Who do you think should be elected in 2008?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If that was the case, Jesse Jackson would have won the nomination back in '84 or '88.

Says who? I didn't say it was the only factor for everyone, or for most people.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Put Barak's personality in a white skin, and he still does well. Put a different personality in Barak's skin, and he doesn't.

With many voters, that's true.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

One could argue that he'd bring black voters to the table, but they have been voting and voting democratic for years. On the flipside, I'm sure there is still a portion of people in the US that simply won't vote for a black. The portion that simply wouldn't vote for a white is much smaller; almost non-existant.

Yes, but liberalism in the United States is a heck of a lot more prevalent than the racist mentality. And many liberal voters, be they black or white, would like to see a black president. Liberals tends to talk about the evils of racism more than conservatives do, I think. That's not because most conservatives are more racist. I personally tend to emphasize racism less because I see it as having nowhere remotely close to the power base it had in the past. I see it more as yesterday's problem than as today's problem, though I know that there are racist remnants in the US still, and they should not be forgotten. But I think that because liberals focus so much on racism, often a black person's skin color will work in his favor when he's trying to win votes amongst liberals. Be the liberals black or white, they tend to be extremely sensitive about racism, and especially racism against blacks.

Originally Posted by tolkienfan

I've heard a few people who will vote for Obama simply because "It's about time America had a black president." However, I've heard people say the same of Hillary, inserting female for black of course. I don't think skin color matters personally, and I can't see it making a big difference in the election.

Yeah, I know that in liberal circles, Sen. Clinton's gender can work in her favor. And it'll work against her, probably, in other places. Again, I think liberalism in America is such that her gender is more likely to work for her than against her, in winning the election.

And with Obama, his race gives the same kind of bonus that Clinton's gender does.

I don't know whether being a woman or being black would give more of an advantage when trying to get the presidency. I think they both are advantages, because liberalism is so strong.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I can see it making a difference in the election, I just don't see it making a difference in office. That's a good thing, btw.

What I keep hearing from people my age, on campus, is that John McCain is "too old".

Agreed.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If that was the case, Jesse Jackson would have won the nomination back in '84 or '88. I don't think that many people cast presidential votes as a sympathy vote. They judge people on personality.

Agreed.

Put Barak's personality in a white skin, and he still does well.

Disagree. I think if Obama was white, his inexperience would have prevented him from becoming a frontrunner.

Put a different personality in Barak's skin, and he doesn't.

Agreed. Sharpton and Jackson (and Alan Keyes) have demonstrated that.

Most of it is Barack's personality. And part of his personality is ---up till now--his rhetoric where everyone is coming together. Up till now he didn't speak about race, except to defend himself against the Clinton camp (and a few other incidents perhaps).

But the fact that he is African-American IS a plus (not the whole thing, but a plus) to a large segment of people, who feel that voting for him will (and they could be right) put an end to the divisive rhetoric that still plagues us (the kind that comes from Reverend Wright).

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

About Wright: as far as race-mongering, there is no white preacher I know of who says things of equal distaste. But on other issues: political and other, there are a few equivalents. Certainly Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have had their nutso moments (Robertson towards Catholics). But as far as I know, they always apologized.

I don't know...this guy's pretty crazy if you ask me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qNi7tPanUA

[hectorberlioz]

That's because sometimes honesty about someone close to you is not the right thing to reveal.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

That's because sometimes honesty about someone close to you is not the right thing to reveal.

That's arguable.

It's also at the heart of what separates liberals from conservatives, what and what isn't "off the table" for discussion.

[hectorberlioz]

I can see it making a difference in the election, I just don't see it making a difference in office. That's a good thing, btw.

What I keep hearing from people my age, on campus, is that John McCain is "too old".

[hectorberlioz]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,3898931.story

Interesting opinion. And he was a member of the NAACP. So it's kinda hard, if you're liberal, to say that he is "self-hating". That would be a long shot. A member of the Trinity United Church of Christ called Michael Medved's show today, and described Shelby Steele and Clarence Thomas as "self-hating".

[hectorberlioz]

There is no day-today racism that I have seen. The MTSU campus is about half and half African-American and white. There is no racial hatred in the interactions or behavior of the people here.

How about in the classrooms? When it was releveant to the topic, the people who brought it up were white. We discussed racism like it was still alive and well...but nobody (black or white) acts like race means something to them. I have never heard a racist statement from someone in my own life. Ever.

The race war is primarily waged in the media.

I'm not saying racism doesn't exist at all, only that the "day-to-day" experience is not filled with racism.

And Gaffer, as a britisher yourself, how are blacks treated over there? Have you noticed anything?

[hectorberlioz]

This piece will have you laughing or cringing, depending on your politics

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich

..."through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as "The "Fellowship," also known as The Family. But it won't be a secret much longer....

Is anyone thinking what I'm thinking?.

Sean Hannity has called Obama's church a "cult," but that term applies far more aptly to Clinton's "Family," which is organized into "cells"--their term--and operates sex-segregated group homes for young people in northern Virginia. In 2002, Sharlet joined The Family's home for young men, forswearing sex, drugs and alcohol, and participating in endless discussions of Jesus and power. He wasn't undercover; he used his own name and admitted to being a writer. But he wasn't completely out of danger either. When he went outdoors one night to make a cell phone call, he was followed. He still gets calls from Family associates asking him to meet them in diners--alone.

*Twilight Zone music*

Sharlet: Who are you?

Mysterious Person #1: Shhh. Don't say anything. We know where you keep your condom, pot, and vodka stash...and we will take it away if you say anything to anyone.

Sharlet: Ok! OK! Just let me live!!!

So Hillary was a member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy this whole time!!!! She's smarter than I thought...

PS: You really have to read the whole thing. It is simply delicious.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I'm not saying racism doesn't exist at all, only that the "day-to-day" experience is not filled with racism.

And Gaffer, as a britisher yourself, how are blacks treated over there? Have you noticed anything?

Well, that's good to hear. I've heard plenty of racist comments in my time, my personal favourite being "It's a bit dark round here Doug" by some south London bloke who was driving me through Penge.

Personally, I've only ever experienced positive stereotyping. The English seem to have a generally positive, if paternalistic view of us Scots. Even though we hate them.

But I know that is not the experience of others. These attitudes are deep rooted and manifest in many ways. And that is the point, really. Obama managed to acknowledge the genuine roots of a response to actual, real experiences of discrimination / prejudice / etc.

I think when we are trying to understand the experiences of others, we should listen to them, rather than try to generalise from our own experiences.

Some UK highlights:
- "incitement to racial hatred" is illegal in this country

- cities are very different from rural areas; there is more overt racism in the latter, but less non-whites, so it might seem less of a rural issue but isn't.

- cities, however, tend to ghettoise, particularly amongst the working class areas. So you get your Pakistani area, your Afro-Caribbean area, etc. I get the impression that the latter are more integrated than the former. This is very damaging; you almost get "micro-economies" in some parts, causing resentment particularly between white and non-whites competing for jobs. The (racist) British National Party is gaining ground in some very specific areas in the North of England amongst resentful white people.

- the (London) Metropolitan Police was found "institutionally racist" by an official investigation into the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence. If you scratch the surface (or if you are actually non-white yourself) you will find subtly (or not-so-subtly) embedded attitudes.

- like the US, you are far more likely to be arrested or to go to jail if you are black

- like the US, the media deals with these issues like a gardener doing brain surgery with boxing gloves on

- it's socially unacceptable to make racist statements

- there is a bit of a backlash against perceived "political correctness" which does my head in.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

There is no day-today racism that I have seen. The MTSU campus is about half and half African-American and white. There is no racial hatred in the interactions or behavior of the people here.

How about in the classrooms? When it was releveant to the topic, the people who brought it up were white. We discussed racism like it was still alive and well...but nobody (black or white) acts like race means something to them. I have never heard a racist statement from someone in my own life. Ever.

The race war is primarily waged in the media.

I'm not saying racism doesn't exist at all, only that the "day-to-day" experience is not filled with racism.

And Gaffer, as a britisher yourself, how are blacks treated over there? Have you noticed anything?

It's not as violent or extreme as it once was, but it's still there. "The media" didn't send out emails claiming that Barak was a muslim (the newest "racism" of choice), unless you think that is some vast media conspiracy.

Racism was acceptable in many quarters fifty years ago. It is not acceptable throughout society these days, so you do not see it in the open. That doesn't mean that it does not exist.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It's not as violent or extreme as it once was, but it's still there. "The media" didn't send out emails claiming that Barak was a muslim (the newest "racism" of choice), unless you think that is some vast media conspiracy.

The issue of black/white relations is fought in the media. How else to explain that it's always being discussed in the media, but you can never find it in real life?

Racism was acceptable in many quarters fifty years ago. It is not acceptable throughout society these days, so you do not see it in the open. That doesn't mean that it does not exist.

So what do you propose? Burst down the doors and get inside their minds?

If they aren't saying racist thing, that's good enough.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The issue of black/white relations is fought in the media. How else to explain that it's always being discussed in the media, but you can never find it in real life?

So what do you propose? Burst down the doors and get inside their minds?

If they aren't saying racist thing, that's good enough.

The point of the media is to put an eye on things that aren't generally noticed and/or talked about.

The KKK still exists. There are still people that won't hire and/or give certain postions to blacks. Just because they don't discuss it openly doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked into.

You seem to enjoy stories that uncover things about people you don't like or issues that are important to you. Just because racism is not one of those things that interests you does not mean "you can never find it in real life".

You simply chose, maybe subconciously, not to see it.

I personally think that some issues like gay marriage are blown way out of proportion. Sure, people have opinions on it. But, I'd guess that a good 80-90% of the population's day to day life would not be changed one way or the other if the issue's legal status was changed.

So, in one way, the media does make it a larger issue than it really is. But, in another way, it really is an issue or else it simply wouldn't have any traction and the media would drop it.

The media can magnify an issue, but they can't sustain one that has no basis in fact.

[hectorberlioz]

All I want is for Democrats to not accuse Republicans of political cynicism when we run an African-American for President, or pick one for VP.

[hectorberlioz]

My only point is: racism is not fought about in any place except the media. Whites and Blacks don't clash on the streets.

I do think there are some stereotypes that may prevent inner-city black males from getting jobs. Namely, the "gangsta rap" culture. It's hard to blame employers for rejecting people who dress in that kind of clothing.

The present-day KKK is, thankfully, a joke. Though I do find it disturbing that one of the most prominent Democratic members of congress, Senator Byrd, used to be part of the KKK while a seated member of congress, and still hasn't apologized for it.

[GrayMouser]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...e=search_story
In Job Search, The 'White' Name Helps, Study: 'Brett' Gets More Responses Than 'Kareem' - CBS News

http://www.dmiblog.com/archives/2007...ely_to_be.html
White Convicts As Likely to Be Hired As Blacks Without Criminal Records | DMI

Bloghttp://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-05.htm
United States - Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs



The reason you don't see or hear any racism is that you stick your fingers in yours ears and close your eyes and go "La La La I can't hear you".

Of course you don't see it- you're white conservatives, and it's personally and politically inconvenient to see it.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...e=search_story
In Job Search, The 'White' Name Helps, Study: 'Brett' Gets More Responses Than 'Kareem' - CBS News

http://www.dmiblog.com/archives/2007...ely_to_be.html
White Convicts As Likely to Be Hired As Blacks Without Criminal Records | DMI

Bloghttp://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-05.htm
United States - Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs



The reason you don't see or hear any racism is that you stick your fingers in yours ears and close your eyes and go "La La La I can't hear you".

Of course you don't see it- you're white conservatives, and it's personally and politically inconvenient to see it.

Like I've said, denying racism exists is pointless. All I've said is that I have not seen it in the interactions of blacks and whites on campus.

But tell me GM, as a Democrat (converse of my situation)...do you tend to read racism into everything? Isn't it politically convenient to get the black vote by playing on their fears?

Becuase that's what the Democrats have fallen back on every time.

[hectorberlioz]

Ending racism:

1) So blacks will not have an institutional bias against them, preventing them from climbing any ladder that a white would climb.

2) As Dr. King said, so that we can judge each other on the content of character and not the color of skin. Societal harmony.

Are each of these goals met completely? No, but we are far closer to fulfilling them than we ever have been.

We've heard by now a lot that 'The South' and 'The North' did not have to go to war, and that it was in fact The North's fault that The South started treating it's slaves so badly.

I don't agree with that narrative, which concludes by saying that the war was not necessary and that slavery was on the way out, anyhow...

But it does make you think: is it the level of race-talk in the media that the narrative of racism alive, and therefore keeping racism alive?

Nobody is inherently racist. During the Civil War whites were so used to blacks being slaves that they never stopped (and didn't care to) to think about equality. During the civil rights era, whites were so used to segregation that they didn't stop to think about unity, as Dr. King did. They resented the changes...and made up excuses of extreme stupidity, reasons that justified keeping things the same: "blacks are inferior" etc...

There is no excuse for the clearly racist actions taken against blacks by police in the 50s-70s, some of which my dad witnessed.

But we're beyond that now. Regular, everyday people don't think like that. We weren't raised to think blacks were stupid or inferior.

So in this day and age, it's something else that is driving racism and the talk about racism. What is it?

[hectorberlioz]

Bill Kristol's column:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/op...in&oref=slogin

[hectorberlioz]

Rev Harry R Jackson:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/H...e_and_politics