Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know... changing gears here... and as I started posting in this thread... social (societal) implications are really interesting (sorry, I was a social psychology major).
Race plays a role in everything... and acknowledging that is VERY important. Is it inherent in us (as humans)? It's one thing to admit they exist, it's quite enough to "blame" someone because of it, isn't it?
At what level do we overlook race and determine more on substance?
If there are two football teams playing, do we cheer for the quarterback of our team, or our team regardless? How many times do we really think about the black quarterback being chosen over the white because of his color? Now, what about coaches? Different story? Higher position so it's more important to us?
What if the shoe were on the other foot? What if Colin Powell had run for the Republican party like many had hoped? Would there be more defense of him because he's on "our" side now? Would it be liberals saying the only reason the Republican party picked/endorsed him is because he's black and can pull the black vote?
I was hoping Romney would pick Condi Rice for VP. I think his economic experience with her foreign experience would be a good ticket for conservatives. If that had happened, would liberals (including media) have made the assessment that it was not only for the black vote, but for the women vote, too?
Did his being black help "the cause"? I think so... but since most blacks already vote Democrat, it may not have been as substantial as some claim. If the REPUBLICAN party had someone black (or black and female as with Condi Rice), then there might be more ammunition.
But I think we can all agree that regardless of whether it helped him get the nomination from his party, or even elected president, it hasn't affected his performance (whether you agree with it or not). But it's always interesting when you stop to step back and look at it from the other side's point of view.
Well, what really got me was the fact that his rise was huge despite not having economic experience. If you think about it...being the President of the USA is essentially like managing the largest corporation in the world. The USA matches a large corporation in as much as it has a protection source (military), it has human capital (citizens), it has a alpha and beta infrastructure (bigger and smaller cities), it has PR (the white house staff), it has advertising for itself (USPS and ARMY on Nascars), and it has a product to pedal to the world (Our currency and international support). Just as Apple or Cisco or Samsung produce their product...the US as autonomous currency issuers can basically issue our product as readily as we want and for what purpose we want. IMO, the person with command of this post absolutely MUST have experience in governing, management, or economic theory. To me, it just doesn't make sense otherwise.
But I'm happy to see we've met common ground on the bolded paragraph. Obama's race definitely wasn't the initiating factor...but to say that it played no role in accelerating it is just nuts. Moreover...what gets under my skin is, upon questioning this, you're labeled a racist. I just can't understand this....but oh well.
For me I tend to think public service and business are very very different things, so I don't really look for economic experience in a President per se. I do think, however, that a President needs to understand their shortcomings and appoint cabinet members appropriately, then listen to those people's advice. In a President I'm looking for that kind of self awareness coupled with the ability to understand and navigate complex problems. Someone who has a basic all around knowledge and can ask questions to fill in the gaps of what they don't know, then make good decisions after listening to all kinds of opinions, that is my benchmark. I also want someone capable of learning from their mistakes. That in addition to the ability to communicate and inspire wins me over.
Obama seemed like he had most of that when he ran first time around IMO. Smart guy, knew a lot about some aspects of government and seemed to have to capacity to learn what he needed to fill gaps in what he didn't know as well, had a long record of working across the aisle as a state senator, talked about listening to all opinions and making a decision from there, liked his philosophy on foreign affairs, good communicator, etc. McCain saddled himself with Palin and she was a huge dealbreaker for me. Plus he was to the right on too many social issues for me, though I really liked McCain. In any case,I think Obama has not been as good as he could have been but not as terrible either. If he had run against a Huntsman type to be honest I might have voted for Hunstman. Social issues mean a lot to me, so any Republican candidate would have to make me feel comfortable they'd keep a lid on what I consider the extreme types in the party. Economically though, there are a lot of Republicans I like.
Anyway, wnewberry22 and Rathagos, I want to say thanks for a GREAT discussion. This has been a lot of fun and given me some real food for thought. Thanks for keeping it respectful . This is the kind of back and forth dialog I miss in today's political landscape.
I and a few others have made the same observation prior to his being elected in 2008. Obama's repuation initially was "that black guy who speaks so well" and was lauded for his "fantastic" public speaking skills. Given his resume at that time, I honestly do not believe he would've been given the same attention had he been Caucasian. His being elected was far more symbolic than practical.
But this is a good example for people that say that not a single person would vote for a candidate based on race (or I guess sex, orientation, etc.):
The reverend and civil rights advocate who gave the benediction at President Obama’s inauguration suggested at a recent Obama re-election rally that he thinks white people are going to hell -- though he later said it was just a joke.
The Rev. Joseph Lowery spoke at a rally Saturday in Georgia. According to an account in the Monroe County Reporter, "Lowery said that when he was a young militant, he used to say all white folks were going to hell. Then he mellowed and just said most of them were.
"Now, he said, he is back to where he was," according to the newspaper.
"I don’t know what kind of a n----- wouldn’t vote with a black man running," he also told the audience in the St. James Baptist Church in Forsyth, Ga., according to the paper.
Again... not saying right or wrong... or it wouldn't happen the other way around or with another sex, or someone with a different orientation, etc. Just proving that some people do think certain ways...
For me I tend to think public service and business are very very different things, so I don't really look for economic experience in a President per se. I do think, however, that a President needs to understand their shortcomings and appoint cabinet members appropriately, then listen to those people's advice. In a President I'm looking for that kind of self awareness coupled with the ability to understand and navigate complex problems. Someone who has a basic all around knowledge and can ask questions to fill in the gaps of what they don't know, then make good decisions after listening to all kinds of opinions, that is my benchmark. I also want someone capable of learning from their mistakes. That in addition to the ability to communicate and inspire wins me over.
Obama seemed like he had most of that when he ran first time around IMO. Smart guy, knew a lot about some aspects of government and seemed to have to capacity to learn what he needed to fill gaps in what he didn't know as well, had a long record of working across the aisle as a state senator, talked about listening to all opinions and making a decision from there, liked his philosophy on foreign affairs, good communicator, etc. McCain saddled himself with Palin and she was a huge dealbreaker for me. Plus he was to the right on too many social issues for me, though I really liked McCain. In any case,I think Obama has not been as good as he could have been but not as terrible either. If he had run against a Huntsman type to be honest I might have voted for Hunstman. Social issues mean a lot to me, so any Republican candidate would have to make me feel comfortable they'd keep a lid on what I consider the extreme types in the party. Economically though, there are a lot of Republicans I like.
Anyway, wnewberry22 and Rathagos, I want to say thanks for a GREAT discussion. This has been a lot of fun and given me some real food for thought. Thanks for keeping it respectful . This is the kind of back and forth dialog I miss in today's political landscape.
Likewise. Always fun to speak with an open minded person.
You know... changing gears here... and as I started posting in this thread... social (societal) implications are really interesting (sorry, I was a social psychology major).
Race plays a role in everything... and acknowledging that is VERY important. Is it inherent in us (as humans)? It's one thing to admit they exist, it's quite enough to "blame" someone because of it, isn't it?
At what level do we overlook race and determine more on substance?
If there are two football teams playing, do we cheer for the quarterback of our team, or our team regardless? How many times do we really think about the black quarterback being chosen over the white because of his color? Now, what about coaches? Different story? Higher position so it's more important to us?
What if the shoe were on the other foot? What if Colin Powell had run for the Republican party like many had hoped? Would there be more defense of him because he's on "our" side now? Would it be liberals saying the only reason the Republican party picked/endorsed him is because he's black and can pull the black vote?
I was hoping Romney would pick Condi Rice for VP. I think his economic experience with her foreign experience would be a good ticket for conservatives. If that had happened, would liberals (including media) have made the assessment that it was not only for the black vote, but for the women vote, too?
Did his being black help "the cause"? I think so... but since most blacks already vote Democrat, it may not have been as substantial as some claim. If the REPUBLICAN party had someone black (or black and female as with Condi Rice), then there might be more ammunition.
But I think we can all agree that regardless of whether it helped him get the nomination from his party, or even elected president, it hasn't affected his performance (whether you agree with it or not). But it's always interesting when you stop to step back and look at it from the other side's point of view.
There is so much good stuff here I don't know where to start.
I do believe race is not a static thing in terms of advantages or disadvantages, it is all about the context. So yes, a viable black Democratic candidate may come with a different set of plusses and minuses than a viable black Republican candidate. I think that holds true for a Latino or Asian or Gay or Mormon whatever candidate. It just depends on what else is going on, what they are saying, who they are running against, etc.
I think it is safe to say Obama being black was helpful to getting elected (it had big drawbacks as well, but the good outweighed the bad IMO) but I don't think we can say it did not affect his governance. One, there's the fact that being half-black as shaped his worldview and two, there was some degree of resistance to him that was based on his race and some degree of "otherness" more easily assigned to him as well. I AM NOT SAYING *ALL* HIS OPPOSITION HAS BEEN RACIAL AT ALL, JUST THAT SOME OF IT LIKELY HAS and that has had to have had some effect on his tenure. He has personal shortcomings as well, they all do.
I think it is safe to say Obama being black was helpful to getting elected (it had big drawbacks as well, but the good outweighed the bad IMO) but I don't think we can say it did not affect his governance.
I'm not a boxing fan, so I had to google the names here. But I think this analogy substantiates what you're saying above. In 1993, Tommy Morrison (white) was to fight George Foreman (black). Not being a boxing fan, I didn't give it much thought... but I remember all the hype about the "white" boxer fighting the "black" boxer for the title. Behind closed doors, who do you think people were cheering for? I have no empirical data for this, but I'd bet most whites wanted Morrison and most blacks wanted Foreman. In the end, did cheering for either one change the outcome of the bout? Nope... but we all hold our predjudices. And although there were many people who are not racist who wanted one or the other, I believe it's normal for us to cheer the one we most associate with - it's not racism, it's relating.
A non-color way to think of it is two teams playing. For people that have been underdogs and achieved victory, there's sometimes you find yourself cheering for the underdog of the two teams. It's not race, it's relating to commonality. For people that have never been underdogs and succeeded at most things they try, they may never cheer on the underdog (unless the team they're playing has a worse reputation to the individual, then the commonality switches to the underdog).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinawina
One, there's the fact that being half-black as shaped his worldview and two, there was some degree of resistance to him that was based on his race and some degree of "otherness" more easily assigned to him as well.
Since this is an off-topic question about your quote above, I'll leave it rhetorical... but why would one suppose that Obama relates more to his black heritage than his white (when he was raised in a predominantly white family by his grandmother)? It may have already been answered (in a book by him or through an interview). I don't know the answer, but I have wondered what the "gain" or "loss" was by choosing the harder of two paths (or was it really the harder path)? I honestly don't know.
1. The issue isn't votes in general...it's voter turnout. These demographics have historically had lower turnout with exception to 2008. Their turnout was surprising during this election. We've had bad presidents in the past...Carter is an example. These turnout and polling numbers are unprecedented.
Carter and others before Obama did not have the social media either
2. Couple of things. Obama was never a law professor...he was a lecturer. I'm not sure if you went to college or not but that is a HUGE difference. Yes, I'm well aware of what a community organizer is...and no that doesn't qualify you to do anything beyond that. And Presidents don't write laws...they govern. His experience qualifies him to be a legislator...which is where he belongs.
Ok, I guess that I should believe you over that lying azz Wikipedia who said that he TAUGHT at Chicago Law School, now rather he was tenured or not is something different. I rather have a community organizer who actually works with all kinds of people than some stiff who is unfortable around people that does not look like him or are in his financial circles. True, presidents do not write laws but he was a Senator which do, and therefore is able to understand the legalese that all laws are written in. mitt on the other hand has no clue, since his degree is in business which btw is only a small part of being the President. How many business majors understand latin? Lawyers and Doctors do to some extent. mitt was a governor in a state that if you ask the majority of people there will say that he failed, besides that what makes him a better choice for the presidency?
3. Potentially true.
4. Obama didn't run on racial issues, nor did I say that he did. I said that minority voters and their SUBSTANTIAL increase in turnout in 2008 could hint at racially motivated votes. Affluent whites are the key. Their voting block is typically very conservative...except in 2008. My parents being a prime example. They claimed to get caught up in the excitement in voting for the anti-establishment candidate and for voting for the first african american candidate. This year they aren't voting for Obama...because he is god awful at his job......see the increase in unemployment figures just released.
So it had absolutely nothing to do with the screwed up job that bush did? Or the fact that the shellshocked squid ran with a bubblehead?
5. The GOP hasn't done a great job with black voters...I won't contest that. But the GOP was worse during the Reagan years. Reaganomics is often touted by the left as being inherently racist because it takes from poor programs. Yet the black vote didn't turnout nearly as heavily in 1984.
I never understood that dynamic either. The only thing that I can think of is that blacks gave up on the political process at that time
It's interesting that you imply that racism requires some type of intelligence. Again...I'll summarize the argument i've made on this forum because you and your butt buddy adiostoreador seem to lack even the most minimal comprehension skills.
1. I never said that Obama was entirely unqualified...just less qualified that Hillary
Republicans had brought out alot Clinton dirt and it had an affect on many voters
2. Obama was practically a political non-entity prior to the election.
And Palin was'nt?
3. The GOP NEVER EVER polled at 0% with any demographic.
Once again the republicans never were as bold as they were doing the primaries when they talked about blacks like they were some foreign species
4. Polling at 0% with ANY demographic, regardless of circumstances, is a big deal.
Then where are they coming up with these black celebrities like nash, and ll cool j not to mention a vast number of black pastors who support mitt?
5. The only times this has ever happened, in this case 0% with african americans, is the only time in history an african american has run on a major ticket
No, actually it isn't Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chislhom and even Al Sharpton also ran on the Democratic ticket. They did not get as far but they ran nevertheless.
6. Is it entirely coincidence or something more? It's worth discussing if racial issues are something American truly wants to move beyond.
I agree, but mind you there are just as many whites that will not vote for him because he is black to the point that they are willing to overlook major flaws in mitt's campaign/character as a president. Hell, even many rank and file republicans don't like him, but their hatered for the current president is greater.
To which your response is to call me a racist with no explanation as to why or how. And of course...the liberal tag line of punctuating everything with a series of pointless bright and shiny emoticons.
No actually I never called you a racist, I questioned your intelligence which I will recant in my assesment. It is easy to be labeled as a racist whenever you make open ended statements without any logical explanation
Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson never made even CLOSE to halfway through the primaries. They were jokes from the get go. Obama has been the only major party candidate to make it to November...he is the litmus test. Chisholm was the only candidate worth noticing of the three and she only managed to get 153 electoral votes which is nowhere near the delegates needed.
And the fact that they didn't garner enough support to win their party's nod in no way proves or disproves that these candidates didn't win the majority of african American votes in their respective primaries.....this is moot.
But you and others are pointing out the fact that Obama got where he did BECAUSE he was black and thepoint of mentioning the others was because being black won't automatically give you all of the black vote. They did not have the appeal of all of the black people nor did they face such an easy opposition either
Obama..................if you want him to win the election...Here is the key. If you from here on in the mode ....insist that from here on in that at every rally a tune is played. OTTIS REDING ...."A Change is gonna come"......................You will win if your don't you will not.. Take my advice/
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. This is the kind of back and forth dialog I miss in today's political landscape.
