Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1 "Racism is the only reason Obama might lose." 
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,092
    Ah, Slate Magazine. Calling all female supporters harridans this week. Now this:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2198397/

    If Obama Loses: Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.
    By Jacob Weisberg
    Posted Saturday, Aug. 23, 2008, at 12:02 AM ET


    What with the Bush legacy of reckless war and economic mismanagement, 2008 is a year that favors the generic Democratic candidate over the generic Republican one. Yet Barack Obama, with every natural and structural advantage in the presidential race, is running only neck-and-neck against John McCain, a sub-par Republican nominee with a list of liabilities longer than a Joe Biden monologue. Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums, and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?

    If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama's missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let's be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

    Much evidence points to racial prejudice as a factor that could be large enough to cost Obama the election. That warning is written all over last month's CBS/New York Times poll, which is worth examining in detail if you want a quick grasp of white America's curious sense of racial grievance. In the poll, 26 percent of whites say they have been victims of discrimination. Twenty-seven percent say too much has been made of the problems facing black people. Twenty-four percent say the country isn't ready to elect a black president. Five percent of white voters acknowledge that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate.

    Five percent surely understates the reality. In the Pennsylvania primary, one in six white voters told exit pollsters race was a factor in his or her decision. Seventy-five percent of those people voted for Clinton. You can do the math: 12 percent of the Pennsylvania primary electorate acknowledged that it didn't vote for Barack Obama in part because he is African-American. And that's what Democrats in a Northeastern(ish) state admit openly. The responses in Ohio and even New Jersey were dispiritingly similar.

    Such prejudice usually comes coded in distortions about Obama and his background. To the willfully ignorant, he is a secret Muslim married to a black-power radical. Or—thank you, Geraldine Ferraro—he only got where he is because of the special treatment accorded those lucky enough to be born with African blood. Some Jews assume Obama is insufficiently supportive of Israel in the way they assume other black politicians to be. To some white voters (14 percent in the CBS/New York Times poll), Obama is someone who, as president, would favor blacks over whites. Or he is an "elitist" who cannot understand ordinary (read: white) people because he isn't one of them. Or he is charged with playing the race card, or of accusing his opponents of racism, when he has strenuously avoided doing anything of the sort. We're just not comfortable with, you know, a Hawaiian.

    Then there's the overt stuff. In May, Pat Buchanan, who writes books about the European-Americans losing control of their country, ranted on MSNBC in defense of white West Virginians voting on the basis of racial solidarity. The No. 1 best-seller in America, Obama Nation by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., leeringly notes that Obama's white mother always preferred that her "mate" be "a man of color." John McCain has yet to get around to denouncing this vile book.

    Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.

    Choosing John McCain, in particular, would herald the construction of a bridge to the 20th century—and not necessarily the last part of it, either. McCain represents a Cold War style of nationalism that doesn't get the shift from geopolitics to geoeconomics, the centrality of soft power in a multipolar world, or the transformative nature of digital technology. This is a matter of attitude as much as age. A lot of 71-year-olds are still learning and evolving. But in 2008, being flummoxed by that newfangled doodad, the personal computer, seems like a deal-breaker. At this hinge moment in human history, McCain's approach to our gravest problems is hawkish denial. I like and respect the man, but the maverick has become an ostrich: He wants to deal with the global energy crisis by drilling and our debt crisis by cutting taxes, and he responds to security challenges from Georgia to Iran with Bush-like belligerence and pique.

    You may or may not agree with Obama's policy prescriptions, but they are, by and large, serious attempts to deal with the biggest issues we face: a failing health care system, oil dependency, income stagnation, and climate change. To the rest of the world, a rejection of the promise he represents wouldn't just be an odd choice by the United States. It would be taken for what it would be: sign and symptom of a nation's historical decline.
    Note that by paragraph 5, this guy is assuming that EVERY objection to Obama's candidacy is CODE for racism. (Like the guy's paper thin resume; that's not a real objection, that's CODE!)
     

  2. #2  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    Ah, Slate Magazine. Calling all female supporters harridans this week. Now this:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2198397/



    Note that by paragraph 5, this guy is assuming that EVERY objection to Obama's candidacy is CODE for racism. (Like the guy's paper thin resume; that's not a real objection, that's CODE!)
    They are just trying to stay out front of any eventuality and end up just looking like fools !Any choice in the matter must be racist to the true believers in the Magic one !
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member GrumpyOldLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    1,304
    Don King was on Fox and Friends yesterday (or the day before - I don't remember for sure). He was asked straight out if Obama lost would it be because of racism and of course Don King said (paraphrase) of course it would be because of racism if he lost'.

    BARF!
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,563
    Quote Originally Posted by GrumpyOldLady View Post
    Don King was on Fox and Friends yesterday (or the day before - I don't remember for sure). He was asked straight out if Obama lost would it be because of racism and of course Don King said (paraphrase) of course it would be because of racism if he lost'.

    BARF!
    I wonder how these dim-witted Black "thinkers" would respond to a Black Conservative losing? I'd bet for every Conservative article there would be a dozen or more Uncle Tom articles.
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The West
    Posts
    1,618
    But let's look at the other side of this. Suppose a poll were taken of blacks. If they were asked, "If there is a black candidate running in the election, how many of you would vote for the white candidate?" Just as many, if not more, would probably say that they could never vote for a white guy, if a black were also running.
     

  6. #6  
    gator
    Guest
    I am not voting for him because he is a Left Wing Negro.

    Of course I would not vote for a Left Wing Caucasian so the distinction of race doesn’t mean anything.

    I would never vote for someone that has promised to raid the US Treasury and give the money to people of his own race like has Obama has promised to do.
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The West
    Posts
    1,618
    That's also a way to get the guilt groundwork layed down. Might be some fools out there who will vote a certain way, simply because they don't want to think of themselves as possibly being racist.
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    548
    It's important to get your excuses out on the table early. That way if you lose, everyone already knows why.
    Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.

    --Albert Einstein
     

  9. #9  
    Goldwater
    Guest
    He trails amongst older white voters just like all the Democrat nominees before him - they don't feel he shares their values, or they're just conservative. Of course there are racists, but there isn't enough to damage his chances.
     

  10. #10  
    Racism was the theme of Obama's campaign from day one. He can't win with no experience behind him so the race card will be produced daily. Adding Biden for credibility won't help either.Biden is not credible on the economy. He helped design the plan for the credit card companies so they could gouge the consumer, after the consumer was gouged, he authored the bankruptcy bill. Wait until this comes out.
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •