- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 9, 2008 at 9:14 am #586527
JanSParticipantJust read an interesting op-ed piece in the NYT…thought I’d sahre, maybe get some opinions?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/opinion/09kristof.html?th&emc=th
March 9, 2008 at 3:43 pm #617043
JoBParticipantIt’s time for a reality check….
This just highlights what i have been saying all along… as much as we might like to believe that bigotry is not alive and well in these United States… we have just been fed nearly 7 years of the worst kind of bigotry towards people of middle eastern descent and towards all Muslims.
Like it or not, this is what Obama faces in the upcoming election if he is our candidate…
if Republicans want to see Obama’s racial edge disappear, all they have to do is put a black person as second seat with McCain… and i think Condi would do since she would pull more of the female vote than i would care to admit… as well as pulling black vote…
this is politics… is a very real concern and has nothing to do with my preference for Hillary.
As for the current buzz among the far right about the antichrist… the dirtiest of politics are waged by those who aren’t affiliated with the candidate’s campaign… with the full denial of the candidate… and the backroom handshake as the deal is brokered delivering one more voting block.
March 10, 2008 at 6:08 am #617044
TheHouseMemberJoB, do you realize that placing a black candidate in office or voting for a black candidate because they are black is BIGOTRY and RACIST?
You probably don’t….some of you are so open minded that I think your mind has turned inside out.
March 10, 2008 at 6:12 am #617045
JanSParticipantI would not vote for a black man just because he is black…and I don’t think JoB would either (I’m sure she’ll speak for herself). I wouldn’t vote for a woman, just because she’s a woman, nor a man, just because he’s a man. Now that last one will be done by many, many Republicans if Mrs. Clinton is the Dem candidate, even if they despise Mr. McCain.
Give us more credit than that…and quit being so condescending…you’re way too smart for that.
Maybe you should go back under your bridge for the night :)
March 10, 2008 at 3:00 pm #617046
TheHouseMemberRead her 3rd paragraph:
“if Republicans want to see Obama’s racial edge disappear, all they have to do is put a black person as second seat with McCain… and i think Condi would do since she would pull more of the female vote than i would care to admit… as well as pulling black vote…”
She clearly is inferring that black people, vote for Obama b/c he is black and Obama has an advantage with black voters because he is black”. She also is stating that Republicans can take away that “edge” by placing a black candidate in the VP spot. She also states that Condeleza Rice would be a good candidate b/c she is a black woman not b/c of her political views (which we really don’t know).
Once again…voting or selecting anyone for anything based on their race is RACIST!
March 10, 2008 at 3:17 pm #617047
beachdrivegirlParticipantEver since I was a very little girl. I used to say that I would vote for the first women president. In fact, in third grade, I told everyone I knew I would be. However, now that it is 2008, and we have the first women president and the first Africa American, and a Republican who is not a young spring chicken. I have decided to actually take a look at the issues. I am not going off of past opinions or what my family and friends are voting. I am reading and researching.I think more people especially young people are finally taking a look @ the issues. Speaking of issues have you guys all taken a look @ this article. It specificaly talks about Hillary’s mismanagment of her campaign. I am sorry, but at this point I dont think I can even vote for Hillary if she makes it to November. I will vote for Nadar. She has continually tried to change the rules to favor herself, has began to degrade her Democratic oponet, and from the sounds of things can not even manage her campaing. ( I had specualted this before when advisors began being dismissed and she had to reach into her own pocket for money…)What the heck is she goign to do when she has an entire country to manage? That is a scary thought.
March 10, 2008 at 3:32 pm #617048
KenParticipantChoosing Condi or Colin will not work for the Republicans for a vary simple and transparent reason.
No one but freepers vote based solely on race or religion.
Black Republicans will be voting for McCain. Not because he is white, but because he is the Republican nominee. Who he might choose as a running mate is pretty much irrelevant. Besides both Condi and General Powell have refused publicly at the first hint from the punditocracy.
Perhaps this quote illustrates why.
J.C. Watts, a former congressman, African-American, and a Republican, inspired this comment from his father:
“A Black man voting for the Republicans is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders”
March 10, 2008 at 3:37 pm #617049
JenVMemberbeachdrivegirl- this is a two party system. A vote for Nader equals a vote for McCain. Even if you don’t like the Dem choice, if you are truly a democrat you owe it to yourself and the rest of us to not throw your vote away on Nader.
March 10, 2008 at 3:42 pm #617050
JoBParticipantHouse.. house.. house.. all i did was acknowledge the elephant in the room…
in response to an article that acknowledged the elephant in the room.
in a political conversation that has been talking about the political maneuvering that has been going on between all the candidates.. democratic and republican.
I notice you chose to focus on misrepresenting what i said rather than deal with the real issues..
or rather than making any comment upon your own candidate’s campaign strategy… (assuming you vote republican)
There are a lot of elephants in the room this election… including the one that Beachdrivegirl just alluded to… the absolute willingness to find something anything to dismiss Hillary with by a large portion of the population… fed and nurtured by some of the most bigoted representatives of your party for the last 4 presidential terms…
And let’s not forget the biggest elephant… Mr McCain, the war hero and torture victim who now embraces torture…
in fact who now apparently is so maverick that he embraces all positions.. and anyone who endorses him… while apparently standing for nothing.
I don’t have to be a racist or a bigot to acknowledge that they exist and that they influence elections.
BTW.. i have not followed beachgirldrive’s link yet.. so i am not dismissing her info.. just naming elephants in the room:)
March 10, 2008 at 4:19 pm #617051
JoBParticipantBeachdrivegirl,
Every candidate has their own managerial style.. and every campaign goes through some pretty major shake-ups on it’s way to victory.. or defeat.
There is bound to be criticism of Hillary’s managerial style because it is not the typical.. historical.. dominant.. managerial style.
She actually gives her employees both responsibility and authority (certainly not the good old american way) and gives them time to work through and learn from mistakes.
BTW.. this is the management that all that sensitivity training at work is trying to move towards.. without really getting the basic concept. This is a collaborative style that is more natural to women and something a woman has to offer the process… collaboration in fact.. not just in appearance.
Should she have moved sooner? i don’t know. I imagine she will figure that out when this is over and learn from it….
But the article’s underlying assumptions.. that she is not in control assume a management style that gives responsibility but withholds authority.. and using that scale she can’t be seen as anything but failing as a manager.
I found the MSNBC political cartoons more illuminating. That’s where a news organization can show biases it chooses to obscure in reporting…
you will find them on the right towards the end of the article…
The second was Hillary portrayed as a prostitute on a street corner… and a good portion were equally sexist.. either showing her as the little woman who is overshadowed by her husband.. the little woman who lets her husband fight his battles for her… the woman who isn’t a woman… all direct sexist attacks.
Only half of the cartoons actually dealt with her policies.. and i enjoyed some of those…
Beachdrivegirl… look for the story behind the story… sometimes you have to look at what else sits next to it to understand it’s context.
Go back and pay attention to the images and cartooning surrounding that story… and see if you feel the same way about it.
It is so difficult… the same machine that slanted coverage of the Clinton’s (there must be fire to create all that smoke) and of Bush (don’t pay any attention to the fire.. it’s all smoke) are those we are given to listen to now.
For some balance, read some pro-liberal press. You will find plenty of commentary that is not favorable to Hillary there.. as well as some straight shooting on Obama… but you will be getting the news from the opposing bias… and somewhere in the middle lies the truth.
For a liberal bias.. i recommend Amy Goodman and Democracy Now. It doesn’t matter if you get her show on cable or satellite.. it’s on the web.
My hubby would disagree about the bias on her program.. and i will agree that her political analysis is often very evenhanded… but it is as often not:)
Happy reading. It’s good to see young people willing to dig for the truth…
March 11, 2008 at 4:32 am #617052
TheHouseMemberOnce again, JoB…you’re so open minded that your mind has turned inside out.
March 11, 2008 at 4:45 am #617053
charlabobParticipantAnother recommendation for “Liberal Bias” — or, balanced POV (have to agree with JoB’s hubby here):
Rachel Maddow on Air America (KPTK 1090 here). She’s on from 3 – 6 (last hour is new — call-in), also podcast, probably on satellite. She starts her program every day with *news* from Iraq — something that is not always covered by the mainstream or right-wing media.
She’s also an MSNBC political analyst, frequently on Keith Olbermann and, paired with Patrick Buchanan, on their election night coverage.
March 11, 2008 at 4:48 am #617054
JoBParticipanttheHouse…
tonight with the headache i have.. i would be inclined to agree with you… but not for your reasons.
it’s smart to see both sides of an issue… how can you effectively defend your own positions if you don’t know what the other position is???
and sometimes.. just sometimes.. new information makes you change your mind.
Charlabob is ever hopeful.. she says i need to read the latest Rolling Stone… for an editorial and/or article on Hillary… and i will go look for it tomorrow.
I wish you were so optimistic as to send me chasing for information… it would generate such better conversation:)
March 11, 2008 at 5:02 am #617055
JoBParticipantbeachdrivegirl..
again, not what i was looking for tonight, but something i found that i think will be of interest to you re:MSNBC
March 11, 2008 at 5:22 am #617056
charlabobParticipantNOOOO, JoB — don’t read the Hillary article — read the Barack article and the endorsement. The Hillary article will make your headache worse AND will turn you against a brilliant political writer before he has a chance.
******
House, you’re right…the women of this forum are being entirely too even-handed and kind to you. They want to believe the best–they reach out. You attack open-mindedness. You ridicule generosity (while pretending that there is some condition under which you, too, will be generous.)
You are the classic definition of a troll. Just know that at least one person sees through your act. If you show up Sunday with a barrel of food or a very large check, I will apologize. I doubt that will be necessary.
“Mess with my posse at your own peril”
ladies, welcome to my posse :-)
March 11, 2008 at 5:33 am #617057
charlabobParticipantI don’t think Colin Powell is likely to sign up to run with the hundred year war guy:
“I’m terribly excited, I’m impressed, and I’m happy for Barack Obama.” (in a PBS interview)
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/08/politics/horserace/entry3689327.shtml
We can only hope McCain selects Condi — the woman has been a disaster! People who knew her at Stanford can’t imagine what happened. (Yup, you read it here — a Lib Crone Chick saying something negative about a Black *woman*). Armagedden may have arrived.
c
March 11, 2008 at 5:36 am #617058
JanSParticipantopenminded…hmm…nothing wrong with that…gee, Jon, we are openminded enough to give you the benefit of the doubt….guess we shouldn’t be doing that, either..
what Charla said :)
March 11, 2008 at 2:06 pm #617059
JoBParticipantcharlabob.. i will read both…
as for being open minded.. i am afraid house might be right.. i am sometimes too open minded… tho certainly not “inside out”:)
bias is bias… and amy goodman has a definate bias. what i like about her is that she doesn’t try to hide it.. and i love her little smile when she goes in for the kill:)
I really do like to listen to both sides… and have never discounted anyone’s talent just because they disagreed with me… swear loudly yes…call them an idiot in the privacy of my own home… and maybe among friends.. yes… but i admire anyone who makes me think.
that is what bothers me about the current democratic campaigns… there is too much reactionary emotionalism and not enough thinking.
although i enjoy reactionary emotionalism and have been known to get a little emotional myself… LOL… that’s an understatement… i have learned it is seldom in my best interests.
March 11, 2008 at 4:05 pm #617060
beachdrivegirlParticipantThanks for the link JoB. I look forward to checking it out in a bit…
March 12, 2008 at 1:14 am #617061
charlabobParticipantSince the subject of this forum is racism, sexism, etc, I can’t avoid posting this link to Geraldine Ferraro’s statement today. She’s treasurer and fundraiser for the Clinton campaign. And no, I don’t think it’s “just true”…black folks may be voting for Obama, but that is certainly not “the only reason he’s where he is today”.
To say that black men are privileged in this society is ludicrous (imagine your favorite obscenity in place of the big word).
I wish I could be angry at the Clinton campaign and demand that she fire Ferraro–etc. But I’m just very very sad. My tribe has let me down in a big way.
I’m old enough to have voted for Mondale, in part, because Ferraro was on the ticket. Then *she* was attacked because she was Italian.
This is from an interview and rather than claim misquote, Ferraro defends it and goes further.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/11/757137.aspx
the (very disappointed) c
March 12, 2008 at 5:59 am #617062
JanSParticipantthe fact that even she felt that if her name was Gerard instead of Geraldine , that she wouldn’t have been on the ticket, makes me sad…yes, Charla, disappointed. I know that Hillary has said she doesn’t feel that way…that she said that Ms Ferraro was wrong…but it wasn’t strong enough for me….
March 12, 2008 at 12:22 pm #617063
KayleighMemberInteresting when someone (like Ferraro) says something bigoted or dismissive or disrespectful and then tries to convince us they’re just big brave truth tellers, or ‘saying what everyone is thinking.’ Yuck.
When people talk about race or sex in this election, I start looking for shag carpeting and faux wood paneling, because it seems to me those people are stuck in 1972 (or even earlier.) Race and sex are part of all our identities but in 2008, they really should be neither dealbreakers nor dealmakers. IMHO.
March 12, 2008 at 2:55 pm #617064
JoBParticipantcharlabob..
we are soooo going to have to agree to disagree on Gerladine Ferrarro and what she said.
Obama can mention that he is black. He can pander to the black vote. his campaign advertises and quotes from several black celebrities including Colin Powell who cite him as a black man and a black candidate.
Yet, his campaign shouts with indignation at anything that even hints at racism…. makes mountains out of molehills…
It is not ok for anyone from the Clinton campaign to even state that he is taking the black vote… because that implies he couldn’t do it if he wasn’t black.
Give me a break!
It’s a great political strategy on Obama’s part…making mountains out of racial molehills… that means that the Clinton campaign can’t even ask black voters if it is in their best interests to elect this black man… and it might not be.
but it isn’t racist. Saying he can’t do the job because he is black is racist.
Admitting the man has color and that in this election it has been an advantage for him is not racist.
She was just naming the elephant in the room.
However, the campaign against hillary is sexist and everyone.. including women.. are ok with that.
One of the first things i said on this blog was that it would be easier for America to accept a black man as President than a woman…
and everyone popped up with.. oh, no.. it’s THAT woman. because it’s THAT woman it’s ok to be sexist.
but because it is THAT man it’s not ok to even acknowledge his race…
So America isn’t choosing a black man over a woman.. they are choosing Obama over Clinton.
His overwhelmingly taking the black vote has nothing to do with him being black in spite of the fact that he is up against a candidate that has consistently worked to support black causes… and he has countless black celebrities standing up and talking publicly about how wonderful it is to have the historic black candidate running.. how wonderful it would be to have a black man for president…
What fantasy land are you guys living in? Oh, i know.. it’s the land of should.. where none of this should make any difference…
I would laugh.. but right now i don’t think this is so funny.
so now let’s add one more item to the Clinton smear campaign.. she is now a racist…
but Obama isn’t taking a page from the republican playbook… is he?? … because you all righteously buy into it. He wouldn’t do that.
Joanne shakes her head and wonders why she bothers…
March 12, 2008 at 4:10 pm #617065
charlabobParticipantJoB, we do have to agree to disagree — but charla also has to clarify: I don’t object to her stating that he’s black. I object to her saying that he only got where he is because he’s a black man.
As he said last night, <not precise quote> “If I were sitting down to list the pluses on my side, being a black man named Barack wouldn’t be two of them.”
I would agree with you that it isn’t racist: it’s pathetic, desperate and silly. And I’m embarasssed for two women I respect and love.
c
March 12, 2008 at 4:13 pm #617066
AnonymousInactiveJoB – Know that you have company as you shake your head in wonderment. You said it perfectly. I think it’s going to get even uglier regarding race, and I don’t mean by any other candidate than Obama himself.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.