<p>Sorry I changed my post a little while you were picking it apart. Don’t know if you consider that unfair.</p>
<p>But by your account are you saying that - murder is murder is murder? So by your logic a man that kills someone through intentional preemptive murder is the same as a man that kills someone that he perceives will hurt others? They’re both murderers. Do they deserve the same level of condemnation and the same punishment? </p>
<p>I’m sorry but that just doesn’t fly. They’re both murderers but have entirely different motives. Motive plays a HUGE part in ANY decision, and makes a huge difference. Theres no way you can cut things black and white like that. Even the Supreme Court realizes that.</p>
<p>No, I don’t consider them the exact same, and faced with a black person who voted for Obama because he was black and a white person who voted against Obama because he was black, you can probably figure out pretty easily who I’d be berating.</p>
<p>However, that the white racist is wrong does not make the black racist right. This is not a zero sum game - I can consider both to be wrong. And, given how much larger the phenomenon of Obama being voted for preferentially by black people is, I consider it a bigger deal than the last 1000 KKK supporters in the world being found and interviewed for sensational media reports.</p>
<p>If you look back to the beginning of the campaign, Obama was not “Black enough” to run against the wife of the first “Black” President. At the start, Senator Clinton had a 2:1 to 3:1 advantage over Senator Obama among African-American Democrats. </p>
<p>Senator Clinton has lost the African-American vote over time and with some help with such things as Bill’s “Jesse Jackson” comment after South Carolina; and, Obama must receive credit too in winning over the Black vote. </p>
<p>This all did not just happen and Obama made a concerted effort and I think still does to avoid making this a race “thing”. But Billary has not allowed that to happen and they have pandered to the race issue at every opportunity, simply flipping the card now from black to white. </p>
<p>It is also of note that African-Americans gave half-hearted support to Jesse Jackson in his bids and did not rally around Al Sharpton in his Presidential bid. Now people see a real/viable candidate and race is not the issue.</p>
<p>African-Americans have voted for Caucasian candidates in overwhelming numbers in the past. For example, (majority Black) Baltimore elected a white mayor who then received overwhelming support of the African -American community when he ran against a moderate African-American candidate.</p>
<p>Too many just do not want to give Obama his due and recognize that this goes beyond his race with his supporters. Only Clinton, Ferraro and others who want to attack him make this a racial issue.</p>
<p>So your assertion is that the fact that Obama gets 90%+ black support is not based on Obama’s race, but solely on the negligible policy differences between Obama and Hillary and what is in your opinion racist pandering (which by the way I find a ridiculous and offensive assertion given that the Clintons have been extremely strong AA supporters over the years).</p>
<p>Sorry, but I simply don’t buy that explanation. Occam’s razor: Obama gets higher support among people of his own race than those of any other race. Call it whatever you want (racism, prejudice, “breaking the glass ceiling”, blacks finally finding a viable candidate, whatever), race plays a big role there.</p>
<p>Michael Steel, a Republican, is black. But black voters in 2006 back the white Democratic senatorial candidate (Ben Cardin) by a large margin. It did not matter that there is only 1 black senator out of 100.</p>
<p>Right, which proves that black voters don’t always back the black candidate, but says absolutely nothing about whether or not black voters are backing Obama based on race.</p>
<p>The fact that the clinton’s lost the black vote shows that. </p>
<p>While yes they are voting on race, its because what the clintons did and what the republicans have done has offended them. </p>
<p>Black people voting FOR obama because he is the first viable black president is completely different (and entirely understandable, just like women backing Hillary Clinton) than blue collar whites voting AGAINST Obama because he’s black, they would vote for any white candidate as long as he wasn’t…black. </p>
<p>The fact that blacks did not rally to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton in the same way reveals that this is an issue exclusive to that group of racists. </p>
<p>Its like at a football game where one side is cheering hard for their team and the other side instead of cheering for their own team is simply booing the other side and jeering them to lose.</p>
<p>It’s pretty obvious that 1of42 needs to believe that blacks’ overwhelming support of Barack Obama amounts to racism. A curious number of CC posters seem to possess this same need. But the facts simply don’t bear out this assertion. I’ll repeat what I’ve more or less said in another thread on this issue:</p>
<p>If a white candidate had never enjoyed 90% of the black vote in an election, maybe you could claim racism on the part of blacks. If blacks only voted for black candidates, no matter what, and to the exclusion of all else, you could most certainly claim racism. But neither of these scenarios is the case. </p>
<p>Blacks almost never think, "I’m not voting for So 'n So because he/she is white. Blacks are use to voting for white candidates, and have been known to throw their support (yes, by 80-90% and higher) behind a single white candidate (always a Democrat). The Clintons have been use to just such overwhelming support from the black community, which is why it must now be galling to find out that they can no longer take that support to the bank.</p>
<p>Contrast that with whites who state they will not vote for a black candidate because he is black—who say so quite unashamedly. Racism is the belief that one race is inherently superior to another or other races, and that political and social policy should reflect that belief. Throughout the history of The United States, it has been the white race that has held that it is inherently superior to all other races, especially the black race. Until roughly the last 30-40 years of our country’s 300+ year history, this belief was held to be so axiomatic that all of society was structured to reinforce it. So, it has only been relatively recently that a black candidate has even been on the ballot for an elected position of importance. Until relatively recently, being of the black race alone would have been deemed an absolute disqualifier.</p>
<p>Black people aren’t voting for Barack Obama just because he is black, and Hillary Clinton’s race is not being seen by blacks as a “disqualifier”. Black people aren’t thinking, “I’m not voting for that woman because she is white”. They aren’t thinking Hillary is “inferior”, or unworthy of their vote. They are voting for Barack Obama because he is a symbol of hope, and inspiration, a person of historical significance who excites a sense of possibility within the black community. He is a democrat (an absolute prerequisite, as far as most blacks are concerned) who embodies everything blacks have always admired in The Clintons, AND he represents an opportunity that has heretofore been historically denied. </p>
<p>However, you had best believe that if he were a black republican, he would be viewed with deep suspicion, even resentment, and would in no way be enjoying such widespread support within the community. Black skin alone won’t earn you the black vote! And white skin is not seen as a disqualifier. Black people are not voting against whiteness, but for hope!</p>
Voting for any candidate because of race is racism. You are assuming that the white West Virginia voters who said race was a factor were voting against Obama because he was black. If the white voters were voting for Clinton because they are proud of white people and want white people to succeed in the world, under your view, Poet, that would not be racism. Unfortunately it still is racism. And it is racism when a black voter votes for Obama because he is black.</p>
<p>poetsheart: I don’t disagree with you that in many instances in the past, blacks have voted for a white candidate over a black candidate. Generally, this has been in line with their compelling interests in seeing that candidate elected.</p>
<p>But that does not mean that, at this point, that blacks are not voting for Obama in 90%+ numbers because of his race. I could see the argument that blacks were voting for Obama in such large numbers if Hillary were drastically different from him on policy, or some such. But the reality is that, they are almost the same candidate, except that Hillary is a white woman, and Obama a black man (there are ancillary differences to, but this is the main one). So when you see a voting bloc voting for a candidate of their own race at a 90% rate, especially when that candidate’s opponent has been such a strong supporter of AAs as Hillary has, it is purposefully obtuse to ignore the role of race in that support.</p>
<p>As razorsharp says, I consider it racism when white voters vote for Hillary because she is white, against Obama because he is black; when black voters vote for Obama because he is black, or against Hillary because she is white; all of these amount to racism in my opinion. Are some of them more virulent? Certainly. Are some of them more troubling, springing as they do from long-held racist sentiments in America? Certainly. Are any of them acceptable? Certainly not.</p>
<p>They are both guilty of pandering for the black voting block. During this campaign I’ve witnessed two harvard educated lawyers shucking and jiving to potential voters. Not only was it ridiculous , it was embarrassing to watch.</p>
<p>I don’t believe it’s about race or hope or change. It’s about what will you do for me that I can’t or won’t do for myself!!! Just vote for me I promise you anything , everything honest!!!</p>
<p>It’s sickening and I for one am tired of it. It’s sad really we desire better!</p>
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, **usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.<a href=“bold%20emphasis,%20mine”>/b</a>.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.</p>
<p>Blacks voting for Obama is not motivated by the belief that whites are inferior, nor do blacks control a system of government predicated upon such a belief. furthermore, blacks don’t vote for black candidates because they “hate” white people. If this were true, blacks would never vote for white candidates—but they do vote for white candidates—quite frequently as a matter of fact!</p>
<p>Point out to me, if you would, where I assumed that white West Virginians “who said race was a factor were voting against Obama because he was black”. I said there were people who have unapologetically stated that they would not vote for Barack Obama because he is black. Those who stated as much were unequivocal, and left nothing to alternative interpretation. I said nothing about West Virginia voters. Show me where I “assumed” anything about WV voters:rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your attempt at legitimizing such an analogy is ludicrous on its face. But I’m sure you already know this. White Americans (in the aggregate—I’m not speaking of individuals) have long been proud of their whiteness when comparing themselves to other races, and have historically conducted life in the assumption that their inherent racial superiority entitles them to success above other races. This is why most elections have historically only involved white candidates vying against one another for political office. Only white people were worthy of the power to rule. Ergo, it only became a matter of determining which white person (almost always a “man”) was best to do the job. </p>
<p>It has only been recently, and is still relatively rare, when one of the candidates in an election is not white, when whites have to consciously determine whether or not the race of the non-white candidate effects his/her qualifications. That’s why we have to talk of importance of Barack Obama “transcending race”. You never hear of a white candidate having to transcend his or her race. Why is that, Razor?</p>
<p>If the majority of the US population was black, and had been so since the 1700s, if blacks had always had control of a system of government which had long established blackness as prerequisite to superiority, then you could say that whites overwhelmingly supporting a rare white candidate, was an understandable display of pride, and even more importantly, hope; that one of their own had finally been able to break free of the seemingly intractable bonds of black racism, and been able to attain a position of highest power—indeed, that power was no longer reserved just for the black and powerful. It would be taken as a sign of hope that whiteness might not forever be seen as a deficit, or “a problem” to be overcome. Their vote wouldn’t be racist, because racism is the systematic practice of discrimination against another race, based on the assumption of one’s own inherent racial superiority. And white people wouldn’t have any sort of social or political precedent upon which to draw such a conclusion about themselves. Instead, they would have spent the last three centuries trying to persuade blacks to look upon them as equals, and worthy of treatment as equals. They would have had to fight the tendency to internalize the socialization of inferiority. They would be too busy still agonizing over the fact that, 50 years after the first “Doll Test”, their preschoolers were still pointing to the black doll when asked, "which doll is “the good doll?”</p>
<p>I didn’t say race had nothing to do with blacks’ support of Obama. I said racism against whites has nothing to do with blacks’ support of Obama, and I stand firmly behind that conviction. Do you believe that women who vote for Hillary out of a desire to see a woman elected President springs from a hatred of men—from “sexism”?:rolleyes:</p>
<p>poetsheart: Yes. Yes I do. I consider voting for a woman over a man because she is a woman sexism; I consider voting for a black person over a white person because they are black racism, etc. Discrimination doesn’t have to be negative for it to be discrimination.</p>
I don’t live in Louisiana, but maybe we could comment on that heavily white, racist, ignorant, rednecky area voting for Bobby Jindal as governor? Seems to me that maybe it’s not all about skin color…</p>
<p>"Originally Posted by Kenshinsan
No one is saying that Hillary supporters are racist. I never get why people try to say Obama supporters are saying that. </p>
<p>No? How about:</p>
<p>Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
The WV voters under discussion in this thread aren’t simply voting “based on race” – they’re voting based on their dislike of black people and their fear of living under a black president."</p>
<p>I didn’t say “Hillary supporters” are racist. I specifically referred to THE WV VOTERS UNDER DISCUSSION IN THIS THREAD – the ones who are willing to tell TV reporters that they’d never vote for a black man. I couldn’t have been more clear that I was talking about a specific subgroup of people, not Hillary supporters in general. Yet now I’m being used as an example of an Obama supporter who calls “Hillary supporters” racist. I’m forced to conclude that you are deliberately refusing to listen to what I’m saying.</p>
<p>Poet, you overlooked a relevant part of your definition. The definition you provided states, “a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.” Did you catch that word? Discrimination? Discrimination?</p>
<p>Choosing one candidate over another because of his or her race is racial discrimination. Thus it is racism.</p>
<p>Let me express this through another example. If a white chairman of the board was trying to hire a CEO to run a company and OBama and Clinton were the two candidates, and the Chairman chose Clinton because he felt more comfortable being around white people and was proud of the accomplishments of white people, that Chairman would be engaging in racial discrimination also known as racism. If a black Chairman of the Board was trying to hire a CEO to run a company and the Chairman chose Obama because the Chairman felt more comfortable being around blacks and was proud of the accomplishments of blacks, that black Chairman would be engaging in discrimination as well. Within the context of employment law, that discrimination is unlawful. Although voters can discriminate based on race all they want, the fact that they may lawfully do so does not mean it isn’t racism.</p>
<p>Poet, you are creating a double standard. If one or two white voters said they were voting for Clinton because they are proud of the accomplishments of white people and wish to see those accomplishments continue, would you say those two whites were NOT racists merely because they don’t dislike blacks and do not believe whites are inherently superior to blacks?</p>
<p>re: post #24 I believe you continue to ignore the facts. Again, when this campaign began, it was routinely the view that Obama was not Black enough, his support in the African-American community was not strong and at the start, Senator Clinton had a nearly 3 to 1 advantage over Senator Obama among African-American Democrats. </p>
<p>She LOST that edge being presumptuous if not condescending and assuming she had that vote, if not the election as a lock.</p>
<p>Bill’s “Jesse Jackson” remark was just another act of blatant derision and a water mark in changing the tide with African-American support.</p>
<p>Once clear that she was losing the black vote Hillary turned to claim the uneducated white populace as her base, and the $109,000,000 girl of the people and has completely rested on this issue i.e. that Obama can’t garner the white vote, so come one “Whitey” vote for me (and you don’t know what that angry Black man with the craaaaaaaaaazy Pastor is gonna due. And heck he may be Muslim, well at least he says he isn’t). SHE has made this about race, among other immoral and unethical stances and it has cost her the prize.</p>
<p>I agree with your post #39, bullwinkle, except for this: “… it has cost her the prize.” Hillary lost the prize simply because Obama ran a much better, smarter, and more efficient campaign. Early on, he went after every single state and every single delegate, while Hillary’s strategy was to rely on winning those large states with primaries on Super Tuesday. Her campaign had no post-February strategy because they expected that she would be “crowned” the winner after Super Tuesday. If you read the accounts of the early primaries and caucuses, Obama’s campaign would open multiple offices well in advance and organize. Clinton’s campaign would come in at the last minute and set up events. This is how he built up a pledged delegate lead that has been, for all practical purposes, insurmountable for over two months. I read somewhere that Mark Penn did not know about the proportional allocation of delegates, that he thought the allocation was winner-take-all, but I find it hard to believe that he was quite that stupid. </p>
<p>For the poster who stated that Obama and Clinton are the same candidate except for race and gender, you couldn’t be more wrong. Obama is the political son of Howard Dean, the polar opposite of the Clintons in many important ways.</p>