Obama placed under Secret Service protection

[Carlos_E]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269915,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/...ion/index.html

Obama placed under Secret Service protection

(CNN) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, a U.S. senator from Illinois, has been placed under the protection of the Secret Service, the agency said Thursday.

The government is not aware of any specific, credible threat against Obama, according to a law enforcement source familiar with the decision. But his office has received hate mail and calls and other "threatening materials" in the past and during his campaign, the source said.

Three Obama campaign officials who discussed the issue on condition of anonymity also said there was no specific threat against the candidate.

They said the request stemmed from what one called the "cumulative effect" of a heavier campaign schedule, larger crowds and "just the growing perception internally" it was time to take additional security precautions that are best suited for the Secret Service.

A ***artment of Homeland Security spokesperson also told CNN there is no known specific or credible threat.

Illinois' senior senator, Democrat Dick Durbin, told reporters Thursday night that he relayed concerns about the size of the crowds Obama was drawing and other issues to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Reid decided to take the matter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff as an issue for a congressional advisory board, Durbin said.

"I knew the crowds were large ... but some of the other information given to us, unfortunately I think, raised a concern among many of [Obama's] friends," Durbin said.

"Unfortunately, some of the information we found was racially motivated. It is a sad reality in this day and age that Mr. Obama's African-American heritage is a cause for very violent and hatred, hated reactions among some people."

Durbin would not elaborate. "I've been advised not to talk about any specific security problems or any threats," he said. He also would not say how he received the information, only that it was from "credible sources."

The crowds, he said, have been record-breaking. "Naturally, it's encouraging politically, but it's also raised a lot of security concerns."

The Secret Service protection for Obama began at 1 p.m. Thursday, Durbin said.

Chertoff works with a congressional panel made up of half a dozen members of Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Reid.

The decision to present the information to the advisory board was a bipartisan one, Durbin said, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, also participating, he said.

Previously, two Democratic Senate sources told CNN that after Reid decided to take the matter to Chertoff as an advisory board issue, further discussions with the Obama campaign ensued and the official request for Secret Service protection was made.

The Secret Service said in a written statement that Chertoff, "after consultation with the congressional advisory committee, authorized the United States Secret Service to protect presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama."

Protection goes beyond surrounding the candidate with well-armed agents, the Secret Service's Web site states. The agency does extensive advance work and threat assessments developed by its intelligence division to identify potential risks, the site says.

"As a matter of procedure, we will not release any details of the deliberations of assessments that led to protection being initiated," the Secret Service statement said.

Another Democratic presidential candidate, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, already has Secret Service protection because of her husband's presidency.

Other candidates could request Secret Service protection. The Secret Service is authorized to provide protection to "major" candidates as determined by the advisory committee, under certain guidelines.

Among those guidelines, the candidate must be announced, be actively campaigning in at least 10 states and have some degree of prominence in the polls.

Durbin said he hopes any candidate who feels there is a threat against them will "go through the same process and ask for protection."

It is really sad to see that Obama is receiving protection because of his race. That he could be harmed just for being Black and running for president.

[maxex]

They could all be harmed...every president/politician gets death threats.

[Lexed]

prob racist ppl imo

[Carlos_E]

They could all be harmed...every president/politician gets death threats.

The only other candidate receiving protection this early is Hillary Clinton. That's because she's the wife of a former president.

prob racist ppl imo

I think it's pretty sad that's the reason. If you're going to hate the guy, hate him for a legitimate reason not race.

[alphaman]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269915,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/...ion/index.html



It is really sad to see that Obama is receiving protection because of his race. That he could be harmed just for being Black and running for president.

No doubt. But, unfortunately this was to be expected. He's the first Black candidate that's got a real shot at it. The crazies were bound to come out of the woodwork.

Besides -- Eddie Murphy predicted it in 'Raw' like over twenty years ago.

[singern]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269915,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/...ion/index.html



It is really sad to see that Obama is receiving protection because of his race. That he could be harmed just for being Black and running for president.

Well I wouldnt vote for him, thats just my political preference,
but he is an elected official , and as such if he needs protection from criminally violent and/or hatefully motivated Americans, then he deserves any protection we can offer.

[BgMc31]

Damned shame! After the story dropped, Dateline did a poll and only 53% of white people would vote for a black presidential candidate as opposed to 63% would vote for a white female candidate. Shows we haven't come as far as everyone thinks. And it's because of these racists that Obama will have to have security and if elected will probably have more assination attempts than any president in history. But because of the poll listed above, I doubt he would ever win.

[maxex]

Damned shame! After the story dropped, Dateline did a poll and only 53% of white people would vote for a black presidential candidate as opposed to 63% would vote for a white female candidate. Shows we haven't come as far as everyone thinks. And it's because of these racists that Obama will have to have security and if elected will probably have more assination attempts than any president in history. But because of the poll listed above, I doubt he would ever win.

I believe we have come a lot further and then some. Some people like to focus on negativity rather then the positive things.

This country is an equal opportunity country. In fact..minorities have every opportunity, shortcut, assistance the government has to offer.

It's up to them to take adavntage of the equal opportunities like this candidate is doing, the problem is..not many choose to take advantage.

[RamyGras]

Obama has become a very prominent figure in American politics and pop culture, for that matter. It doesn't help that the media has tried to paint the guy as a terrorist sympathizer, especially with the whole "madrasa" debacle. Which is hilarious, becuase it is simply the arabic word for "school". Anyway, when I read this, I didn't think it had anything to do with race. I figured it was b/c the quest for the presidency is starting much earlier than ever before. Guess I was wrong.

[BgMc31]

I believe we have come a lot further and then some. Some people like to focus on negativity rather then the positive things.

This country is an equal opportunity country. In fact..minorities have every opportunity, shortcut, assistance the government has to offer.

It's up to them to take adavntage of the equal opportunities like this candidate is doing, the problem is..not many choose to take advantage.

Stats don't lie, brotha!!! And don't get me started as to why our opinions vary. Let's me just state the obvious, minorities and whites don't see things the same way as we experience life through totally different lenses.

[Logan13]

[QUOTE=Carlos_E

It is really sad to see that Obama is receiving protection because of his race. That he could be harmed just for being Black and running for president.[/QUOTE]

It is sad, but there are people out there who still judge solely on skin color. I remember Jesse Jackson getting death threats, but no one really took him as a serious contender for the Oval office. Obama could win the Democratic nomination some day; For this reason and because of his race, he will need even more protection.

[Logan13]

Damned shame! After the story dropped, Dateline did a poll and only 53% of white people would vote for a black presidential candidate as opposed to 63% would vote for a white female candidate. Shows we haven't come as far as everyone thinks. And it's because of these racists that Obama will have to have security and if elected will probably have more assination attempts than any president in history. But because of the poll listed above, I doubt he would ever win.

He really did not fair very well at the Democratic debate. We will have to see how he does in future ones. The flip side of your poll is that probably 70%+ of black voters would vote for a black candidate vs. a white one. In a perfect world we would not discriminate because of race, but we also would not blindly nominate someone because of race. His best chance of becoming President some day would be by first becoming Vice President. But in all honesty, if he does not handle himself better in future debates, he will go no where.

[Carlos_E]

He really did not fair very well at the Democratic debate. We will have to see how he does in future ones. The flip side of your poll is that probably 70%+ of black voters would vote for a black candidate vs. a white one. In a perfect world we would not discriminate because of race, but we also would not blindly nominate someone because of race. His best chance of becoming President some day would be by first becoming Vice President. But in all honesty, if he does not handle himself better in future debates, he will go no where.

I disagree. I don't think that's true. I would not vote for someone just because they are Black. I did not vote for Jesse Jackson.

[Logan13]

I disagree. I don't think that's true. I would not vote for someone just because they are Black. I did not vote for Jesse Jackson.

Than you are in the 30%..........

[Logan13]

I disagree. I don't think that's true. I would not vote for someone just because they are Black. I did not vote for Jesse Jackson.

Doesn't matter either way, Democrats usually get 85% - 94% of the black vote regardless. What I am interested in is that Giuliani is reported to be taking 1/4 of the Democratic vote.

[Carlos_E]

probably 70%+ of black voters would vote for a black candidate vs. a white one.

Than you are in the 30%..........

"Probably..." In other words in your opinion. Your opinion does not put me into any percentage. That's just your opinion.

[Logan13]

I disagree. I don't think that's true. I would not vote for someone just because they are Black. I did not vote for Jesse Jackson.

Very interesting read.
What’s the Matter with Harlem? Are Democrats’ policies good for blacks?

01/17/2007
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...zFjMmViODA0YjM
Blacks have been the Democrats’ most reliable voting block for nearly 50 years. In the November midterm, 89 percent of black voters cast ballots for Democrats. This is typical. In 2000 Al Gore received 92 percent of the black vote. In 2004 John Kerry received 88 percent of the black vote.

These percentages aren’t just impressive; for Democrats they’re imperative. Since 1980 the percentage of white votes received by the Democrats’ candidate for president usually has hovered around 39 percent or less. Unless they maintain a vice grip on at least 90 percent of the black vote, Democrats’ presidential prospects fade into oblivion.

Both parties know this. If the GOP peeled off just 5–10 percent more of the black vote, Democrats would be in perpetual electoral jeopardy. But it wasn’t until the 2000 presidential election that Republicans began pursuing the black vote vigorously. President Bush received a mere 8 percent of the black vote that year, but after dedicating unprecedented attention to expanding the number of black GOP voters the percentage increased to 12 in 2004. That might not seem like much, but because of increased voter turnout President Bush’s black vote count rose by nearly 100 percent.

The lesson is that the GOP can make a consequential dent in the black Democrat monolith — a lesson not lost on former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, whose indefatigable efforts to enlarge the gains were blunted by Katrina (and the racial demagoguery that surrounded it) as well as other issues that resulted in general voter disenchantment with Republicans.

Michael Steele ran an outstanding campaign to capture a larger than usual GOP share of the black vote and received the endorsement of a number of black Democrats, including six prominent Prince George’s County council members. But their support generated a controversy that goes to the issue of whether a black vote for Democrats is, perforce, a vote for black self-interests. The Post reported that several black Prince George’s County voters excoriated the black council members for supporting Steele. At one civic meeting a black voter confronted the council’s black vice chairman, stating, “When I vote for someone, I vote the issues. Did you agree with the Republican on the issues?”

The theme of the confrontation was that blacks agree with Democrats, not Republicans, on the issues. The solid support given by blacks to Democrats strongly indicates that’s true. But in providing such support are blacks voting their self-interests? Consider the effect upon blacks of Democrats’ positions on just the following few issues.

Minimum-wage increase
The new Democrat-controlled House passed an increase in the minimum wage from $5.15/hr. to $7.25/hr. The late Milton Friedman once stated that “We regard the minimum wage as one of the most, if not the most, anti-black laws on the statute books” (A good argument could be made that the minimum wage vies for this title with the Davis-Bacon Act—supported uniformly by Democrats—mandating that prevailing wages be paid on government construction projects and passed for the express purpose of preventing blacks from competing with whites for public-works jobs). Thomas Sowell has been equally contemptuous of the minimum wage.

Sharp increases in the minimum wage price unskilled workers out of the labor market, a dislocation that falls most heavily on young black males. Such increases impair the ability of unskilled workers to get the entry-level jobs that are the first rungs on the ladder of upward job mobility. Walter Williams has noted that in 1948, before sizeable increases in the minimum wage, the unemployment rate for black teenagers was 9.4 percent— actually lower than that for white teens. Today, black youth unemployment is at 32 percent—double the rate for white teens. This isn’t to suggest an unalloyed cause-and-effect, but to note that the Democrats’ panacea of a “living wage” isn’t helping its intended beneficiaries as advertised. As someone once said, a wage, minimum or otherwise, presumes a job.

Public education and School Choice
Millions of black kids are trapped in medieval public schools that are insulated from competition and consequently have insufficient incentive to deliver a quality education. Yet Democrats resist providing meaningful choice, insisting instead on that infallible remedy, “full funding.” They’re encouraged, apparently, by how well this solution has worked in places like Newark, New Jersey, which spends nearly $18,000 per student—the most of any major public school system in the nation—but where only 30 percent of 8th graders can pass the annual proficiency test in math. Or perhaps they’re brightened by the example of the Washington, D.C., public school system, which also has among the highest per-pupil expenditures in the country yet perennially returns among the lowest test scores.

As Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom have noted, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, “the nation’s report card”, less than 25 percent of black 17-year-olds can read as well as the average white 17-year-old. Nearly 90 percent of black 17-year-olds score below the average white 17-year-old in math. More than 90 percent of black 17-year-olds score below the average white 17-year-old in science. The average black high-school graduate has the academic skills of the average white 8th grader.

These figures have proven impervious to increased spending. In fact, in some cases the gap has widened at the same time public-school spending has gone up. But Democrats continue to oppose choice, consigning another generation of black kids to educational purgatory.

Affirmative Action
Democrats are the champions of affirmative action. (Ward ******ly would remind that some elite Republicans are complicit also.) Since racial preferences in college admissions most heavily favor blacks, it would appear, at first blush, that black votes for Democrats are self-interested indeed. But evidence continues to accumulate that affirmative action may be one of the greatest scams perpetrated on blacks.

Studies by, for example, the Center for Equal Opportunity show that the racial preferences employed by some college-admissions offices boost a black applicant’s odds of admission over a similarly-situated white comparative by a factor of 200, often much more. This results in what UCLA law professor Richard Sander calls the “mismatch effect” — i.e., black students being admitted at schools in which they’re poorly qualified to compete. Consequently, black students are more likely to perform poorly and flunk out. For example, professor Sander found that 50 percent of black law students settle in the bottom 10 percent of their respective classes. Black law students are two and a half times more likely than whites not to graduate. Blacks are four times more likely to fail the bar exam.

The benefits to blacks of racial preferences in government contracting also have proven illusory. A common pattern in many regions is for just one or two (often politically-favored) black companies to be the dominant beneficiaries of preferential contracting and for white female, Asian Indian or other “disadvantaged” businesses to leapfrog the remainder of the black contractors bidding for the work. At least one analysis shows that black-owned companies that rely on minority-contracting preferences are more likely to go out of business than those that don’t go after such contracts.

Welfare and the war on poverty
Were this a shooting war, the Democrats would have re***loyed in 1965. As it stands, after 40 years and a couple of trillion dollars, misguided, if well-intended, policies have contributed to a toxic culture of grievance and ***endency that, while not confined to a particular race, has been especially damaging to the black underclass.

The list of issue conflicts between the Democrats’ policy positions and the interests of black voters goes on: illegal immigration, abortion, and Social Security reform, to name a few. But don’t expect any noteworthy changes in black-voter allegiance in the short term. A comment made by a black law student after an affirmative-action debate in which I participated illustrates one of the obstacles faced by the GOP. The student candidly acknowledged that affirmative action often harms its purported beneficiaries and that its proponents are, as he put it “condescending and insulting.” Even so, he asked, “How can we (blacks) support Republicans given the Republicans’ history toward blacks in this country?”

I pointed out that it wasn’t the GOP that had opposed Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. Nor was it Republicans who opposed the Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing equal protection or the Fifteenth Amendment guaranteeing voting rights. It wasn’t Republicans who opposed Teddy Roosevelt’s anti-lynching legislation, or that filibustered or otherwise opposed more than a dozen anti-lynching bills during the last century. Republicans didn’t institutionalize Jim Crow or implement school segregation or institute poll taxes or literacy tests to keep blacks from voting. Bull ******, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus, and George Wallace weren’t Republicans. In fact, Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act in higher percentages than did Democrats.

The student and a group of other black law students who had gathered around after the debate looked somewhat surprised. One student confessed that she would’ve bet that “Democrats” should be substituted for “Republicans” in each of the examples I cited. (This isn’t to disparage the student. If you’re wondering how someone can make it to law school without knowing the forgoing facts, see “Public Education and School Choice” above.)

Certainly, the GOP’s record concerning blacks is far from unassailable, but that doesn’t explain a 50-year black allegiance to Democrats. So what does explain it? Well, as Mark Steyn might say “Never underestimate the seductive power of inertia.”

There are several more substantive reasons, obviously. But that’s for another article.

[Logan13]

"Probably..." In other words in your opinion. Your opinion does not put me into any percentage. That's just your opinion.

Here is where my opinion meets fact...........
Factually:
1) In the 2006 November midterm, 89 percent of black voters cast ballots for Democrats. This is typical.
2) In 2000 Al Gore received 92 percent of the black vote.
3) In 2004 John Kerry received 88 percent of the black vote.

If a couple of white guys(above) garnered 92% and 88% of the black vote respectively, my statement of 70% previously was obviously too low. Sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[Carlos_E]

probably 70%+ of black voters would vote for a black candidate vs. a white one.

I disagree. I don't think that's true. I would not vote for someone just because they are Black. I did not vote for Jesse Jackson.

Than you are in the 30%..........

Here is where my opinion meets fact...........
Factually:
1) In the 2006 November midterm, 89 percent of black voters cast ballots for Democrats. This is typical.
2) In 2000 Al Gore received 92 percent of the black vote.
3) In 2004 John Kerry received 88 percent of the black vote.

If a couple of white guys(above) garnered 92% and 88% of the black vote respectively, my statement of 70% previously was obviously too low. Sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

You said 70% of Black voters would vote for someone because they are Black. Last time I checked Al Gore and John Kerry are not Black.

[Logan13]

You said 70% of Black voters would vote for someone because they are Black. Last time I checked Al Gore and John Kerry are not Black.

So you are saying that Gore and Kerry would garner more black votes than Obama would?

[Logan13]

You said 70% of Black voters would vote for someone because they are Black. Last time I checked Al Gore and John Kerry are not Black.

I love studies........See below in BOLD..........
Racism Saturates Our Politics
http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=11129

On a liberally inclined campus like UCSB, said rhetoric always amounts to the “evils of whitey” and then turns into yet another round of a game I call, “Let’s blame the Republicans.” But the biggest reason for limited discussions on race and racism simply has to do with the fact that people will deny that they can be racist. It is an ugly title, but it escapes no ethnic group.

Several years ago in New York, a study was done to examine how race affects the political selection process of different racial and ethnic groups. When the results came in, some interesting trends emerged. The study, with the usual error margin of ±3 percent, showed white voters to be the most diverse in the selection of candidates, thus voting for equal numbers of black, Latino and white candidates across the board. White voters said that only agendas and platforms played a part in their decisions, not race.

Oppositely, black voters only voted for black candidates and stated that the only reason for their choice of candidate was because the candidate was black. Latino voters followed similar steps in voting as the white voters, but were not as apt to vote for black candidates. When they did vote for black candidates, they voted for those that seemed to show the least divisiveness in their views.

The question the study asked is this: Do selective voting patterns indicate racist tendencies or is this a pattern of preservationist behavior?

Fast forward to the recent comments by New Orleans Mayor Ray C. Nagin. Now, maybe I’m being a bit unfair here, as Mayor Nagin isn’t exactly what you might call the pointiest arrow in the quiver, but he is black, has black supporters and says things they like. And so the question is this: By claiming that New Orleans will be a “Chocolate City,” was the specter of racism invoked? Add to this the fact that Mayor Nagin was upset about Latino workers coming in to work on the much-needed repairs New Orleans requires. His remarks against the Latino workers were, in a word, racist.

The New Orleans mayoral race has just become open season for Ray Nagin, and the problem Nagin has is admitting that he raised the ugly stone of bigotry - nobody is exempt from this behavior.

In 1984, during the Democratic presidential primaries, the Reverend Jesse Jackson referred to New York as “Hymietown,” with reference to the Jewish population. In case you’re not aware, “hymie” is a derogatory term used to refer to Jews. His apology was feeble at best and all he actually apologized for was getting caught for what he said, not using the insult itself.

And so we come to our campus and community. There are not many black folks and it’s mostly white. But I have yet to hear a white person proclaim that Isla Vista or UCSB should stay a “Vanilla Villa.”

Racism, in its simplest definition, is the hatred of or discrimination against a race or ethnicity that is the opposite of or different from yours. It doesn’t matter if you’re black, white, red, yellow, pink or purple, if you make racially detrimental remarks about a race or ethnicity, then you are a racist, or a bigot at the very least.

The unfortunate reality is that some of those decrying racism contradict themselves with racist comments and, in the process, their credibility falters. The fact of the matter is that members of “minority” groups can be just as racist or bigoted as whites are made out to be. The immediate assumption that all white folks are racist is proof of this.

Some of the same people calling for “multiculturalism” are the first to use racist descriptions of whites as a platform. But wait, aren’t white folks part of the multiplicity of American culture? Basically put, there are no angels in the race game, as even some of those crying out against racism can be just as caught up in its detriments as those claiming that they keep them down.

American culture is a mixture of cultures. Get used to it and we’ll all get along just fine. Maybe someday we’ll even be able to sit down in this town or on this campus and discuss race and racism in a civil fashion. But, at the moment, that day seems very elusive. I’ll end by saying that I like chocolate and I also like vanilla as well as all the other flavors in the mix. After all, I’m caramel and that’s a mixture, something I’m not ashamed to be and never will be.

[Carlos_E]

I love studies........See below in BOLD..........
Racism Saturates Our Politics
http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=11129

On a liberally inclined campus like UCSB, said rhetoric always amounts to the “evils of whitey” and then turns into yet another round of a game I call, “Let’s blame the Republicans.” But the biggest reason for limited discussions on race and racism simply has to do with the fact that people will deny that they can be racist. It is an ugly title, but it escapes no ethnic group.

Several years ago in New York, a study was done to examine how race affects the political selection process of different racial and ethnic groups. When the results came in, some interesting trends emerged. The study, with the usual error margin of ±3 percent, showed white voters to be the most diverse in the selection of candidates, thus voting for equal numbers of black, Latino and white candidates across the board. White voters said that only agendas and platforms played a part in their decisions, not race.

Oppositely, black voters only voted for black candidates and stated that the only reason for their choice of candidate was because the candidate was black. Latino voters followed similar steps in voting as the white voters, but were not as apt to vote for black candidates. When they did vote for black candidates, they voted for those that seemed to show the least divisiveness in their views.

The question the study asked is this: Do selective voting patterns indicate racist tendencies or is this a pattern of preservationist behavior?

Fast forward to the recent comments by New Orleans Mayor Ray C. Nagin. Now, maybe I’m being a bit unfair here, as Mayor Nagin isn’t exactly what you might call the pointiest arrow in the quiver, but he is black, has black supporters and says things they like. And so the question is this: By claiming that New Orleans will be a “Chocolate City,” was the specter of racism invoked? Add to this the fact that Mayor Nagin was upset about Latino workers coming in to work on the much-needed repairs New Orleans requires. His remarks against the Latino workers were, in a word, racist.

The New Orleans mayoral race has just become open season for Ray Nagin, and the problem Nagin has is admitting that he raised the ugly stone of bigotry - nobody is exempt from this behavior.

In 1984, during the Democratic presidential primaries, the Reverend Jesse Jackson referred to New York as “Hymietown,” with reference to the Jewish population. In case you’re not aware, “hymie” is a derogatory term used to refer to Jews. His apology was feeble at best and all he actually apologized for was getting caught for what he said, not using the insult itself.

And so we come to our campus and community. There are not many black folks and it’s mostly white. But I have yet to hear a white person proclaim that Isla Vista or UCSB should stay a “Vanilla Villa.”

Racism, in its simplest definition, is the hatred of or discrimination against a race or ethnicity that is the opposite of or different from yours. It doesn’t matter if you’re black, white, red, yellow, pink or purple, if you make racially detrimental remarks about a race or ethnicity, then you are a racist, or a bigot at the very least.

The unfortunate reality is that some of those decrying racism contradict themselves with racist comments and, in the process, their credibility falters. The fact of the matter is that members of “minority” groups can be just as racist or bigoted as whites are made out to be. The immediate assumption that all white folks are racist is proof of this.

Some of the same people calling for “multiculturalism” are the first to use racist descriptions of whites as a platform. But wait, aren’t white folks part of the multiplicity of American culture? Basically put, there are no angels in the race game, as even some of those crying out against racism can be just as caught up in its detriments as those claiming that they keep them down.

American culture is a mixture of cultures. Get used to it and we’ll all get along just fine. Maybe someday we’ll even be able to sit down in this town or on this campus and discuss race and racism in a civil fashion. But, at the moment, that day seems very elusive. I’ll end by saying that I like chocolate and I also like vanilla as well as all the other flavors in the mix. After all, I’m caramel and that’s a mixture, something I’m not ashamed to be and never will be.

You are referencing an opinion column from a college newspaper? The writer doesn't reference the study it's referring to. Please dig a little deeper.

[Carlsberg]

what a waste of time there is no way will win

[RamyGras]

Doesn't matter either way, Democrats usually get 85% - 94% of the black vote regardless. What I am interested in is that Giuliani is reported to be taking 1/4 of the Democratic vote.

It's far too early to report that. It was probably taken off of one of the thousands of polls that are up.

[RamyGras]

Here is where my opinion meets fact...........
Factually:
1) In the 2006 November midterm, 89 percent of black voters cast ballots for Democrats. This is typical.
2) In 2000 Al Gore received 92 percent of the black vote.
3) In 2004 John Kerry received 88 percent of the black vote.

If a couple of white guys(above) garnered 92% and 88% of the black vote respectively, my statement of 70% previously was obviously too low. Sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Hilarious.

[BgMc31]

Here is where my opinion meets fact...........
Factually:
1) In the 2006 November midterm, 89 percent of black voters cast ballots for Democrats. This is typical.
2) In 2000 Al Gore received 92 percent of the black vote.
3) In 2004 John Kerry received 88 percent of the black vote.

If a couple of white guys(above) garnered 92% and 88% of the black vote respectively, my statement of 70% previously was obviously too low. Sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt.:rolleyes:

No, you stated that 70% of blacks will vote for another black candidate and when Carlos says that isn't true you turn to pointing out that blacks vote Democratic at overwhelming numbers. So in essence, you caved on the point of 70% voting for a black candidate simply because they're black. Typical 'fair and balanced' response!!!

[Carlos_E]

No, you stated that 70% of blacks will vote for another black candidate and when Carlos says that isn't true you turn to pointing out that blacks vote Democratic at overwhelming numbers. So in essence, you caved on the point of 70% voting for a black candidate simply because they're black. Typical 'fair and balanced' response!!!

Thank you. I thought it was just me for a moment. We were talking about his statement that Blacks will vote for a Black candidate due to color then all of a sudden we're talking about Black voters voting Democratic. When did the subject change? Because I sure as hell don't see it.

By his statement if the Black candidate is a Republican 70% of Black voters will vote for him simply because he's Black. It is not true.

[Logan13]

No, you stated that 70% of blacks will vote for another black candidate and when Carlos says that isn't true you turn to pointing out that blacks vote Democratic at overwhelming numbers. So in essence, you caved on the point of 70% voting for a black candidate simply because they're black. Typical 'fair and balanced' response!!!

Because you guys do not know your historical facts and/or are too lazy to research it for yourselves:
In the 1988 Democratic Nomination, Jesse Jackson received 90% of the black Democratic votes. If you recall Dukakis won the Democratic nomination that year. Both men were Democrats, yet Jackson received 90% of their votes. If you think that this was because of his ability to be President, than you have larger issues that need to be addressed........

[Logan13]

Thank you. I thought it was just me for a moment. We were talking about his statement that Blacks will vote for a Black candidate due to color then all of a sudden we're talking about Black voters voting Democratic. When did the subject change? Because I sure as hell don't see it.

By his statement if the Black candidate is a Republican 70% of Black voters will vote for him simply because he's Black. It is not true.

When did we start talking about Republicans? This thread, which you started, is about Obama, whom I assure you is not a Republican? the ostrich that sticks his head in the sand is no safer than the one who doesn't Carlos. Refer to the 1988 Democratic Nomination votes.........

[Carlos_E]

Because you guys do not know your historical facts and/or are too lazy to research it for yourselves:
In the 1988 Democratic Nomination, Jesse Jackson received 90% of the black Democratic votes. If you recall Dukakis won the Democratic nomination that year. Both men were Democrats, yet Jackson received 90% of their votes. If you think that this was because of his ability to be President, than you have larger issues that need to be addressed........

Jesse Jackson focused his campaign toward the underclass and poverty. It's not because he is Black that Blacks voted for him. His campaign was focused towards Blacks, Hispanics and gays. Jesse Jackson won a large percentage of the gay vote. Are you assuming it because he's Black? By your logic that would make him gay.

[Carlos_E]

When did we start talking about Republicans?

When did we start talking about how Blacks vote?

We're talking about your silly comment that Blacks will vote for someone because they're Black.

This thread, which you started, is about Obama, whom I assure you is not a Republican? the ostrich that sticks his head in the sand is no safer than the one who doesn't Carlos. Refer to the 1988 Democratic Nomination votes.........

I'm using a Black republican as example. You said "70% of Blacks will vote for him because he's Black." By your logic Blacks will vote for a Black republican because he's Black. I'll do some research of Black republicans and post their percentage of votes.

[BgMc31]

Because you guys do not know your historical facts and/or are too lazy to research it for yourselves:
In the 1988 Democratic Nomination, Jesse Jackson received 90% of the black Democratic votes. If you recall Dukakis won the Democratic nomination that year. Both men were Democrats, yet Jackson received 90% of their votes. If you think that this was because of his ability to be President, than you have larger issues that need to be addressed........

Don't be condescending Logan because you were called out, it's beneath you!!!

Anyway, when Colin Powell was considering running for President, blacks were not keen on backing him because he was Republican. So don't try to say we are too lazy to do anything. Insulting people to get your point across makes you look desperate and in some cases... stupid.

Do you honestly believe that if Clarence Thomas ran for President, blacks would overwhelmingly support him? That's absurb and you know it Logan.