BS: The Debates: Members Only

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:35 PM

Why then would you feel it on the streets of Canadian cities? I can't make any sense of that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 09:50 PM

It has to do with fear, Ebbie, fear that is deeply bound up in the ghosts of America's past and the realities of America's present.

Many Whites fear Blacks. Many Blacks fear Whites. That is something that's really happening, and you can feel it on the streets of American cities. You can feel it on the streets of Canadian cities too, though to a lesser extent. Yes, and guilt is a part of it, and the sense of being among a group of "victims of prejudice" is a part of it, but the guilt and the victimhood is overshadowed in many cases by the fear.

Those fearful images are reinforced in people's minds over and over again by our movies, our media, our popular entertainment.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 08:29 PM

Interesting. What you said, McGrath, made me realize more forcibly that we - the nondescript-skinned ones - make a distinction between 'Blackness' and 'Asian-ness'. For instance, a number of states - Oregon among them- have Asian governors and senators and representatives and officials at all levels of government. At this point, we appear to be more accepting, more comfortable, with the prospect of a potential Japanese or Chinese or Nepalise or Lebanese person as President of the United States than a Black man or woman. Wonder why? Black people, as has been noted, have been here a long time.

Might it have something to do with a lingering guilt?

For me and my house - to bring in a time-honored phrase- it is a no-brainer. I think we are ready to have a Black/White man as President and we will be glad for the chance to signal to the world that we are. If not now, when?

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 07:43 PM

Little Hawk is probably right in saying that it'd be unlikely for a black person to be elected president, or wheatever, in most European countries. But I think maybe a main reason for that would be to do with with black people being seen as newcomers.

This isn't always true, they've been around for centuries; but black people from previous generations seem to have tended to get absorbed into the general population rather than being stuck out as a separate group. For example, I don't think that non-European ancestry would be seen as a problem with soemone who was seen as essentially English etc. (For example the former Tory party leader Iain Duncan Smith may have been a twit, but I doubt if the fact that he had Japanese ancestry was a signifcant element in putting people off him.)

In the USA, on the other hand, it is clear that black people have been around right from the start, and are every bit as much part of what makes up America as white people. More so in many cases.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Alice
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 07:37 PM

This thread has reached the point where anyone reading it who has not already watched the speech to the AFL-CIO on racism should watch it now.
Look at the speakers on the dais - all white - look at the audience - all white as far as I could tell - and all cheering and applauding for the END OF RACISM.
July 20, 2008


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QIGJTHdH50
AFL-CIO's Richard Trumka on Racism and Obama

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: heric
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 07:34 PM

I agree with your disagreement, Mr. A.

Many of those looking in aren't a gonna give the USA kudos for putting a black guy in the 50:50 slot for the Presidency, will preach on our inadequacies in cultural maturation and advancement, while none of their countries have or will, in the near term, come close to doing the same.

I have said from the start that voting for a guy to try and get all people of all countries to say nice things about the US is not a worthwhile endeavour.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Azizi
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 07:28 PM

Some folks here may find this dairy and its accompanying comments interesting:

Evolutionary Leaps and American Public Opinion
Posted by Al Giordano - October 8, 2008 at 3:57 pm By Al Giordano
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/evolutionary-leaps-and-american-public-opinion#comments


Here's an excerpt of that dairy:

"Scientists are divided over whether the evolution of species follows a straight and plodding path or has experienced relatively sudden "leaps."

I won't wander into that debate. But I do find a 2004 experiment at the University of Texas at Austin to be possibly relevant to the 2008 elections. There, engineers and scientists forced an evolutionary leap on bacteria in a laboratory essentially by "stressing the patient." A small adjustment in amino acids, and, presto, a new mutation was born.

The current economic crisis, according to the American Psychologists Association, has stressed eight of ten Americans significantly.

And this is where race-baiters like Ron Fournier of the Associated Press have the story bass-ackwards. They're asking aloud and disingenuously so, "Is there racism in America?" I mean, like, duh: Did anybody ever claim there isn't? Their obsession - there's a CNN special on the topic on the air right now - masks a fear of the inverse: What if, suddenly, the story of this election becomes that moment in history when millions of American citizens evolved beyond fixed patterns and fears regarding race?...

Between the primaries and the present, other demographic groups that capitalism systematically attempts to divide among workers and the middle class - notably Hispanic Americans, and also others - have likewise moved big time into the Obama column after an initial skepticism and rejection in the primary ballots. Nobody can honestly say that tensions did not exist between Latinos and blacks, particularly in places - from gerrymandered legislative districts to schools and prisons - where the two categories of people have been forced to compete for terrain. And yet we're on the verge of a 70 percent Hispanic vote for Obama in four weeks...

The code-speak of the McCain campaign - and especially, in recent days, from its vice presidential candidate (someone who, herself, has led a life apart and segregated from African-Americans) and other surrogates - along the lines of "we don't know who Obama really is" has been a transparent attempt to invoke those heavily ingrained fears among certain sectors of the white population.

The multiple anecdotal reports of people using the N-word disparagingly but while also stating they're troubled about the economy and therefore undecided may indicate, rather than bad news, a glimpse of a possible evolutionary advance four Tuesdays from now.

The patient is being stressed, and as Dr. House or those University of Texas engineers can tell you, that process can sometimes lead to extraordinary discoveries.

What happens if the economic stresses suddenly push people, however reluctantly, into voting in their economic self-interest even if it means voting against their own racial prejudices? Well, then you're looking at an Electoral College landslide beyond even the current map and projections, and even at some unexpected states (Georgia, West Virginia or Mississippi, for example) that could surprisingly turn "blue."

(And if that leap occurs among even a relatively small number of folks in Appalachian Southwestern and Southeastern Ohio, that will definitively turn that state's 20 Electoral College votes toward Obama: that's part of the reason why Obama will be along the Kentucky border in Cincinnati and also in the town of Portsmouth - population 20,000 - tomorrow, and why he just spent three days in western North Carolina: he's stressing the patient in those strategic corners of Appalachia where the campaign's own data indicates some possible openings. That's also why you're about to see Joe Biden hit his hometown of Scranton together with the Clintons: this is the great electoral lab test, now underway.)

I'm not saying that it's going to happen (or that it has to happen for Obama to win; the math is there without having to scrape that barrel). Evolutionary leaps, if they exist, are not everyday occurrences. What I'm saying is that the patient - that racially fearful white American - is stressed and heavily so. And that's one of the objective conditions - according to at least one laboratory study - that leads to leaps in evolution and, maybe, just maybe, to mutations in the evolution of public opinion.

In the lab it took some stressed conditions plus a catalyst - some amino acids - to cause a species to evolve.

In human history, it takes stressed conditions... plus a movement".

-snip-

{Italics added here by me for emphasis}

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 07:23 PM

The Dems are fighting dirty? Excyoooze me? The last survey that was done one-third pof Obama's ads were characterizable as negative, while over 80% of McCain's were. HE has stretched, trampled, twisted and distorted any way he could to try and instill some hatred or some fear.

As for racism, all I can say is that given that you yourself do not know "AMerica" in all its wondrous particulars, you may be projecting. I disagree with your projection.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Alice
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 07:15 PM

judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin

I think America is ready. I'm not the only one who thinks that, but I also know America is still a very racist and sexist country. Racism and sexism rears its ugly head even on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 07:11 PM

I'm sure there are many in America who would agree with you, Justin, in that they perceive it much as you do...but they're afraid to say so in public.

Me? I'm not sure if America is ready for such a transition yet or not. Hard to say. It wouldn't be easy for a lot of people to accept, that's for sure. Some would not accept it at all. Some would consider using violence to stop it.

There are also a number of democratic nations in Europe in which the majority White population would certainly not elect a Black man to their highest office...probably most of them. It would be too far outside their normal expectations of what the prime minister or president is "supposed to look like" ("he's supposed to look like 'we' do").

That this is so is pretty sad, but that's the way it is. People are afraid of what they are not used to.

But what's got me puzzled is...at what point is a person "Black" and "not White"?

Obama's half White. He had a White mother and a Black father. Does that mean he's "Black"? If it does, why? What percentage of Black genes makes you "Black" in someone's else's eyes? (as if it mattered anyway, for Christ's sake...)

People have a lot of growing up to do, don't they?

All that should matter is the usual stuff:   Intelligence, personal presentation, ideas, policy, education, past experience, the usual qualifications.

Is America ready to grow up? Is any country out there ready to grow up? Hmmm. Well, let me guess....I'm guessing no, probably not. We still live somewhere in the late Stone Age, as far as I can see.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 07:02 PM

There is nothing racist in saying that there are too many racist Americans for Obama to get elected. Just pessimistic. I hope you're wrong. I think you are wrong, perhaps naively.

If Obama doesn't get elected, that of course is how it's going to be seen by people outside the States. We won't be surprised, just disappointed. And the people who hate the USA will be very pleased.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Justin Urqhart (troll alert contact max)
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 06:39 PM

I honestly don't think America is ready for a black man with dreams of being president of the United States. Because I am prepared to say this (I speak the truth) half of you call me racist (not that I give a crap).

There is a Walton crew here who wants to live in a world in which you watch "A Wonderful World" at Christmas as a family and daddy gathers logs for the fire.

Americans don't tell the truth prior to elections. I really do think the Dems, would set him up for a big blame game after his defeat. If he did get elected, (moon dreaming) and he got whacked, we would be landed with another Martin Luther King all over again.As I say, America is more ready for a white female president than a Black male President right now.   

The Dems, are fighting a dirty war out there and there is no call for it.
Anyway before you go vote… think logical and weigh out ALL options (Lane Bryan).

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: PoppaGator
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 06:14 PM

At least a few of those small-party candidiates are probably candidates in some but not all states.

Each state is actually holding a separate election. Our "Presidential" election is actually an amalgam of 50 state elections, each one serving to elect a slate of electors.

The electors are generally pledged to vote for their own party's candidate, and 48 of the 50 states conduct "winner-take-all" elections; that is, the "ticket" (the pair of presidential + vice-presidential candidates) that wins the sate's popular vote is awarded all of that state's electors. Maine and (I think) Nebraska are the exceptions.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 05:24 PM

Correct me if I am wrong but are not
Cynthia McKinney
Gloria La Riva
Brian Moore, and
Roger Calerao (ineligible to serve if elected)

Still technically candidates too?

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 02:14 PM

Oh, I see... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 02:13 PM

A propos of Azizi's comment about "standing" for offie in the UK and "running" in the States.

I really should make a point of identifying the post I am referring to, that's the second time today someone has slipped in and posted while I've been writing my response.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 02:03 PM

Azizi said, in part:


Btw, I've just noticed that people in the UK use the phrase "standing for election" while people in the USA say "running for election".

Hubert Humphrey, coming up about a year before one of the presidential elections, had been cagey about declaring himself as a candidate, and was asked by the Press: "Mr. Humphrey, are you running for President this time?"

He answered, "Well, more like jogging, I think."

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 01:36 PM

Apropos of what, McGrath?

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 01:23 PM

Harder to hit a moving target? (And we don't have so many guns around.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 01:23 PM

You might just as well say, Azizi, that Nader is getting hardly any support because he has very little media attention. ;-)

Not that I'm saying he necessarily would get a lot of support...but what I am saying is that it IS media attention which makes a candidate marketable to the masses...and who gets it? Why, those whom the ruling system in its wisdom has decided should get it...right from the start...long BEFORE the public got to say "boo" about it.

The media could get anyone they wanted elected president in the USA. Just make sure to give that person the right kind of coverage, and lots of it, and make sure that all those who might cause problems in the plan get very little coverage...or the wrong kind of coverage.

Dead simple in a media-controlled society. You really have Orwell's 1984 already, courtesy of your national media and marketing systems, but people don't realize it because it still superficially looks as if it's a democracy.

That's clever on the part of those in charge, I must say.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Azizi
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 01:14 PM

Hello, Irene.

Ralph Nader is running again, but he's getting hardly any media attention because he has very little support. Therefore the number of people who will vote for him will not make any difference in who will be elected as USA president. Consequently [rightly or wrongly], Nader, and Bob Barr and other third party candidates were not invited to participate in the national debates.

**

Btw, I've just noticed that people in the UK use the phrase "standing for election" while people in the USA say "running for election". That's interesting. I'm not sure why there is that difference and what, if anything, it means.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Irene M
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 11:54 AM

Can someone put me right please.
I thought Ralf Nader was standing again. I haven't seen any mention of him for months. Has he pulled out? (sorry if I haven't spelt his name correctly).

Irene (in the UK)

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 11:29 AM

BB said,

Interference with the ongoing negotiations is what I am claiming- his reasons are obvious- to get himself elected, which is more difficult if Bush has taken steps to conclude the Iraq war.

His reasons are NOT obviously what you are pleased to assign, BB.

The more likely reading, I think, is that it would be better for the status of forces agreement (which is not a treaty, and doesn't have to go before Congress) be worked out by Iraq and the new President, whoever he may be, who will have to deal with the consequences, rather than with a lame-duck, weak, unpopular President.

That is at least as obvious as what you suggested.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 11:03 AM

It would be pretty silly of anyone to make a deal on paper with a dead-duck president rather than wait a few weeks to know who is going to be in charge for the next four years.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:34 AM

brrrrrrr

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 09:16 AM

Mr Bush* urged the president of Iraq that the timeline will not be the agreed upon 2010 pull out date but rather 2011 due to the current domestic turmoil in America.

*But it was not Mr. Bush but rather the dept of state.

that someone said Mr. Obama urged Baghdad to delay an agreement with Mr. Bush does not even make sense as anattack against Obama, Bush, necons or even Iraq.


"but rather 2011 due to the current domestic turmoil in America."
THis is waht the the President of Iraq said that he was told back in August.

This should give everyone pause in light of the fact the markets were sailing along well in August. Think about it. The State Deppartment has not had a crystal ball unless there are emergencies to be declared that are already planned.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 08:04 AM

Yeah, that sounds like a blogger to me, Carol, or else it would have been all over the news and McCain would gleefully bring it up every chance he could...

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 08:02 AM

Where is the documentation that this happened?

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 07:58 AM

"Mr. Obama urged Baghdad to delay an agreement with Mr. Bush until next year when a new president will be in office "


Interference with the ongoing negotiations is what I am claiming- his reasons are obvious- to get himself elected, which is more difficult if Bush has taken steps to conclude the Iraq war.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 07:44 AM

And don't worry about "hypocrite". It wasn't aimed at you, BB. Your tender ego is safe.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 07:42 AM

"purported" is weak even for you, BB. The fact is that Maliki himself said the US forces should be gone within 16 months--just as Obama said. The quote on this will not be hard to find. If you can't do it, I'll do it when I get back from work.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 07:37 AM

What does having an agreement with the US have to do with ending the war? The agreement is about the US wanting to keep its forces in Iraq, not take them out.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 07:30 AM

"his realization that the US participation in the Iraq war has to end soon"

"Some of the specifics of the conversations remain the subject of dispute. Iraqi leaders purported to The Times that Mr. Obama urged Baghdad to delay an agreement with Mr. Bush until next year when a new president will be in office "


"is an obvious hypocrite."

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 07:28 AM

Well, bbc, the best way to to prevent Sarah from "representing our country" is to vote for Obama...

Thanks, MiziAzizi, for the excerts from (________) Clark's Diary... So it turns out that this guy probably, at least from an educational standard, is better to be qualified to be president than is McCain... Hmmmmmmm???

(I can't remember Clark's first name either but I remember McCain's answer and found it to be condescendeing...)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 07:22 AM

As I've mentioned before, I'm also a registered Republican. I echo most of what bbc said, except that also, ever since Obama appeared on the scene, I have been very impressed with him--his obvious intelligence, his ability to think on his feet, his willingness to base his candidacy on a post-racial attitude, his realization that the US participation in the Iraq war has to end soon, etc. I have been looking forward to voting for him at least since April 2007.

It is also blazingly clear that Sarah Palin is worse than a bad choice. She is not only now inciting the absolute worst in her supporters, but her view of the "end times" makes her a danger to the entire world.

And anybody who claims to be against organized religion--which I am not-- but claims not to see this is an obvious hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: bbc
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 07:12 AM

I am a registered Republican. After the Vice Presidential debate, I decided, for the first time, to refrain from voting. I cannot support Sarah Palin. The thought of her, possibly, representing our country to the world disturbs me deeply. McCain may have chosen her to garner votes he couldn't get on his own, but he lost me in the process. I had serious doubts about his candidacy to start with.

bbc

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Azizi
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 02:55 AM

For the record, I'd like to note that Allen didn't mention anything in his question about having a home or being concerned about losing his home.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Azizi
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 02:39 AM

Some folks here may find this dairy and its accompanying comments interesting reading:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/9/173349/097/963/625503

"The guy McCain insulted on TV? Here's what he's saying...(Now with Poll)"
by Jsn
Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:50:33 PM PDT

The diary includes videos of Clark's question and McCain's and Obama's responses. For the sake of readers here who may not have seen the debate and aren't able to see the video, here's my summary of McCain's insult: McCain indicated that Clark probably didn't know what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were; MccCain didn't mention Oliver Clark by name when he responded to him; and {but} in his respond to Clark's question, McCain remembered the name of the first questioner who was White and said that Frannie and Freddie Mac help "Americans like Allen stay in their homes."

Here's an excerpt of that dairy. I added the italics to indicate which comments were the diarist and which were Oliver Clark's. :

Meet Oliver Clark. Here's what he's saying now, in response to this historically-insulting encounter.

Well Senator, I actually did. I like to think of myself as a fairly intelligent person. I have a bachelor degree in Political Science from Tennessee State, so I try to keep myself up to date with current affairs. I have a Master degree in Legal Studies from Southern Illinois University, a few years in law school, and I am currently pursuing a Master in Public Administration from the University of Memphis.

Turns out Oliver Clark has a Facebook page. People have understandably been pressing him for a followup, so he's been posting his thoughts. Here's more:

In defense of the Senator from Arizona I would say he is an older guy, and may have made an underestimation of my age. Honest mistake. However, it could be because I am a young African-American male. Whatever the case may be it was somewhat condescending regardless of my age to make an assumption regarding whether I was knowledgeable about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Was Clark really an "undecided voter"? Turns out the casting people were willing to stretch the point a bit.

I have a Nashville area code for my cell phone. So the Sunday before last, I received a call from the Gallop Poll. They asked a few questions regarding my choice in the Presidential election. They asked who I would vote for. I said most likely I would be voting for Barack Obama. They followed with, "is there any chance that you would change your mind"? I said "Of course anything is possible." They then asked me as an uncommitted voter would I like to participate in the Town hall debate. I said "Of course!"

How did he get his moment in the spotlight?

I had no idea they would choose me to ask a question. They told us to think of one or two questions we would like to ask the candidates if we had the opportunity. I asked a lot of friends and family what I should ask and the consensus was a question on the economy. Tom Brokaw came the morning of the debate and collected our questions and said he along with his team would review all the questions and decide which ones would be asked. About 3 minutes before the debate a fellow town hall participant sitting behind Brokaw looked over his shoulder and saw that 78 had the second question to ask. He mouthed over to me that I would have the second question. I did not believe him, but I still looked back over my question to make sure I would not look stupid! (Whether I did or not that for you to decide) Brokaw asked the first question then came to me. I stood up and asked and my question was in essence how was the bailout package going to help the average American?

Besides that whole, you know, insult thing, how was McCain's response to your question?

Well, Sen. McCain answered the questions with attacks on Barack and did not address how this package was actually going to help out the average American. Not to mention attacks on myself, but that question is to follow. He did say he warned the public of the forthcoming crisis, which I guess was a good thing????

So, he won you over. Right?

I felt Sen. Obama addressed the issue more directly then Sen. McCain did. Obama actually stated that the bailout package was going to help Americans buy homes and stay in their homes.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 12:00 AM

There ain't nothin' to fear as long as Obama don't win!

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 11:47 PM

I find something very odd about what is going on. Today's news showed a Palin/McCain rally that displayed Republican panic and fury far, far more volatile than the disgust and dishearten-ment- and what? fear? - the Democrats showed when it appeared quite clear that a Republican could/would win in 2000 and especially in 2004.

I remember Democrats and other 'unchurched' feeling and threatening to leave the country if the Republicans got into office- I do NOT remember anyone acting the way the Repugnicants did today.

It's enough to make a person fear what is over the horizon.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 10:12 PM

Sorry: it is perfectly stupid to say Social Security can be fixed easily--since all parties know it is a political question to the n th degree. So that statement is meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Alice
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 09:56 PM

Thanks for that link to the AFL-CIO speech. That is the most powerful speech I have heard in this entire campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 09:14 PM

BB-
The people, generally speaking, who are hanged in effigy are the (unpopular) ones in power. I would have thought that was obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 09:01 PM

That video link on Bee's post didn't work for me. Here's a link direct to the speech on YouTube which seems to work better.

Powerful speech. It's good to be reminded that this side of America exists. And good to see the way the hall responded.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 08:03 PM

And being inside the Obama campaign it just seems foreign that he would back any ad that calls McCain a "bigot"...

Me thinks there is no supportive evidence that this has occured...

My own persoanl opinion, however, is that John McCain is very much a bigot... But that is not said in the name of the Obama campaign... Just my observations over the last few days and especially since the "That one" comment...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 07:49 PM

well, heric, I just did a lot of searching, and the most I can find is some references to 'an Obama ad' that claims Limbaugh quotes were taken out of context. IF the ad was shown only in Florida, I can't find it...

That doesn't sound like the usual Obama ad.I do know that ads are 'sometimes' either faked or produced without the candidates knowledge. I'll wait for more details before I comment further.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Alice
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 06:43 PM

I read some of the messages posted to the guestbook on the Rednecks4Obama.com web site (see that thread) and it brought tears to my eyes.
A message written from Kentucky why the person is supporting Obama "
He has the right answers and we need to move past race in dealing with our countries problems. We all share this country. "

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Bee
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 06:13 PM

I am personally a firm supporter of unions, which are not perfect, but I strongly believe are the best bastion we have against the excesses of employers. I know some of you have strong anti-union views. The article I'm linking to has a recent speech, on video, of a union man supporting the Obama campaign. He addresses the issue of racism directly, something I've seldom seen in this campaign - it's always referred to as a nervous aside. I thought it was a strong speech. YMMV.

http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2008/10/folksiness_and_the_swing_vote.php#more

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 05:47 PM

What the McCain folks are doing is trying to play on old fears of which many white folk have spent a life time trying to rid themselves... This is not only base as base can be but downright...

...wreckless...

This speaks volumes about how a McCain/Palin administration would operate if they were to get into power and it is MO that they would take the US back to the days of Jim Crow...

There is no excuse for this...

As for Obama running ads calling John McCain a bigot... If it doesn't say at the end, "I'm Barak Obama and I approve this message" then it is a bogus ad and not his...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Azizi
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 05:25 PM

akenaton, re your 09 Oct 08 - 02:30 PM that referred to me, I have much better things to do with my time here and elsewhere than to "search for racists".

Unfortunately, I and other people of all races and ethnicities meet up with racists and with people who are prejudiced when and where we least expect to.