Obama campaign lashes out at Ferraro race comment

[kfrost06]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Barack Obama's White House campaign lashed out in fury Tuesday after a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter attributed his stunning march through US politics to his race.

Obama aide Susan Rice called for Clinton to fire Geraldine Ferraro, the only woman yet to run on a major party's presidential ticket, after her comments Friday to a Los Angeles newspaper.

"That's a really outrageous and offensive comment," Rice said on MSNBC television after Ferraro, who sits on Clinton's finance committee, had said: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."

"It is the sort of comment that we have heard repeatedly, I'm afraid, from some of the Clinton surrogates," said Rice, Obama's leading adviser on foreign policy.

She said Ferraro's remarks were "far worse" than those of another foreign policy aide, Samantha Power, who was forced to resign from the Obama campaign last week for calling Clinton a "monster."

"I think if Senator Clinton is serious about putting an end to statements that have racial implications, that diminish Barack Obama because he's an African-American man, then she ought to really repudiate this comment and make it clear that there's no place in her campaign for people who will say this kind of thing," Rice said.

Ferraro was Walter Mondale's running mate for the Democrats in the 1984 presidential election. They lost in a landslide to the Republican ticket led by Ronald Reagan.

In an interview Friday with the Daily Breeze newspaper, she was quoted as saying that Obama's success revealed the "very sexist" attitudes of the media.

"And if he was a woman -- of any color -- he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept," Ferraro said.

The Clinton campaign had no immediate comment. Late last year, the New York senator fired two junior aides for spreading emails claiming falsely that Obama is secretly a Muslim.

[kfrost06]

It's getting ugly between these two, politics as usual. My question is, 1. is the comment true? and 2. is the comment offensive?

I say yes to both. 1.When Obama gets over 9 out of 10 black votes then his race is benefitting him, IMO. and 2. to undermine his progress and his incredible rise by attributing his success in whole or in part to his skin color, it is offensive.

[Kratos]

I don't want to see obama as the next president that's for sure. Has nothing to do with his skin color.

[lotaquestions]

i belive that he has been getting a break b/c of his skin color and clinton b/c of her gender. i think that you have to be more careful what you say b/c of his race and you do not want to be considered a racist.

i am a white man and watched the "state of the black union" on cspan the other day and was very offended. they made race a huge issue and one of the biggest issues of the campaine and no one called them out on their comments about clinton being white.

i dont like clinton or obama and i belive that they are both getting breaks that john edwards didnt get b/c of race/gender issues (BUT ALL 3 WOULD MAKE A TERRABLE PRES.)

[Amorphic]

hilary and obama are both retarded, they spend more time trying to bash eachother than outlining any type of political platform.

total losers.

[soulstealer]

I don't want to see obama as the next president that's for sure. Has nothing to do with his skin color.

I hear ya bro.... lets see Obama...Hillary...Mccain...**** me... I'm moving to cuba

[BgMc31]

hhhhhhmmmmmm lets see Barack benefiting from being black? Lets examine this:

1. Barack gets 89% of the black vote. Advantage Obama.

2. As high as 20% of Clinton's supporters will vote for McCain if Barack is nominated because he's black. Disadvantage Obama.

3. Republican party has a greater recent history of racist members and the party has courted these members by supporting anti-affirmative action legislation and not supporting most most civil rights legislation. I'm sure many republicans on this forum will argue with that statement, but if I'm proved wrong, I will concede the point. But there is a perception of the republican party as being less than friendly towards minorties and blacks in particular.Therefore, there ARE many members of the republican party who would never vote for a black man, even moreso than that of a white woman. Disadvantage Obama.

With that being said, I think the lift given to Obama by the black vote is washed by the amount of prejudiced and racists individuals in this country who won't vote for him. So I don't think its an advantage or disadvantage either way. The funny thing is Obama has tried to avoid being the "black" candidate. Its whites on both side that seem to raise the race issue more often than not.

That being said racism is a disease that most don't want to admit. once those curtains close on election night only that person knows his/her true feelings in regards to race.

[SMCengineer]

3. Republican party has a greater recent history of racist members and the party has courted these members by supporting anti-affirmative action legislation and not supporting most most civil rights legislation.

That's all relative to what your view of "recent" history is. If you mean within the past 100 years then I got news for you, positive racism (ie welfare, affirmative action, etc.) is still racism and most of that legislation came about under Democrats, namely Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ. Need I remind you, America is about EQUAL rights for all, special rights for none.

But there is a perception of the republican party as being less than friendly towards minorties and blacks in particular.Therefore, there ARE many members of the republican party who would never vote for a black man, even moreso than that of a white woman. Disadvantage Obama.

Again, republicans aren't less friendly towards minorities they just aren't more friendly towards minorities because everybody is EQUAL and should be treated as such. Moreover, the fact that he is black is not the reason republicans aren't going to vote for him. It's that fact that his policies suck and are completely against everything America stands for. With that said, neither Clinton nor Mccain are much better and Obama will most likely end up being the next President.

[kfrost06]

hhhhhhmmmmmm lets see Barack benefiting from being black? Lets examine this:

1. Barack gets 89% of the black vote. Advantage Obama.

2. As high as 20% of Clinton's supporters will vote for McCain if Barack is nominated because he's black. Disadvantage Obama.

3. Republican party has a greater recent history of racist members and the party has courted these members by supporting anti-affirmative action legislation and not supporting most most civil rights legislation. I'm sure many republicans on this forum will argue with that statement, but if I'm proved wrong, I will concede the point. But there is a perception of the republican party as being less than friendly towards minorties and blacks in particular.Therefore, there ARE many members of the republican party who would never vote for a black man, even moreso than that of a white woman. Disadvantage Obama.

With that being said, I think the lift given to Obama by the black vote is washed by the amount of prejudiced and racists individuals in this country who won't vote for him. So I don't think its an advantage or disadvantage either way. The funny thing is Obama has tried to avoid being the "black" candidate. Its whites on both side that seem to raise the race issue more often than not.

That being said racism is a disease that most don't want to admit. once those curtains close on election night only that person knows his/her true feelings in regards to race.

3 things, first welcome back stranger! Second, very good arguement but I think that applies more towards the general election and not to the primary since for the most part only Democrats can vote for the two and the evil racist sexist Republicans have little/no effect on the outcome of the Democratic primary. and Third, you never answered the second question, is the comment made by Ferraro, the white female Clinton aide offensive?

[BgMc31]

That's all relative to what your view of "recent" history is. If you mean within the past 100 years then I got news for you, positive racism (ie welfare, affirmative action, etc.) is still racism and most of that legislation came about under Democrats, namely Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ. Need I remind you, America is about EQUAL rights for all, special rights for none.



Again, republicans aren't less friendly towards minorities they just aren't more friendly towards minorities because everybody is EQUAL and should be treated as such. Moreover, the fact that he is black is not the reason republicans aren't going to vote for him. It's that fact that his policies suck and are completely against everything America stands for. With that said, neither Clinton nor Mccain are much better and Obama will most likely end up being the next President.

I expected such a response from a republican or a republican-leaning independent... and I was referring to the last 45+yrs (post civil rights era). Everyone knows that Lincoln was a Republican but everyone also knows that the republican party has changed since then.

[BgMc31]

3 things, first welcome back stranger! Second, very good arguement but I think that applies more towards the general election and not to the primary since for the most part only Democrats can vote for the two and the evil racist sexist Republicans have little/no effect on the outcome of the Democratic primary. and Third, you never answered the second question, is the comment made by Ferraro, the white female Clinton aide offensive?

Good to be back Kfrost, thanks! I see your point as far as the general election is concerned. But as far as the comment being offensive, I didn't find it offensive and I'm hearing much of an uproar in the black community, the 'turmoil' has all come from whites both on the left and right.

[SMCengineer]

I expected such a response from a republican or a republican-leaning independent... and I was referring to the last 45+yrs (post civil rights era). Everyone knows that Lincoln was a Republican but everyone also knows that the republican party has changed since then.

Did you read the post? I wasn't referring to Lincoln and, no, the true republican party and it's ideals haven't changed only certain groups within it, namely the Neo-conservatives. If you know the history of the Neo-conservatives than you'll note that they originated from the radical left. I was, however, referring to Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ. LBJ certainly fits nicely into that category of the past 45+ years with his "Great Society."

[BgMc31]

Considering LBJ signed one of the most important civil rights bills into legislation, I think that's a bad example. Even the most prominent black "leaders" have conceded Clinton's assertion that Martin Luther King would not have been nearly as effective without the assistance of LBJ. And I'm not trying or even wanting to debate the origin of the neo-conservatives. That fact remains they are republicans now. Hell most blacks were republicans at one time.

[SMCengineer]

Considering LBJ signed one of the most important civil rights bills into legislation, I think that's a bad example. Even the most prominent black "leaders" have conceded Clinton's assertion that Martin Luther King would not have been nearly as effective without the assistance of LBJ.

No, it's a very good example. Your just not comprehending this properly, what your thinking is that I'm calling LBJ an outright racist or a bigot, but that's not what I'm doing. Those legilations that he passed hurt the very people that he was trying to help and I'm not saying he had a malicious intent, but this is what happened and this is always what happens with most government intervention. If you want to change people you do not do it through legislation you do it through persuasion and education. The legislation that was passed added to collectivist thought and that's exactly what they were fighting against.

And I'm not trying or even wanting to debate the origin of the neo-conservatives. That fact remains they are republicans now. Hell most blacks were republicans at one time.

That's because if you know anything about Irving Krystal you know he was a liberal before he created a new wing of neo-conservatives. The fact is they are not real republicans. Real republicans have very different ideals. Neo-conservatives are republicans in name only. They're essentailly warmongering liberals.

[Pooks]

She should had just flat out directly said.. "I believe Obama is a stupid man"

by tying race into this .. she dragged herself into this mess

She is trying to be like Aristotle and philosophize some stupid theories, but it's just ignorance

[100m champ]

go obama go!!

[lotaquestions]

most blacks say that they are voteing for obama b/c he is black, with out worrying about his stance, experience or qualifications. is that racist making a decision based only on skin color?

[BgMc31]

most blacks say that they are voteing for obama b/c he is black, with out worrying about his stance, experience or qualifications. is that racist making a decision based only on skin color?

How is that racists? Is it sexist that most women gravitate towards Clinton because she's a woman (including that 11% of blacks voting for her who are mostly black women)? Is it right? No. But white men are undefeated in presidential elections here, finally there is not only a candidate for significant, real change but also someone who can relate to our collective 'struggle'. Its the same way Mormons came out in force for Romney, evangelicals for Huckabee. Its all about similar indentifying principles and characteristics. Its just human nature.

[BgMc31]

She should had just flat out directly said.. "I believe Obama is a stupid man"

by tying race into this .. she dragged herself into this mess

She is trying to be like Aristotle and philosophize some stupid theories, but it's just ignorance

Saying Obama is a stupid man based on his extensive academic credentials is equally ignorant. I would venture to say even moreso.

[Act of God]

I think as far as getting the DNC nomination being black is an absolute advantage. The entire party is obsessed with being PC and going out of their way to be minority friendly. The liberal mind gets a high by voting for a black man (or a woman for that matter, hello Pelosi). Realistically, you can support (and be part of the cool club!) Obama for no reason with no knowledge of his policies or experience. At the same time, if you don't support him for no reason (just don't like him) people will assume it is because you are a bigot.

Now Obama is a gifted speaker and likable person. To say that where he is is ONLY due to his race would be selling him short. His race, however, may have given him more venues to be heard and get the message/likability out (unlike Ron Paul).

In the General election, however, his race becomes less of an advantage. He will still garner the liberal/democrat and white guilt votes, along with blacks. He will probably not do well with other minorities, as recent studies have shown high distrust between minority groups (and they trust whites more than each other).

Also, as said earlier, people tend to vote for the person most like them. This can be race, gender, religion, or whatever. Fact remains is that this country is overwhelmingly white (no matter what the media shows) and Christian (no matter what the media shows).

I also wanted to touch upon what Blome noted. I feel like the person who is truly open minded and not bigoted has the ability to tell people they need to fend for themselves. They don't need to coddle minority groups and blame society, or white people, or institutional racism. They should be able to look at a group and say "get your sh!t together, I know you can."

I just saw Bill Cosby and his Harvard Ph.d guy on Oprah. They dropped some serious statistics about blacks concerning high school dropout rates and single parenting. 70% of all black children are born to single parents (which, btw is the single most indicative element of poverty). 50% of blacks living in urban areas drop out of school. Of them, 60-70% end up in jail. We all know the incarceration and violent crime statistics as well. Unfortunately, we are at a point in society where if you tell people to clean their own yard you are labeled a racist. This, in turn, gives those same people no incentive to clean their own yard because we're telling them "your yard is messy because of us". Hell, go look at that 1 in 4 teens with STD's report. 50% of black teenage girls had STD's compared to 20% of whites and Hispanics. White people didn't cause that.

A true open minded person would rather teach someone to fish, rather than give them free fish for life. Everyone has the ability, you just need to remove the safety not.

Was Ferraro's comment proper? Not here in 2008. Was it true? Probably.

[Act of God]

most blacks say that they are voteing for obama b/c he is black, with out worrying about his stance, experience or qualifications. is that racist making a decision based only on skin color?

Think about it this way, if you were voting for someone only because they were white would YOU be called a racist by the liberal army?

Yes, you would.

[BITTAPART2]

hilary and obama are both retarded, they spend more time trying to bash eachother than outlining any type of political platform.

total losers.

actually, i would call neither of them losers, I mean they have accomplished more than probably 100% of the people on this board have or ever will accomplish so I have to disagree with that comment. Furthermore, obama has been urged by his suppoters as well as strategists to START bashing and mud slinging yet he remains on topic as opposed to Hilary, her campaign is getting nasty.

[BITTAPART2]

BTW I am white, liberal and have been called a racist many times. I dont believe in PC bullshitt, what makes me a liberal is the fact that I think we should be as free as our constitution says we should be

[Carlos_E]

Notice this all happened just before voting in Mississippi. This is just another divisive move by Clinton. She tried stirring up fear with the 3am ad. She's still behind.

Now she's trying to stir up racism hoping Whites and Latinos will side with and vote for her. Pennsylvania is predominately White. If she stirs the pot long enough she thinks she can polarize and win the White vote. She will do and say ANYTHING to win. The longer this continues the only group left that will support her will be will be elderly white women.

[Carlos_E]

Do I think Obama is where he is because of the Black community? No. He's won Vermont , Utah, Iowa, Wyoming and a number of other states which are predominately White. In some states he's won more of the White male vote than Clinton. Is that because he is Black?

Before South Carolina Clinton and Obama were splitting the Black vote pretty evenly. It wasn't until the Clintons played the race card in South Carolina pissing of the Black community that Blacks overwhelmingly stopped voting for Clinton. Black people are not voting for Obama because he's Black. Black people are not voting for Clinton because she's a divisive cunt. The Clintons are trying to turn Obama getting 90% of the Black vote into a race issue when it's not. Maybe we just don't like her.

[BITTAPART2]

i agree w/ los on that. Hilary has gotten so miserably bitchey these past months that she is x'ed out of my book. I was just happy to know we would have someone other than George Bush and we can stop messing things up and start cleaning up his mess. Now I am totaly turned off by her attitude and demenour and so thoroughly impressed by Obamas attitude and demenour under fire that he gets my vote. Pennsylvania actually is reported to have the highest membership of the KKK in the nation, it should be intresting to say the least. alas, the Clintons will somehow steal this election

[Carlos_E]

I just read Ferraro said the same thing about Jesse Jackson back in 1988. ”If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.”

[Carlos_E]

Ferraro steps down

Geraldine Ferraro has stepped down from her role as a member of Hillary Clinton's finance committee.

In a letter to Clinton obtained by CNN's Suzanne Malveaux — who spoke with the former vice presidential candidate shortly after she sent it to Clinton — Ferraro said she is stepping down so, "I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign."

Full letter:

Dear Hillary –

I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.

The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you.

I won't let that happen.

Thank you for everything you have done and continue to do to make this a better world for my children and grandchildren.

You have my deep admiration and respect.

Gerry

"The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you."

[lotaquestions]

I think as far as getting the DNC nomination being black is an absolute advantage. The entire party is obsessed with being PC and going out of their way to be minority friendly. The liberal mind gets a high by voting for a black man (or a woman for that matter, hello Pelosi). Realistically, you can support (and be part of the cool club!) Obama for no reason with no knowledge of his policies or experience. At the same time, if you don't support him for no reason (just don't like him) people will assume it is because you are a bigot.

Now Obama is a gifted speaker and likable person. To say that where he is is ONLY due to his race would be selling him short. His race, however, may have given him more venues to be heard and get the message/likability out (unlike Ron Paul).

In the General election, however, his race becomes less of an advantage. He will still garner the liberal/democrat and white guilt votes, along with blacks. He will probably not do well with other minorities, as recent studies have shown high distrust between minority groups (and they trust whites more than each other).

Also, as said earlier, people tend to vote for the person most like them. This can be race, gender, religion, or whatever. Fact remains is that this country is overwhelmingly white (no matter what the media shows) and Christian (no matter what the media shows).

I also wanted to touch upon what Blome noted. I feel like the person who is truly open minded and not bigoted has the ability to tell people they need to fend for themselves. They don't need to coddle minority groups and blame society, or white people, or institutional racism. They should be able to look at a group and say "get your sh!t together, I know you can."

I just saw Bill Cosby and his Harvard Ph.d guy on Oprah. They dropped some serious statistics about blacks concerning high school dropout rates and single parenting. 70% of all black children are born to single parents (which, btw is the single most indicative element of poverty). 50% of blacks living in urban areas drop out of school. Of them, 60-70% end up in jail. We all know the incarceration and violent crime statistics as well. Unfortunately, we are at a point in society where if you tell people to clean their own yard you are labeled a racist. This, in turn, gives those same people no incentive to clean their own yard because we're telling them "your yard is messy because of us". Hell, go look at that 1 in 4 teens with STD's report. 50% of black teenage girls had STD's compared to 20% of whites and Hispanics. White people didn't cause that.

A true open minded person would rather teach someone to fish, rather than give them free fish for life. Everyone has the ability, you just need to remove the safety not.

Was Ferraro's comment proper? Not here in 2008. Was it true? Probably.

BEST POST ON THE FORUM


on the other hand, i dont belive that another black man could have done what barrac has done. it took an intelligent well spoken man with a very short history in politics all wich have been huge assests to his success, but i would list being black on there also. his whole campaine is on the idea of change (wich a black pres would be) wich seems to be easier to buy into than if he was an old white man.

why hasnt obama been considered a racist, his church supports a couple of well known racist. if the tides were turned and hilary went to a church were that gave the grand dragon of the kkk a life time achievement award she would be crucified.

[BITTAPART2]

BEST POST ON THE FORUM


on the other hand, i dont belive that another black man could have done what barrac has done. it took an intelligent well spoken man with a very short history in politics all wich have been huge assests to his success, but i would list being black on there also. his whole campaine is on the idea of change (wich a black pres would be) wich seems to be easier to buy into than if he was an old white man.

why hasnt obama been considered a racist, his church supports a couple of well known racist. if the tides were turned and hilary went to a church were that gave the grand dragon of the kkk a life time achievement award she would be crucified.

I live down south and still....WOW

[Act of God]

I live down south and still....WOW

I'm confused at your "WOW". I saw it as him giving him major props for his accomplishments and not just because he's "some black guy".

[Carlos_E]

More stirring the pot.

When asked if she had any regrets about what she said, Ferraro replied, "absolutely not."

"I am who I am and I will continue to speak up," she said. She added that she thought it was a shame that the Obama campaign was trying to block her First Amendment rights, and that she felt that was no way to conduct a campaign.

She said, "it's not me slicing and dicing," a reference to Obama's comments earlier in the day accusing Ferraro of dividing the party.

I think I pegged it earlier. Obama never said she could not say what she said. He said what she said was ridiculous. This is an obvious political ploy. Divide and conquer. The Clintons will stop at nothing to tarnish Obama and turn the campaign into "us against them."

[Kratos]

White democats love to say they voted for Obama to prove they arn't racist. Kinda like "I've got black friends." Ask them where he stands on the issues and they have no clue..."Um, he wants change for the better."

[thegodfather]

BEST POST ON THE FORUM


on the other hand, i dont belive that another black man could have done what barrac has done. it took an intelligent well spoken man with a very short history in politics all wich have been huge assests to his success, but i would list being black on there also. his whole campaine is on the idea of change (wich a black pres would be) wich seems to be easier to buy into than if he was an old white man.
why hasnt obama been considered a racist, his church supports a couple of well known racist. if the tides were turned and hilary went to a church were that gave the grand dragon of the kkk a life time achievement award she would be crucified.

I'd preferr change in policy, and the way the country is ran, rather than "change" of someones skin color. I find that detail rather inconsequential.

[BgMc31]

I think as far as getting the DNC nomination being black is an absolute advantage. The entire party is obsessed with being PC and going out of their way to be minority friendly. The liberal mind gets a high by voting for a black man (or a woman for that matter, hello Pelosi). Realistically, you can support (and be part of the cool club!) Obama for no reason with no knowledge of his policies or experience. At the same time, if you don't support him for no reason (just don't like him) people will assume it is because you are a bigot.

Now Obama is a gifted speaker and likable person. To say that where he is is ONLY due to his race would be selling him short. His race, however, may have given him more venues to be heard and get the message/likability out (unlike Ron Paul).

In the General election, however, his race becomes less of an advantage. He will still garner the liberal/democrat and white guilt votes, along with blacks. He will probably not do well with other minorities, as recent studies have shown high distrust between minority groups (and they trust whites more than each other).

Also, as said earlier, people tend to vote for the person most like them. This can be race, gender, religion, or whatever. Fact remains is that this country is overwhelmingly white (no matter what the media shows) and Christian (no matter what the media shows).

I also wanted to touch upon what Blome noted. I feel like the person who is truly open minded and not bigoted has the ability to tell people they need to fend for themselves. They don't need to coddle minority groups and blame society, or white people, or institutional racism. They should be able to look at a group and say "get your sh!t together, I know you can."

I just saw Bill Cosby and his Harvard Ph.d guy on Oprah. They dropped some serious statistics about blacks concerning high school dropout rates and single parenting. 70% of all black children are born to single parents (which, btw is the single most indicative element of poverty). 50% of blacks living in urban areas drop out of school. Of them, 60-70% end up in jail. We all know the incarceration and violent crime statistics as well. Unfortunately, we are at a point in society where if you tell people to clean their own yard you are labeled a racist. This, in turn, gives those same people no incentive to clean their own yard because we're telling them "your yard is messy because of us". Hell, go look at that 1 in 4 teens with STD's report. 50% of black teenage girls had STD's compared to 20% of whites and Hispanics. White people didn't cause that.

A true open minded person would rather teach someone to fish, rather than give them free fish for life. Everyone has the ability, you just need to remove the safety not.

Was Ferraro's comment proper? Not here in 2008. Was it true? Probably.

Definitely not the best comment on the forum. Trying to convince people who have never experienced institutionalized racism is impossible since they can never relate. Secondly, invoking what Bill Cosby said is very irresponsible as the far right have spun his statement to prove their point. What Bill Cosby was saying was we (Black people) need to stop expecting whites to help us regardless of their fault in the scope, magnitude, and history of racism in this country. He further continued to exlain that whites would not acknowledge that racism does exist hoping it will go away so its up to us as black people to take care of it. Both Oprah, Cosby, and Obama have acknowledged that they had to work twice as hard for half as much. But of course you can't convince whites of that if they are unwilling to open their minds to it.

The funny thing is lately (last couple years) whites have been the biggest complainers about race. Seems to me they are pissed (claiming America is 'losing' our culture), when in reality they are slowly losing the advantages of white privilege as the country continues to brown.

Of course I expect the flaming to begin. But I'm just stating how many minorities feel. Just like whites believe we are all treated equally and everyone has the same chances in this country.

[BgMc31]

Think about it this way, if you were voting for someone only because they were white would YOU be called a racist by the liberal army?


Yes, you would.

Again thats an absurd statement typical of the far right. I'm not going to debate the difference in racists attitudes between whites and blacks because there is no convincing you. You've oversimplified the situation. Racism is racism. Voting for Obama because he's black is just as stupid as voting for McCain because he's white. Like Carlos says maybe we like Obama more.

[BgMc31]

BEST POST ON THE FORUM


on the other hand, i dont belive that another black man could have done what barrac has done. it took an intelligent well spoken man with a very short history in politics all wich have been huge assests to his success, but i would list being black on there also. his whole campaine is on the idea of change (wich a black pres would be) wich seems to be easier to buy into than if he was an old white man.

why hasnt obama been considered a racist, his church supports a couple of well known racist. if the tides were turned and hilary went to a church were that gave the grand dragon of the kkk a life time achievement award she would be crucified.

Stop drinking the Hannity kool aid! He's not considered a racist just like McCain isn't considered a racist even though he supported and admired Strom Thurman (Rep. SC), who was a devout segregationist, white supremist, and WAS supported by the Klan.

[thegodfather]

Definitely not the best comment on the forum. Trying to convince people who have never experienced institutionalized racism is impossible since they can never relate. Secondly, invoking what Bill Cosby said is very irresponsible as the far right have spun his statement to prove their point. What Bill Cosby was saying was we (Black people) need to stop expecting whites to help us regardless of their fault in the scope, magnitude, and history of racism in this country. He further continued to exlain that whites would not acknowledge that racism does exist hoping it will go away so its up to us as black people to take care of it. Both Oprah, Cosby, and Obama have acknowledged that they had to work twice as hard for half as much. But of course you can't convince whites of that if they are unwilling to open their minds to it.

The funny thing is lately (last couple years) whites have been the biggest complainers about race. Seems to me they are pissed (claiming America is 'losing' our culture), when in reality they are slowly losing the advantages of white privilege as the country continues to brown.

Of course I expect the flaming to begin. But I'm just stating how many minorities feel. Just like whites believe we are all treated equally and everyone has the same chances in this country.

What you referred to is known as the "Colorblind" Racism Theory...It does hold some weight, but racism is a very hard concept for the majority of people in the country to grasp. The real issue is the disparity caused in the amount of resources granted to minorities in the passed, which creates a resource gap that essentially cannot be closed even after the playing field is leveled. This is known as "Systemic" Racism Theory, of which there are two types Instutionalized and Non-Institutionalized. I could go on and on for days but most people wouldn't grasp these concepts, as I sometimes have a hard time doing myself.

Essentially, what many researchers suggest (Feagin, Bonillo-Silva, Brown et. al) is that for the black race to catch up, the resource gap would have to be closed by being payed back. And that more legislation would have to be passed in order for them to get a fair shake.

This is obviously a problem because we live in a capitolist society and no one is going to go for "redistributing wealth." It would also obviously come from the Federal Budget which would be payed by people who had NOTHING to do with the previous oppression and policies, and be payed to people who largely never experienced racial policies in action.

It is essentially, an issue which can never be rectified through any policies or legislation, it has no easy solution, or perhaps no solution at all, except for TIME.

[thegodfather]

3. Republican party has a greater recent history of racist members and the party has courted these members by supporting anti-affirmative action legislation and not supporting most most civil rights legislation. I'm sure many republicans on this forum will argue with that statement, but if I'm proved wrong, I will concede the point. But there is a perception of the republican party as being less than friendly towards minorties and blacks in particular..

You should really avoid making such over generalizations, as that is the same type of behavior that the "racists" indulge in. You have basically just labeled "most" Republicans as being racist-friendly because of their history. That is no different than a bigot who says "most" black males are criminals. Maybe that is YOUR perception of the Republican party, however I strongly disagree. The Republican party has a lot more to offer INDIVIDUALS than Democrats do. I was going to say they have more to offer blacks, but I preferr not to group people and divide them. Being that I am a Republican(libertarian/conservative), we believe in everyone as being an individual and dont see them by race, class, ethnicity, income, etc, etc, or any other possible way you'd like to try and throw large numbers of people into a big group with a nice cushy 'label' that helps you identify some specific trait about that group.

No one who truely agrees with free market capitolism can in good faith support Democrats, Welfare, Medicaid/Medicare, WIC, HUD, or any other social aid program which takes away the responsibility/accountability of the individual and places that responsibility solely in the lap of big brother and the financial burden solely in the lap of all the hard working tax payers. The Democratic party BUYS votes by promising large entitlements and handouts to lazy American INDIVIDUALS who would rather be on government entitlement programs than work.

[BgMc31]

I stated it was my perception and I also stated I was referring to the republican party in general. Just because you don't prescribe to these beliefs your support of such a group causes many to believe that you share the beliefs. Essentially you are guilty by association. Just like the perceived stereotypes you have in regards to liberals/democrats and the perceptions of many whites have of blacks including the criminal theory. The disparity arises because there are many more racists whites and republicans than blacks based simply on numbers in each population.