<p>I’m not the one levelling pejorative accusations based on what I fantasize someone is going to do in the future. You are. Seems to me the ball’s in your court to prove your fantasies are going to be realised.</p>
<p>And there’s a long history of the right wing fantasizing terrible things about Hillary that turned out to be untrue.</p>
<p>Conyat,</p>
<p>I do not take you to be naive so I will give you the dignity of not treating you as if you are.</p>
<p>This is what politicians do.</p>
<p>I assure you, someone will not be doing this, as you say, ‘in the future’; it has been done by now.</p>
<p>They hire and pay good money to a well selected staff of political munchkins to do it and fire them when they fail at their ignominious jobs.</p>
<p>I don’t know. I’ve seen too many things slung at Hillary that turned out not to be true. The “madrassa” tempest in a teapot for one. Others include the “murders” of journalists she and Bill supposedly committed, and how she and Bill supposedly framed some guy for rape…a guy who killed two women less than six weeks after being freed by his Republican apologists.</p>
<p>So yeah, anytime some random person wants to make an accusation against Hillary, I don’t believe it unless there’s proof. The track record of the accusers isn’t too good.</p>
<p>notice how the article doens’t even name the radio shows they are discussing…and the ones DPX is “quoting” </p>
<p>why not?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why bother with was is untrue when the truth about Hillary delivers time after time? There is no need for fiction when looking at her record. She is the one who is ever so inclined to hide her true image as she attempts to shed her squamate skin as often as it is needed.</p>
<p>Madam,</p>
<p>You would have to had been under a rock–or locked in the glare of a flickering cc screen–not to have heard the back & forth over B. H. Obama’s bonifides in the African American community. The discussion has been held well out in the open and, for the most part, with in the ranks of the leadership of the AA community.</p>
<p>You will be hearing more and more if the pros in the employ of the Junior Senator from New York have anything to say about it.</p>
<p>By all Democrat accounts, B. H. Obama would be only the second African American President, you might recall; there is a legacy at stake.</p>
<p>I don’t live under a rock, thank you, I just see the makings of a drama where none really exists</p>
<p>Still, what radio shows etc are you referring to?</p>
<p>Repeating information without backup seems lazy…</p>
<p>I heard a collage of comments cut & pasted on WNYC (public radio NYC) in a conversation devoted to this point. It was quite spirited on both sides, all African-American other than the host.</p>
<p>Normally affidavits are unnecessary on cc, but I make this exception for you.</p>
<p>Try this perhaps?:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AP2007021501270.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AP2007021501270.html</a></p>
<p>I just read the piece in the Daliy News that was “quoted” in other articles about blacks talking about Obama and his “Blackness”…the piece says nothing as it was represented in the other pieces, just that the black columnist discussed the discussion…a far cry from the author, as was asserted in other pieces, from the author himself questioning Obama’s race</p>
<p>you have one reporter asking a very insensitive question and then others talking about the question</p>
<p>a bunch of hoppla created out of a jerk of a reporter…but hey, read the washingtonpost pieces…and?</p>
<p>
No, not really. Most Americans are descendants of immigrants who fled conditions back home that were not so great. They didn’t get off a boat in the 1800’s with just a spare shirt and an extra pair of socks and immediately start buying slaves. Most, in fact, settled up north.</p>
<p>Dorothy is quite correct that this is a non-issue being stirred by the left, not the right. Who really gives a hoot what somebody’s ancestor did? Well, perhaps your rival for a prestigious, history-making nomination cares. The “Is Obama an authentic black” question has been raised repeatedly. Throw in a family history of slave ownership and you’ve successfully returned to that question. Hilary staff members are in panic mode, working round the clock to uncover any negative Obama tidbit, no matter how silly/pointless/completely irrelevant to fitness for office that they can find (or manufacture.)</p>
<p>I’ll keep trying, but I can’t get the link to work.</p>
<p>The article is by Marjorie Valbrun entitled “Black Like Me” and the first paragraph states:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can google the article yourself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, you do raise an interesting point. Last I heard, Tucker Carlson was still trying to convince people that Barak Obama is too black. And that the people he worships with at the United Church of Christ are sinister African American separatists.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>SS, you have a cite for this from a reputable source? Sorry, but everytime someone says something like this about someone, I keep thinking about the Shiavo memo, and how the Democrats were accused of “planting” the memo when the Republicans got caught with it.</p>
<p>Dorothy: I just reread your Post #11, and saw I posted the same article!
I assumed that it was a different one. Why are people even objecting to this conclusion? To me it’s been clear that there has been a debate in the AA community about Obama, right from the start, and, by extension, on the left.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There were slave owning states in the North. Four slave owning states fought on the Union side in the Civil War…and the Emancipation Proclamation freed only the enslaved persons in the Confederacy. The enslaved people in the Union were just as legally enslaved the day after as the day before.</p>
<p>the discussions you are referring to are more often about why the discussion of his blackness in the first place</p>
<p>talking about the discussion are NOT THE SAME as agreeing with the topic</p>
<p>I read the piece, and if you go deeper, you will see that most often the talk is about “WHY ARE PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT HIS RACE”…raising the questions about why is how black he is even being brought up</p>
<p>we hear lots of stories about blacks wondering about him being black enough…but no substance to them…lots of telephone talk, but nothing to back it up</p>
<p>Just curious, but if this topic is being brought up exclusively by liberals, how come it was dorothy who brought it up here? Are you a liberal in disguise? I sure didn’t think so.</p>
<p>Driver:
</p>
<p>That is very amusing.</p>
<p>Or the great liberal Democrat Rush Limbaugh!</p>
<p>I think it’s amusing how whenever Republicans try to smear Obama, they immediately claim that Hillary made them do it. Cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is an example of how we talk at cross purposes on this board, and have arguments about person A saying one thing, and person B thinking they said something different. </p>
<p>Both statements may be true: “many families” are in fact descended from slaveholders - that’s just true. “Most Americans” may in fact be descended from immigrants - I have no idea of the actual numbers, but it’s obvious at least that a large number of Americans are descended from immigrants who weren’t here until after the 1860’s.</p>
<p>Why start a dust-up and disagree with one another when the first statement and the second may both be true? This may be off topic, and I don’t mean to point to these particular posts as being worse than others, since I have seen this type of misunderstanding in almost every thread. Posters who are intent on fighting may certainly ignore this post, as they often do, but as we approach the election, can we at least READ what people post, and try to understand each other? Just a suggestion.</p>