BS: The Debates: Members Only

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: CarolC
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 08:02 AM

Where is the documentation that this happened?

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: 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: Ebbie
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:34 AM

brrrrrrr

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:36 PM

Apropos of what, McGrath?

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: 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: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 02:14 PM

Oh, I see... ;-)

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Azizi
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:41 PM

Racism is so old school. It's time for new ideas, new attitudes, new actions.

On election day in the USA 2008, I predict that concerns about pocketbook issues will trump concerns about race for many individuals who still have those concerns.

In spite of the fact that they may still clinging to racial fear, and inspite of the fact that they may still think that Black people as inferior to White people, some White people will vote for Barack Obama because they recognize that he is a better man for the job of President of the USA than John McCain.

Barack Obama will be elected president and he will be the president of all Americans, even those who fear and/or dislike Black people.

And fifty years from now our descendants will wonder why we wasted so much time and so much energy on inconsequential stuff like the color of other people's skin.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:43 PM

You must be joking to ask me that.

Because the effects of American culture don't end at the Canadian border, that's why. They just ease off a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:48 PM

That was directed to heric...

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:49 PM

You are so right, Azizi.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:52 PM

(No, LH, I don't follow it at all.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Azizi
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:57 PM

In my opinion, this point is too important to leave that typo uncorrected. So here is that sentence again:

In spite of the fact that they may still clinging to racial fear, and inspite of the fact that they may still think that Black people are inferior to White people, some White people will vote for Barack Obama because they recognize that he is a better man for the job of President of the USA than John McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 11:06 PM

No doubt, Azizi, and I hope there are a lot of them who do as you say.

If I was there to vote I would vote for Obama because:

1. I think he's a better candidate in every way than John McCain.
2. I like his attitude a lot better than John McCain's.
3. I don't care what his racial profile is. It simply doesn't matter. It is irrelevant, just as irrelevant as gender.

You vote for the person, not for their sexual organs or the color of their skin.

That is, unless you're just a wee bit stupid...

***

heric, I will PM you an explanation.

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

Also, some White people who have been raised to consider Black people beneath them, will either not vote in this election or will vote for Barack Obama because they know that John McCain is an old man with health concerns.

Another reason why these people who have been socialized to be prejudice against Black people may not vote at all or they may vote for Barack Obama is that they know that John McCain's vice-presidental running mate, Sarah Palin, is totally unqualified for the position of vice-president. And like other people in this country and in the world, they don't want Sarah Palin any where near that red button if John McCain were elected president but became unable to complete the responsibilities of that office.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 11:08 PM

There's a small problem in the near term, though, Azizi. Presidents are supposed to be pilloried, lampooned, detested by many, and the butt of cruel humour. It's part of the job. (The way I've heard it, no one got it worse than Abraham Lincoln.) So next year and for a while there is going to be an awful clamor while people claim they can separate the bigots from people just doing what they are supposed to do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Bee
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 11:23 PM

Alice, if you look more closely at the audience in the union speech film, you'll find there are black people scattered through the crowd. That is a labour crowd, and labour is not all white.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 11:24 PM

"You vote for the person, not for their sexual organs or the color of their skin."

Noble sentiment, and true as far as it goes. BUT, in the US, you're really voting , not only for a person, but for a party and (hopefully) a philosophy of government. The best possible President is about as useful as secondary mammaries on an alligator if the other party controls the legislature.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 11:37 PM

Ah yes...well, I'd like to see both of those damned political parties stuffed down the garbage disposal of hell...but, alas, I expect they'll be with us till long after you and I are gone, Dick.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Big Mick
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 09:10 AM

Rich Trumka is the Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO, its second highest ranking officer. He was making a speech in response to the elephant in the room of labor, that being the racism that permeates the ranks of many of its member unions. The AFL-CIO, for those that don't know is a federation made up of many of the largest International Unions. It was formed as a merger between the American Federation of Labor which was the federation of craft unions (Carpenters, Steelworkers, Boot and Shoe workers, etc) and the Congress of Industrial Organizations which were the Industrial model of unions which organized all crafts working for an employer. Though labor stands for ending racism, the simple fact is that the "Reagan Democrat" is typically a union member. Trumka is taking a stand to say to these folks that it is time to stop voting against your own economic self interests, time to embrace the fact that race is a card being played by the capitalist to keep folks doing that. He is an admirable man whom I have met, and support. Just as in other parts of the world, when one scratches the surface of what appears to be one thing, usually under the scab you will find a money changer stirring the pot. It only serves the interests of those that want continued control over the wealth for the voters to make decisions on something as inconsequential as their genetic makeup.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 09:19 AM

It looks like Rezko is back in the news, and he's talking.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Bee
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 10:20 AM

Big Mick, I think it was a great speech. I've been a strong supporter of unions, and a union member for a good part of my employment. I've watched the Canadian arm of the UA make great strides in twenty years to eliminate gender discrimination in professions that were, and to a great extent still are, almost exclusively male. Now, the majority of these workers don't think twice about working alongside a woman doing the same job.

Though it's interesting that AFAIK Canadian union members tend, for the most part, to vote along liberal-socialist lines.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 12:56 PM

9:19

Correction:   Rezko is back in your head--not that he ever left-- and your drivel continues.

As for facts, not so much.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 01:02 PM

If McCain's involvement in the Keating scandal doesn't disqualify him from being president, I don't think Obama has anything to worry about with regard to Rezko.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Irene M
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 01:35 PM

Thanx for the Nader info.

I do feel sorry for Obama. He cannot win. The whites see him as black and the blacks see the white in him.
We will see what happens in November, of course, but I see McCain being (narrowly) elected. The Dems were on a hiding to nothing when they narrowed the candidates down to Obama and Clinton. The electorate will, in I fear, many cases vote on the basis of skin colour. They would have avoided Clinton on the basis that she would never be able to keep both eyes on the ball. She would have a metaphorical ball and chain, in the shape of her husband. She would have to keep one eye on him. Even if he was behaving himself, there are plenty of little darlings who would be prepared to perjure themselves for the money and the 15 minutes of fame. How do you hope to be taken seriously as President?

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Azizi
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 01:53 PM

Oh! I just pmed someone and told him that I didn't intend to post to a thread about race for a long time, unless I was providing demographical information and/or cultural analysis of a song or children's rhyme.

However, Irene, I feel compelled to respond to your statement that "The whites see him {Obama} as black and the blacks see the white in him."

First of all, Irene, you are speaking in broad generalities.

And, frankly, I'm not sure what you mean by "the Blacks see the white in him".

If you mean that I {as a Black person} and other Black people in the USA don't consider Barack Obama to be "really Black" because he had a White mother, and/or was raised by his White grandparents in a community that has few Black people, I have to strongly disagree with you. Imo, both of your statements were failed primary strategies that were put out by the Clintons.

Few people in the USA who have been really following Barack Obama's campaign since Iowa and North Carolina would consider either of these statements as being the least bit credible.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Azizi
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 02:03 PM

Irene, I was too hasty. If by your statement that "the whites see him as black" means that White people consider Barack Obama's racial identity to be Black, then I agree with you.

But if you mean by that that a large {enough} number of White people won't vote for Obama because of his racial identity I disagree with you. The notion that White people won't vote for a Black person as president is part of the strategy that the Clintons were hoping for in the Democratic primaries. As you can see, that strategy and the notion that Black people wouldn't vote for a Black person who is mixed race failed.

Btw, I believe that it was rather stupid for anyone to believe that African Americans wouldn't vote for a person who is mixed racial, given that so many African Americans have mixed racial ancestry.

{And with that I hope to go back to lurking on this thread. At the very least, I chose not to address questions about the definition of who is or is not African American, including the silly notion that only people who had ancestors who were slaves in the USA can be considered African American. That was another failed divide & conquer primary strategy. By that definition, I'm not African American. As I said, that's just silly}.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Irene M
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 02:11 PM

Azizi. Thanks for that.
I have heard a number of people of mixed race, here in the UK bemoan the fact that each of those "races" focuses on the other one, when their skin colour is mentioned.
Maybe things have moved on over the Atlantic. I certainly hope so.