<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t support Obama, so whether he wins or loses any contest means little to me. But what, really now, did he do regarding race that would cause you to claim the man used a “machine gun”? I mean, he just stated the obvious about Iowa. No one but Obama thought all those white folk would vote for him – and they voted for him. That level of faith in Iowans, and the fact that they delivered, is something he actually should have mentioned. There was no race card here. </p>
<p>Did he use a “machine gun” when Oprah supported him, (as one poster here suggests)? I think this idea is complete and utter nonsense. Oprah is a very powerful woman. White candidates want her support too? The fact she is black does not mean she cannot support a black candidate when so many whites support white candidates. It would be one thing had Oprah abandoned Hillary for an empty ideologue like Al Sharpton. The issue of race would be obvious in that case. But Oprah supports Obama, a candidate that arguably has at least as much raw merit and ability as Hillary (which does not say much at all as far as I am concerned). It is reasonable that she would support Obama, weighing the issues she must face as a woman against the historical effects of oppression she must face as a black person, and finding that being black poses the greatest problem. Given this, she would determine it most reasonable, since all else is equal, to vote for the candidate who is most capable of understanding the issues she must face as a black person. That candidate is Barak Obama – has to be. There is no “race card” (where she thinks she “owes” Obama support merely because of race). She is voting her interests, and those interests are valid. Whites reason in the same way she has reasoned, and have done so here since 1607. And they have reasoned in this way despite the fact that they, unlike blacks, have never had any issue of oppression they have had to consider.</p>
<p>Did Obama play the race card when “the black organizations lined up after him”? Obviously not because Obama didn’t even play any card here. Those same black organizations swarmed around Bill Clinton’s campaign back in 1992. And, despite claims to the contrary, Bill Clinton ain’ zackly black. On the other hand, when Alan Keyes ran for president, precisely those same black organizations came out against him in force, despite that Keyes is as black as the darkest night. Those black organizations have interests of particular concern for black folks, due to our history here. They are simply reasoning as Oprah reasoned, and voting accordingly. They are not dealing a “race card” here, and certainly Obama is not dealing one, since he is not even at issue here.</p>
<p>Did Obama deal a race card “when his supporters/surrogates [were] talking trash on TV that he didn’t win NH because whites did not vote for him.”? Obviously not, since Obama didn’t do these things, but allegedly someone else did them. Well, I am not a supporter of Obama, and even I said he didn’t win in NH because of whites. I said he would not win because of whites in Iowa, but I was wrong. I think Iowa was a fluke, really, people who wanted to pat themselves on the back for setting the stage for a massive, nationwide celebration of the utter falsehood that race does not matter in America anymore. I was surprised they did this, but I was not surprised that business as usual would eventually show itself, even in Bill Clinton, a figurative “black president”. I do not think it fair for one to accuse Obama of playing the race card because of something I believe. And I do not think one should blame him for something his supporters claim, though we both claim the exact same thing.</p>
<p>I think the only race card being played in the country is the same race card that has always been played. So many whites are eager to claim Obama is using a “machine gun” in playing the “race card” here because they seek public justification to do to the man what they were going to do all along. Initially, he didn’t have “experience”, despite that Hillary isn’t really all that experienced either. Then it was his alleged connections to nefarious persons, despite that Hillary obviously had nasty connections of her own. Now Obama is playing the “race card”, using a “machine gun” against himself because of what? One guy here claims he played the “race card” simply because the man talked about MLK, despite the fact that virtually ALL politicians speak of MLK, especially around his birthday. People are not terribly interested in allowing Obama the same freedom afforded to other candidates. That is because the entire country is finally doing what it has always done – playing its race card. Obama is about to fall because America cannot deal with a black guy being president. It is just the nasty truth that few people are willing to admit.</p>
<p>All Obama had to do regarding race was mention it (or have his opponent mention it), and suddenly the entire country would turn against him as being “black”, as if that is such an awful thing that it forbids the man a chance to be president. What has Obama really done here? Nothing that no other candidate hasn’t done. Hillary had a photo sent out showing her leadership team - all women, sitting in arrogance, showing their “girl” power to the nation. Yet everyone celebrated it, though it was truly “a machine gun”. But since Hillary is white, whites interpreted it as just a little “water gun”. Had Obama’s team been all black, and he sent out the same sort of photo, whites would have died and come back as zombies to mindlessly vote for anyone, PEE WEE HERMAN, or even Bugs Bunny, as long as they were white or had something white about them. Obama didn’t do anything like Hillary did, yet he is being accused of using a “machine gun” just because he gets support from blacks, the same blacks whose support Democrats have been enjoying since the 1950’s. The fact is, Democrats want black votes as long as those votes go to whites. Anything else, and whites condemn it as using the dreaded “Race Card”.</p>