The other thing that I think about quite a bit is that this black and white conversation is exclusionary in that it does not include the other ethnic groups that make up America. What are the Japanese American, Latino American, Indian American, Native American, Eskimo, etc., people thinking about all of this? Those groups also have an equal say in this and have opinions pro or con concerning the viability of the Obama campaign that may or may not be based on racial prejudice. I will not blame the media for limiting the conversation I blame the people for allowing it to be limited. When people are so engaged in just trying to make it everyday they have little time for getting involved. There are others who have the time but not the will because they feel nothing will come from getting involved. There are still others who are unable to see any problem and therefore they wonder what all the noise is about.
Will we ever be a United States of America and is that important? The other party suggests that such a goal is a non-requirement. They do this by legislation they produce and policies they embrace. Are we better than Bush as a nation or are we a failed people like he is a failed president?
Obama and Lincoln
Buzz this article up.
In his remarkable March 18th speech," A More Perfect Union," Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, directly addressed the racial aspect of his campaign that, up until the preceding week, had largely been in the background. While the overt reason for the speech was the inflammatory remarks of Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, it also responded to right wing hate messages -- recently picked up by the Clinton campaign, suggesting America isn't ready for a black president.
Polls indicate that 62 percent of Americans believe the U.S. will accept a black president. Nonetheless, since it became clear that Senator Obama was a serious contender for the Democratic nomination, many have suggested the poll results were a reflection of political correctness, as respondents didn't want to tell pollsters about their latent racism. And, as her desperate presidential campaign careens through Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton seems increasingly willing to suggest she is more electable than Obama because, while she may be a woman, she's the "right" color.
Residing in Berkeley, I know no one who admits to being a racist and none of my friends has said they won't vote for Obama because he's black. Nonetheless, I've had acquaintances volunteer that someone in their family, a close friend, or "the guys back home" would never vote for a black candidate for president. I'm curious to know who these people are. Perhaps they're the 13 percent of Americans identified in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll who believe Senator Obama is a Muslim. Or, they may be the 14 percent who responded they would have some reservations about making Obama the first African-American president. But, there could be a simpler explanation; these bigots may constitute a significant element in the 32 percent of Americans who approve of the job George W. Bush is doing as president: died-in-the-wool conservatives who are stuck in a dysfunctional way of viewing race, the Bush administration, and our democracy.
These polls make clear there are two competing views of Barack Obama. Some see him exclusively as a black candidate and believe he has received preferential treatment to get where he is. Others see him as the embodiment of the American myth of the triumphant individual . Obama's life has many of the elements of the Horatio Alger rags-to-riches fables: he was raised by his mother and grandmother, worked his way through college, became a community organizer, attended Harvard Law School and became the first black president of the Law Review, and returned to Chicago where he was a successful civil rights attorney and author before entering politics. His first book, Dreams from My Father, is considered an American masterpiece.
Many observers note the parallels between Barack Obama's life and that of America's sixteenth President, Abraham Lincoln. Both came from humble surroundings; Lincoln lost his mother when he was nine; Obama's father left when he was two. Both are tall, lawyers, and began their political careers in the Illinois legislature. Lincoln also wrote his own speeches.
Senator Obama knew his presidential campaign would hinge on his response to the videos of Reverend Wright's sermons, so he personally wrote the March 18th speech. Thus, the values and themes expressed in "A More Perfect Union" represent Obama's true beliefs.
His core message was contained in these lines: "Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have... white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze -- a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many." "A More Perfect Union" was not restricted to the issue of race. It was Obama's prescription for a better America based upon a transformative politics of unity, a politics where, "all Americans... realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper." His speech was a call for a new populism, an appeal for Americans to unite against conservative policies that have divided us by race, gender, religion, and sexual preference in order to wage class warfare -- to "favor the few over the many."
Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address concluded with an appeal to "the better angels of our nature" and Barack Obama has repeated this call. Indeed, many of the themes Lincoln sounded 148 years ago echo in Obama's speech: the need for Americans to remember the values of our Nation's founders -- all men are created equal -- and stand together against injustice. And like many of Lincoln's speeches, "A More Perfect Union" was an appeal for unity and reconciliation.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Dude get real come out of the clouds go into the heart land. go to the red states and New England. Bigotry abounds. If elected Obama will loose by 30%
Are you one of the 30% and if so can you expound upon your reasons for opposing the man?
"Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have... white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze -- a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many."
The above statement was also a compelling for me. It told people on both sides of the divide that they are wasting their life away --angry at the wrong people for the wrong reasons. The right target for their anger just keeps on profiting from the divide (generation after elite generation) by stoking the flames of tension on both sides of what is an imaginary line. Affirmative action did not ship your job to China, Mexico, or India, corporate greed did and greed has no allegiance to any so called race. "White people" as a whole are not responsible for ghetto conditions and what's more there are so called "black people" who victimize "black people" in the inner city far more than "whites".
The problem is that certain people will never hear the message Obama gave because their ears are covered by their eyes, their hate, and their lack of courage to free themselves from the indoctrination of hate and/or the racial blame game. I do not know the percentages but we will find out in short order.
I really tire of this conversation but it will not go away.
Sorry, but I see him neither as exclusively an AA candidate or the man whose rose above......
Just a Chicago politician.
Dishonest, not above playing the race card, very at ease with lying......just one of "those" guys.
What do you know about Chicago politics that allows you to paint all there with such a broad brush?
A Chicago politician with a funny name who is currently wiping the floor with the "Queen" of the Democratic party.
Dishonest? Naa. He's nothing compared to Hillary "Mother Goose" Clinton.
Ok, maybe he lied about sneaking a cigarette. "SHAME ON YOU BARACK OBAMA!"
Hey Mr. Burnett, maybe Obama is Lincoln reincarnated. Did you ever think of that, huh? Like you said they're both tall. Or maybe he's God. You know I think if God were running for President he would write his own speeches too and I'd bet God is tall too. What do you think? I know when I hear him speak I just get tingly all over. That's why I'm voting for him. I want a President who makes me tingly all over and who is tall like Lincoln and God.
You really do seem frustrated...
Let's see: he has been likened to JFK, compared to Lincoln, is another Martin Luther King, is channeling Ronald Reagan. Have I left anything out? What are we waiting for, bring on the crown! This is getting ridiculous.
Jimmy Carter our most inept democratic president is getting poised to jump on board. I voted against Carter on his second run because he was doing exactly what the terrorists wanted him to do hunkering down in the white house and wringing his hands.
Actually, he wasn't doing ANYTHING regarding terrorists! He was desperately trying to gte the new Iranian GOVERNMENT to release hostages that they had taken. And he would have succeeded if ronnie raygun hadn't pulled a Nixon and been negotiating behind the scenes to keep the Americans hostage until AFTER he took office!!!
"Residing in Berkeley, I know no one who admits to being a racist"
Actually, you will find very few people who "admit" to being racist. People who are the most racist, seldom recognize it.
I've often heard black people complain about being called "Articulate." Whereas the person leveling the claim, thinks he is being complimentary, and would never consider himself a Racist, he is certainly making a racial judgement, and an outside observer might beg to differ.
Programs like Affirmative Action might be based on good intentions, but it's division along racial lines, rather than economic circumstance is certainly a good example of this benevolent racism that is uniform throughout Liberal politics.
"benevolent racism ... throughout Liberal politics." -- As opposed to the malevolent racism in conservative politics.
HuffPost's Pick
" As opposed to the malevolent racism in conservative politics."
I humbly disagree. Conservative politics treat people as individuals, rather than members of a group. Equal treatment under the law, and blind justice are hallmarks of Conservative thought.
Conservatism is the antithesis of Racism.
Wow. I see a lot of disinformation being flung about here, so let's see if I can help. According to Richard Ropers' "Persistent Poverty" (1991; sorry folx, it's been a while since my Sociology of Poverty class), while the actual number of poor whites is greater than that of poor blacks, the PERCENTAGE of poverty within each group is 10.5% for whites to 33.1 percent for blacks---obviously disproportionately higher among the latter.
Lest we forget, Separate but Equal was a Conservative policy. Blacks have been historically disadvantaged because whites INTENTIONALLY put them there.We may believe in the the ideal of a society without an eye to race, but the reality is that we still have years of racial abuse to make up for.
How does this explain Pat Buchanan, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Nixon's Southern Strategy, Reagan's States Rights and Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? George H. W. Bush's ads about Willie Horton played the racism card. Conservative Republicans have been exploiting race as a wedge issue for quite some time. Lee Atwater unabashedly admitted it. Explaining the Southern Strategy in any other context is nigh on impossible.
Conservatism is actually the antithesis of social responsibility. It is the celebration of the absence of any restraint against individual self-interest in order to produce a needed public good or to promote a vital public interest. It is the application of benign neglect to social concerns, including racial justice and especially economic justice, It celebrates the individual as a self-contained materialist entity motivated by its own pleasures and material interests. It proclaims all preferences (including racist ones) as rights and assumes that leaving each to their own preferences is justice. In the end, conservatism is self-absorption combined with the "Gospel of Wealth."
I have to disagree with you. Conservatives, as a rule, are going to ALSO perform racism as a group. The difference is that liberal racism (which is definitely racism, no doubt) is used for purposes of HELPING a group get things better in their lives. By contrast, conservative racism tends to be to keep a group DOWN.
If I say "I humbly disagree", do I get a HuffPo pick label??
Which conservative politicians championed civil rights? We can debate the roots of conservatism, but "conservative politics" as practiced in this country champions might over rights. Also, I don't see that the current administration is going to let a little thing like your rights interfere with it's agenda. They simply redefine rights.
It is well known that conservatives used race and blowback from to the civil rights movement --a liberal movement by the way-- to get southern whites to vote Republican.
"Conservatism is the antithesis of Racism."
No it isn't.
It is now and it has always been to maintain the existing order of White Supremacy and Negro Subordination.
I fully support affirmative action in ALL aspects of American life, especially in government programs, since all Americans PAY taxes all Americans should benefit from those taxes.
Historically, Whites have benefited from OUR taxes in far excess of their numbers in the population. They have received up to 90 to 95 % of the government largesse, talk about welfare, although they never maintained that level in the population. In other words, they are STEALING our resources.
Here is where it started according to Wiki:
Executive Order No. 10,925, 1961 [1], issued by President Kennedy
Established the concept of affirmative action by creating the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and mandating that projects financed with federal funds "take affirmative action" to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States
Also, the Kerner Commission Report tried to address more drastic remedies from the history of racism by White people's mental failings.
Former Senator Brooke has an interesting take on this in today's Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/02/AR2008040202995.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Thank you for proving my point.
Affirmative Action denies the reality of wealthy blacks and impoverished whites. It assumes that even black children raised in upper middle class neighborhoods have a disadvantage over white children raised in the inner city.
In education, it assumes that a persons genetic makeup determines his ability to perform in school, and alters admission standards depending on which racial group he belongs to.
it is intellectually no different that assuming that people of a certain race, have a genetic predisposition to unkempt property, and denying admission to a homeowner's association based on race.
PS: Not "all" Americans pay taxes. The bottom 25% pay no Federal taxes.
oops perhaps I should have posted this here:
Wow. I see a lot of disinformation being flung about here, so let's see if I can help. According to Richard Ropers' "Persistent Poverty" (1991; sorry folx, it's been a while since my Sociology of Poverty class), while the actual number of poor whites is greater than that of poor blacks, the PERCENTAGE of poverty within each group is 10.5% for whites to 33.1 percent for blacks---obviously disproportionately higher among the latter.
Lest we forget, Separate but Equal was a Conservative policy. Blacks have been historically disadvantaged because whites INTENTIONALLY put them there.We may believe in the the ideal of a society without an eye to race, but the reality is that we still have years of racial abuse to make up for.
Actually, affirmative action does NOT assume that upper middle class blacks are disadvantaged compared to lower class whites. It assumes that middle class blacks are disadvantaged compared to MIDDLE class whites. And that, no matter how you may try to spin it, is true!
"Affirmative Action denies the reality of wealthy blacks..."
It does no such thing, besides the number is statistically insignificant.
"In education, it assumes that a persons genetic makeup determines his ability..."
It does no such thing, besides if someone's getting into school by something other than an objective measure is something you oppose, why not oppose scholarships for athletes or legacies?
"PS: Not "all" Americans pay taxes. The bottom 25% pay no Federal taxes."
Even they, if they are working, pay ss and medicaid. Aren't they federal taxes?
What you and others who oppose affirmative action are trying to do is lock in this unfair system where White people benefit in excess of their numbers and their mediocre abilities.
Spot on...brilliant, I could not have said it better.
"62 percent of Americans believe the U.S. will accept a black President. "
this statistic is meaningless. It is like saying, " 99% of American men believe they are competent lovers." Just because a majority believes that Obama would be accepted, doesn't mean he would.
However, let's be fair. It also doesn't mean that he would NOT be accepted!
Some of these people who will never vote for a black person are working class democrats who strongly support Hillary Clinton in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania and it is not just people supporting George W. Bush as much as we would like to think so. This is why the Clintons have been playing the race card all along because without it their support would never pass 40 percent of democrats.
if it was not "the black candidate" running against her would she still have 40-50% of the voters, after the "long tale of Tuzla"
His inablity fire the "mercy shot" just shows that he does not have the blod lust, that the americans want there president to have.
No, it means that he's recognized that Americans are TIRED of the "blod lust" (sic) that bushco(tm) has demonstrated, and that Bill Clinton demonstrated, and that Ronnie Raygun demonstrated!
Loading comments…
The McCain campaign implied on Wednesday that Barack Obama's commitment...
Before the largest crowd of his campaign, Democratic presidential contender Barack...
When Katie Couric told Haaretz that "The glory days of TV news...
There is one more John McCain gaffe that...
As we have observed throughout the last several years,...
In a flagrant political act, the State Department has...
**UPDATE 7/25** ThinkProgress now reports that the bar...
** Update below: Nas delivers Fox petition to Stephen...
BARCELONA, Spain — Christian Bale swept into Barcelona on Wednesday night to attend a...
If you're wondering about the recent articles claiming that a study found...
HOUSTON — A "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico off...
Posted April 3, 2008 | 08:42 AM (EST)