better served there, and you would probably get more and better responses.

Considering his claim to be above Washington politics he hides his origins in one of the most brutal, corrupt political arenas in the country. His ties, if he were a Republican or a white man, would have finished him off long ago.


Like I said bullshit, the burden of proof is on you.


How about his disarmament promises? How about his retreat "strategy" for Iraq? How about his socialized healthcare system? How about his raising taxes? Would any explanation of his stupidity in these areas have affected your so-called understanding?


It would help if you could at least explain how his policies are so bad that you should forget about this milestone all together, but in fact, you shouldn't as this is a threadjack and belongs in the other thread.


I didn't think I needed to spell it out, considering I was voicing my opinion, but perhaps I gave too much credit to your intelligence. I shall not make that mistake again.

Oh how rude of me to expect someone to back up what they say! How stupid of me, I see you are clearly above supporting your points, I shall not question your infallibility any longer.

This is American politics I am discussing. Who really cares what you Euros believe to be left/right? European leftist/fascist policy is exactly the type of thing I wish to avoid.

Are you busy trying to link leftism to fascism there as well? Or are you simply saying that you wish to avoid both European Leftism and Fascism. Which is true. The American political system has managed to destroy any major leftist force, and is also definitely not succumbing to European fascism --- it has it's own home grown variety that's quite nasty enough.

But anyway, my point is that he's by no way far left. If they had nominated Kucinih, then you might just about have something of a point with calling him a leftist. But he's only left wing in the exceedingly narrow view of comparing him to McCain. There's the American Socialist Party, who aren't a major political force but should actually show you what a real leftist position looks like. Or you could look at the views of some of the left wing American posters on here.

And this 'Euro' can vote in this election, so you might want to reconsider that. And yes, I am also a proud leftist. Way leftist. So far left that if you were to think Obama was 'far-left' I'd break the scale.

Obama isn't far left. He's a mainstream American politician, and as such is center right. I wish he was far left, but he isn't.

What's interesting is that none of the people he mentioned even fit the American definition of "far-left." Maybe McGovern, but I think that association comes more from the sort of people who supported him. Michael Dukakis was very centrist. It was his talent as a governor, not his ideology, that appealed to Democrats. In fact, before the smear campaign, a group of Republicans told Bush that though Dukakis was the more conservative of the two. John Kerry is similar, his only "crime" being a senator from Massachusetts. Before taking that trip to Europe, you may want to look at how things are here.

Tying it back to the historicalness of Obama being the first black nominee, I don't think it is a coincidence that he appears more centrist than black candidates in the past. I think it's fitting that the man behind this event is pretty close to the views of most Americans.

That's also important to note. I'm not up on the historic positions of previous nominees and the like, so that's interesting to know.

Could you take this to the other thread? I really think it would be better served there, and you would probably get more and better responses.
You mean the American Election 1: Issues (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554116&page=8)
thread that has fallen back to page 5 because nobody has posted a thing to it since the month of June began? Maybe somebody should revive it, it looks so sad and unloved.

You mean the American Election 1: Issues (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554116&page=8)
thread that has fallen back to page 5 because nobody has posted a thing to it since the month of June began? Maybe somebody should revive it, it looks so sad and unloved.

That one, or even the Hillary vs. Obama thread would be more appropriate, especailly since it's called the "Democratic Nomination" thread. But yeah, the "Issues" thread would probably be the best one.


Apologies for sort of starting the threadjack.

That's rather naive.

The POTUS, and the US administration in general, has a massive sway on world politics, economics, etc. It certainly affects the rest of us outside US borders.

I am aware of that.

Doesn't make having to sit through US political talk and elections every four years any better. I don't actually want to see about it on the news, on the news I want to know if anyone got stabbed in my neighbourhood recently and what the weather is going to be like. Not the political climate of a country I've never even stepped foot on.

The only thing about the political climate of the US I want to know is: How will this affect my mother as duel Nationality? How will this affect my family and friends over there? Will it ACTUALLY affect me, or will it just be another administration where nothing actually really makes impact on the world stage other than pointing out that the economy can't be jump started by putting us on a war front anymore and that they're just really loud.

This should be a proud moment for almost all the people of the US, and it should be happily remarked upon by most of the world.

Regardless of anyone's opinions or thoughts on Mr. Obama personally, this is the first time ever that the US (or to my meager knowledge, and correct me if I am mistaken, any European heritage "1st world" nation) has had a serious non-white contender for head of state.

This is a monumentous day in history, which is deserving of a thread of it's own. I hope you all remember it.

I'll ask that those wishing to make partisan comments in the appropriate threads. I'll be asking the mods to keep an eye out here.

Whoop-dee-fucking-doo.

So a black man is a contender for the presidency.

So what?

Good to hear he became the Democratic nominee.

We Want Change!

We should be celebrating the fact that the campaign is now "Change" versus "Dubya Part 3" instead of "Dubya Part 3" versus "Dubya Part 3".

GZ the states, your Democratic Party were cynical enough to put up a black guy and a woman as their proper candidates for the presidency, meaning that any criticism of them can be instantly dismissed as prejudice, regardless of its merit, and since Europe is a pretty right-on place, I'm sure relationships between Europe and the USA are going to start pretty much afresh for at least 20 minutes until we realise that the State Department and the military are an old boy's club, and that nothing's going to change about that, neither the personnel nor its Stance On Things, regardless of what Obama might claim.

Not that they're not both better than McCain, but seriously, what a fucking weak line-up this time around.

i breathe a small sigh of relief, and pray the corporate mafia will wait at least until after his enaugeration before we start seeing attempts on his life.

ain't none of em, politicians of any stripe, that walk on water, but i do see this as a sign of hope for all people, and seriously hope i'm not deceiving myself in doing so, as i know that i too, am constantly capable of error.

whoever gets elected we all continue to have many struggles ahead of us.

what i'm hoping and expecting is that an obama presidencey will do less to make them more difficult, then either of the other two the economic powers that be were willing to let us choose between.

on the other hand, i'm hoping people, once hes elected, won't sit back and "let barak do it".

no mater who'se on the throne, culture begins at home. the incentives that motivate policy makers are created togather by how each of us actually lives.

choosing a leader, no matter how much nor how little power we accord him or her, isn't going to chainge THAT.

it is good that we have at lest this much choice and it is good to see someone at least that different, get at least this far.

no one thought jfk would get this far either. i was praying and keeping my fingers crossed silently so as to not jinx the possibility when he was running. i was too young to vote, and i was so elated when he finally got in.

he didn't prove to be perfect, none of them ever do nor can be expected to. but he did a lot of good, whatever not so good he might have done, and i'm hoping something of the sort for our next decade. something to contrast with the bitter shame of this past one. or at least something other then a repeat of it or worse.

hope is a priceless comodity, however freequently discounted. and for that i give thanks for this myrical.

=^^=
.../\...

This should be a proud moment for almost all the people of the US, and it should be happily remarked upon by most of the world.

Regardless of anyone's opinions or thoughts on Mr. Obama personally, this is the first time ever that the US (or to my meager knowledge, and correct me if I am mistaken, any European heritage "1st world" nation) has had a serious non-white contender for head of state.

This is a monumentous day in history, which is deserving of a thread of it's own. I hope you all remember it.

I'll ask that those wishing to make partisan comments in the appropriate threads. I'll be asking the mods to keep an eye out here.

Are you Wolf Blitzer irl?

Sean Hannity? Keith Olbermann?

B/c that's all they could say about last night. "It's historical!"

We should be celebrating the fact that the campaign is now "Change" versus "Dubya Part 3" instead of "Dubya Part 3" versus "Dubya Part 3".

We should be hoping that the 1 in 14 democrats who say they won't vote for a black guy stay home instead of voting for the old white dude.

Nevermind the other political party...

Well, considering that Obama married a racist bitch who thinks whitey's always keeping her down, while McCain married a compassionate, caring woman, I'm definitely going pro-McCain.

This should be a proud moment for almost all the people of the US, and it should be happily remarked upon by most of the world.

Regardless of anyone's opinions or thoughts on Mr. Obama personally, this is the first time ever that the US (or to my meager knowledge, and correct me if I am mistaken, any European heritage "1st world" nation) has had a serious non-white contender for head of state.

on the other hand, (without turning it to hillary vs obama remark), USA still hasn't had a serious female candidate, unlike almost any other 1st world nation (and some 3rd world ones).

still,congatulations for that one.

Well, considering that Obama married a racist bitch who thinks whitey's always keeping her down, while McCain married a compassionate, caring woman, I'm definitely going pro-McCain.

well thats a novel reason for voting for someone.

Whoop-dee-fucking-doo.

So a black man is a contender for the presidency.

So what?

What makes it so interesting is that we've reached the point where people say, "whoop-dee-fucking-doo" and not "Shit! Get him!"

It wasn't all that long ago when a depressingly large group of white men were threatened by a black man beating Babe Ruth's home run record. Now one is probably going to be President. And we've evolved to the point where 'whoop-dee-fucking-doo' is a reasonable response.

When that response becomes the norm, I'll be even happier. :)

well thats a novel reason for voting for someone.

Certainly makes more sense than voting for the more capable leader.

Certainly makes more sense than voting for the more capable leader.

you know it!

but before i make such a choice id like to see each potential first lady's concept for redecorating the white house.

i could vote for bob barr if his wife has excellent taste.

but before i make such a choice id like to see each potential first lady's concept for redecorating the white house.

We never got to see Bill's redecorating concepts...

We never got to see Bill's redecorating concepts...

mores the pity, eh?

im thinking "new orleans bordello circa 1845"

Well, considering that Obama married a racist bitch who thinks whitey's always keeping her down, while McCain married a compassionate, caring woman, I'm definitely going pro-McCain.

Which McCain wife? The one he divorced, or the one he married a month later?

Barack Obama: Proof that style trumps substance? Proof that color no longer matters? Proof that people will bend over backward to avoid looking racist and color is the only reason he stands out? Proof that an "outsider" can win? How is this properly interpreted?

I don't want him as president. I liked Alan Keyes back in 2000, and I would vote for Walter Williams. It's not about race, it's about ideology. I tend to like his foreign policy over that of McCain, but I disagree with him on almost everything else. I will not vote for him just to soothe the conciences of the people who feel responsible for the actions of a handful of slave owners in the south and a declining minority of racists in the population over our history.

I will not vote for a D or an R in this election, unless perhaps as a write-in or in the unlikely event that Ron Paul somehow gets the R nomination. I'll vote Constitution Party - It's only a throwaway vote if you don't cast a vote at all.

Barack Obama: Proof that style trumps substance? Proof that color no longer matters? Proof that people will bend over backward to avoid looking racist and color is the only reason he stands out? Proof that an "outsider" can win? How is this properly interpreted?

I don't want him as president. I liked Alan Keyes back in 2000, and I would vote for Walter Williams. It's not about race, it's about ideology. I tend to like his foreign policy over that of McCain, but I disagree with him on almost everything else. I will not vote for him just to soothe the conciences of the people who feel responsible for the actions of a handful of slave owners in the south and a declining minority of racists in the population over our history.

I will not vote for a D or an R in this election, unless perhaps as a write-in or in the unlikely event that Ron Paul somehow gets the R nomination. I'll vote Constitution Party - It's only a throwaway vote if you don't cast a vote at all.
Clearly you don't think he would make a good president, but do you disagree that his nomination is historic? (I'm getting sick of that word, but I can't think of a suitable synonym.)

Barack Obama: Proof that style trumps substance? Proof that color no longer matters? Proof that people will bend over backward to avoid looking racist and color is the only reason he stands out? Proof that an "outsider" can win? How is this properly interpreted?

I don't want him as president. I liked Alan Keyes back in 2000, and I would vote for Walter Williams. It's not about race, it's about ideology. I tend to like his foreign policy over that of McCain, but I disagree with him on almost everything else. I will not vote for him just to soothe the conciences of the people who feel responsible for the actions of a handful of slave owners in the south and a declining minority of racists in the population over our history.

I will not vote for a D or an R in this election, unless perhaps as a write-in or in the unlikely event that Ron Paul somehow gets the R nomination. I'll vote Constitution Party - It's only a throwaway vote if you don't cast a vote at all.

well, yes, if you dont like his approach and policies it would be rather wrong for you to vote for him.

but given that the democrats were never going to nominate a candidate you can agree with, dont you agree that it is a good day for america that they can nominate a black man and have the very reasonable hope that he will win the presidency?