Unless we are to believe that race is not a factor in elections, it is perfectly reasonable for people who are discussing the election to consider it, both in the case of black racism that denied Hillary the Democratic nomination, and white racism, which can deny Obama the presidency.

It trivializes the word "racism" to use it to mean identity politics.

Obama 08!

vera locke:

Unless we are to believe that race is not a factor in elections, it is perfectly reasonable for people who are discussing the election to consider it, both in the case of black racism that denied Hillary the Democratic nomination, and white racism, which can deny Obama the presidency.

Those stupid Ni**ers just don't know who to vote for, do they!!!!! Thank GOD there were plenty of women voting for Hillary to make up the difference!

StevieN... your words are just ugly and prevent any real truths to be discussed.

Perhaps you're not very bright, beinformed. The words I wrote were meant to represent the words IMPLIED by vera locke's post.

If in fact you agree with HER post, and from that perspective call my words ugly, then....I think you need to look for the ugliness in yourself.

I am DISGUSTED by the number of people who are ENRAGED by the simple fact that many Blacks voted for an otherwise GOOD Black candidate. LOTS of people support Obama--so it's pretty despicable when BLACK voters are called racists for voting for him.

Obama cannot win. Hillary is correct. The fall election may very well become purely racial with 70 percent of the electorate (white) outvoting 12 percent of the population (black).

Dear ff64,

Here's a link to a little post of yours that let's us all know how you feel about Ni**ers.

Just to make sure it's easy to read, I'll repost it below:

Black children go around saying "Marriage is for white people". What kind of society can they have at all when they cannot even adhere to basic principles of civilization. IQ levels in the black community are much too low to sustain any real type of civilization.If not for white handouts they would go back to primitive dwellings( mud huts etc). They have no ability to plan for their own future,never mind the future of their children. As Dr Albert Sweitzer said after many years of working in Africa " Blacks basically have the mental capacity of children". There are exceptions,of course,but those exceptions only prove the rule. Blacks Africans cannot live among Whites,Asians or Hispanics. Each of these groups scores higher on average than Blacks on IQ tests.This is why there is separation.Blacks buying expensive sneakers is no different than their African ancestors being impressed by brightly colored beads. Comparing Blacks in any manner to Whites,Asians etc is like comparing apples to oranges.

You should be taken out to the nearest tree and hung up by your tiny balls.

vera locke:

You wrote:

"it is perfectly reasonable for people who are discussing the election to consider it [race], both in the case of black racism that denied Hillary the Democratic nomination, and white racism, which can deny Obama the presidency."

This is a point I have heard often during the campaign from my friends who support Hillary. The notion is that since blacks voted en masse for Barack they must be racist. This is itself racially insensitive to say because blacks have voted for whites 99% of the time, and blacks even supported Hillary overwhelmingly over Barack until Bill started calling him "the biggest fairy tale" and suggested he could only win some states because he was black. (Which was not true since a clear majority of Barack's voters where whites from overwhelmingly white states.)

Also, Obama never suggested that southern whites who have resisted his campaign were racist even though there is far more evidence of this than for the black vote.

Blacks who vote for blacks (if they do "because" of his race) are voting "for" one of their own. This may be racially motivated voting but it is not voting based on negative stereotypes of whites or prejudice against whites.

This phenomenon is similar to John Kennedy receiving 80% of the Catholic vote in 1960, or Italian-Americans going for Mario Cuomo in huge numbers in New York in the eighties.

It is also analogous to the huge spike in women voting for Hillary this year, many citing that "it's about time we had a woman in the White House." I find nothing sexist in this. It is merely aspirational as with Barack's black support.

All of these voting patterns and dozens of others are based on votes cast "for" a trait believed to be unrepresented.

Southern whites, on the other hand, often vote against black candidates in huge percentages, with the exception of Atlanta, Georgia, a more metropolitan city. The same is true for older, lower income whites in rural or conservative parts of the country. Hillary is winning these groups and (here's the problem) expressly campaigning on the premise that she should be nominated because these whites won't vote for the black man. Do you see the difference?

The distinction is that (1) some older voters are holding on to prejudices which are fast disappearing from the general electorate but linger in the 65-plus category; and (2) this is especially true among a smaller portion of low income whites where prejudice finds fertile ground in ignorance.

Hillary's argument when boiled down is that a black man cannot win the election because these folks won't vote for a black man. There would certainly be nothing about a white Barack Obama that would handicap him among these groups given his policy positions and the fact that he would look like Jimmy Stewart.

Please don't equate women and blacks voting identity out of pride, with pandering to old hateful, exclusionary prejudices.

talking points down pat, but then you go to classes and conferences to hammer out an acceptable version of reality, one wherein massive scale Black racism IS NOT racism, one wherein only bitter old feminists and knuckle dragging racist Whites are voting for Hillary [it's easy to read between the lines of your weasel words, believe it or not] and all remains just fine in your perfect little ultra-liberal cocoon . . . oh, and in your profession.

Meanwhile in the real world, where the truth actually does matter, mainstream democrats are finally beginning to wake up to just how racists Blacks are being in this nomination process and just how much pandering -- at the expense of everyone NOT Black -- ultra-liberals are doing for Blacks in the name of the CAUSE . . . to get the first Black presidential nominee into the history books regardless of any possible cost or repercussion. This, after all, is the only thing that matters.

Women who would vote for Hillary primarily because Hillary is a women are being feminist bigots. Blacks that are voting for Obama primarily because he is a Black are being racist.

Both those women and those Blacks frequently have many more reasons to vote for their candidate, but it is true that many of them do not. The fact remains, however, that many Blacks took the first opportunity offered them [under eager and OBLIGING media spin] by Bill Clinton to begin to abandon Hillary [with a sigh of relief, no doubt] because they NEEDED an excuse to indulge in their racism.

Blacks were, in fact, waiting with baited breath for one or the other Clinton to say ANYTHING that could possibly be interpreted on their part as racist just so that they could have a TECHNICALLY logical excuse to do what they wanted to do anyway . . . indulge in their own racism.

The fact that Whites generally vote for ideological or practical reasons is increasingly being ignored for the now preferred interpretation of 'If you are not for Barack Obama then you must be a racist.' Oh, and don't forget the bitter feminist and knuckle-dragging idiot cannards. There ARE no well-educated professionals voting for Hillary, because that would be wrong.

Your 'spin' is nothing more than hypocrisy. Granted it is highly polished hypocrisy and the hypocrisy that the media and academia will struggle mightily both to embrace and ram into the history books as the correct interpretation of events, but it is still hypocrisy.

a fanatical member of the KKK?

SteveiN -

I totally agree with you -and applaud your tenacity to keep saying what needs to be said.

MANY people vote for Barack Obama. And he is a very qualified candidate who appeals across the board.

I am often comforted by pwoxby's eternal good humor and grace, but I also appreciate the knock-down, drag-out you're willing to employ. Thanks for giving voice to what so many want to say!

@ artandsoul:

Thank you for your kind words of encouragement. There is a serious matter at hand here that motivates me. I really believe that human history is at a cusp or turning point. If we make the wrong decision in this particular election, then very nasty trends that have been building and converging for generations could quickly spiral completely out of our control.

I am talking about trends in global population, natural resources, food supply, environment, education, economics and international relations. As a species we still haven't come to terms with the Malthusian problem of an exponentially increasing population interacting with a finite planet.

As I see it humans have two options. If we continue trying to maintain a short-term status quo, then a catastrophic collapse involving famine, war and societal breakdown is inevitable and can be seen on the horizon right now. The only alternative is a global scale mobilization to avert catastrophe through intelligent long-term planning and international cooperation.

It makes sense for the United States to take the lead in such an initiative. By many measures we are still the world's most advanced nation. Most importantly, we have the brainpower and communications technology to tackle seemingly intractible global problems. What we are conspicuously lacking is the political will to get started.

There are three candidates left in the race for president. Two of them are world-class panderers who are firmly stuck in the past. Their time horizons don't extend past November. The third candidate, I am sorry to say, is only a marginal improvement over these two. But I see a spark of potential in him. More importantly, tens of millions of my fellow citizens also see that spark of potential.

Am I suggesting that the fate of civilization rests on the shoulders of Barack Obama? Well, yes. What scares the hell out of me is that this has happened by default. Obama really is, as his critics tirelessly remind us, another politician. And that isn't good enough when what we desperately need is a philosopher king.

I got the impression from the debates that Obama is impatient with policy minutiae. And to be brutally frank, he seems impatient with the quotidian interests of working class Americans like guns and bowling. So what's on Obama's mind? Where is he going with his talk of hope and change?

The question I am flirting with is this: Is Barack Obama completely clueless about the big picture as outlined above? I don't have to ask that of Hillary Clinton and John McCain because I know that they are completely clueless. But what about Obama? Is his talk of hope and change just a sophisticated pander by just another politician?

I really don't know. But I can appreciate the bind Obama is in if he wants to address "big picture" issues. Two immediate problems arise: 1) Our mainstream media (MSM) won't stand for it. 2) The Republicans will ruthlessly follow the lead of the MSM. The MSM won't stand for it because discussion of serious issues is deeply threatening to journalists and pundits. They are in their element with the Wright affair, Bosnian snipers, who's up and who's down.

If the MSM ignore, trivialize or mock a discussion of the "big picture" issues, you can count on the Repubicans to squeeze these issues through their ideological filters. John "Walrus" Bolton would have a field day spinning international cooperation into the bogeyman of scary "world government". Long-term government planning would be spun into another Red Scare. And the blather about the "magic" of free markets to solve all problems would be never-ceasing.

Well, that's an outline of the "big picture" from where I sit. Am I optimistic? You bet! Hope springs eternal. But more than hope we need real change and real soon. Hope and change. Now that does have a familiar ring. :)

Obama 08!

pwoxby - That's a lot of very serious stuff you post ... and maybe it is a good thing to do so in the middle of an otherwise horrid thread. :)

First of all, I think it is important to realize that change, even big change, has to come from within the structure so we have to have a politician - becauase that is what we have as our structure right now. But that structure is changing.

Not because Barack Obama is changing it, but because our world is changing - and at a pace that is faster than we've previously moved in concert as a nation. The old rules (MSM, party machinery, etc) have, in my opinion, peaked. They are marginalized every day by new technology and a fast-paced access that appears transparent but is also easily manipulated. I agree we are on a cusp, but we are not alone.

America has to do two things - and we have to do them now. We have to get our house in order, and we have to recognize that we're not alone on the planet. And I mean these in the largest possible ways. To me, this is the reason I choose Barack Obama. He is least invested in status quo and understands the edge that must be respected - it is sharp. A certain transparency must be (WILL BE) forced on our government - we cannot continue in the hunker-down, fear-based clench of military might.

We have to have a strong, vital military. A modern military. One that is supported by every citizen, and that does not mean vague, mis-calculated wars. We have to have the Constitution as our base, and not erode the freedoms that brought us together as a nation in the first place, making us a nation worth fighting for.

I have had the chance to watch the UN at pretty close range - actually in the building and among the people who work there (when we go to NYC we stay in that neighborhood). I say this because I don't think anyone wants a world-government. But there are real people, doing real things, who believe that nations and peoples of varying cultures and beliefs CAN cooperate and move forward. And I"m not going to get into a Kumbaya moment here, I understand the violence and horror that is out there.

But America cannot play games on the world stage. We cannot have leaders who lead because it will behoove them personally.

Obama seems prepared, to me, to operate in this modern world order. I don't know if's so new -- I"m sure every generation thinks its quite new. But I'm in mid-life and I know that there is a different ethos at work here. There is a different ethic required, and it is not about fear and division. Hope is not fluffy. It is the point.

Every person on the planet hopes for a future. Some are willing to make horrible sacrifices of their person in order to further the hopes of their people. This is a fact. We don't police our own people in fear of terrorism, but we must understand wht is happening in the psyche and in the reality of people who operate like that. We cannot just go in and beat the shit out of someone and say it is a war on terror.

Well I'm rambling way off now - but I think there is a lot to be learned from watching how other nations (our allies) are working through the new definitions of power, and politics and diplomacy and adjustment to the realities. I"m not suggesting a compromise or assimilation of other cultures, but a respect for others born out of a strength and belief in our own. There have been so many horrific moments under GWB (Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Katrina, .....) that what has eroded for many is the belief that America IS that country that is worth making the sacrifices for.

Instead we have become a "me first" country, we are suspicious of what everyone around us has or does, we see the world as a finite pie and if you get a slice that is less for me so fuck you. THIS is the mentality that happens when we can't believe in HOPE. When we feel like we have to live for just ourselves.

I don't have all the answers, and to tell you the truth I'm sure Barack Obama doesn't either. But that's not what we're electing. He's running for President - and if he can bring to the table an energy and a belief that AMerica is worth sacrificing for, then he will be doing a great service.

I also happen to beleive that he can get things done - I believe he understands consensus and compromise, and he gets grassroots support. So perhaps he can work with Congress in a way that has been sorely missing for a long while.

Just watch how the ratings of newpapers and cable TV and even talk radio are dropping. And that's not because people are unplugging -- it's because they are plugging into other mediums. And Obama seems to be on THAT edge, not the old edge.

Wow - that is a lot of stuff, and it came out without any editing, just kind of like a conversation. So please excuse my typos and my leaps of rationale, I was typing pretty fast!

Take care! And I agree: Obama '08

pwoxby - after thinking over your post, I wondered if perhaps you misunderstood my comment to StevieN.

When I said that I am often comforted by your posts I meant that as the highest possibly compliment. I did not mean to then infer that I prefer the knock-down drag-out - I was merely saying that I am glad someone (other than me) has the fortitude for that.

But I mentioned you because ever since I joined the Fray (not that long ago) I have seen your posts, and have felt your continued presence as a steadying one.

I believe that it is posters like you who make space for newcomers to post here, to express themselves, and to try the waters. To find their voice so to speak.

Often it was in reading your posts, back when I was lurking before posting, that I would think "oh there is someone who thinks like me" and that meant that maybe I'm not out in the blue somewhere.

I don't watch MSM on TV or radio, I don't watch CNN or even network news. I read for my news. And I discuss policies and issues with my friends and family. I take classes and I go to meetings and campaign events. I do more face to face life than electronic. It's just how my life is.

Anyway, you don't want to know all about me -- but I just wanted you to know that it was not a back-handed or unintentional compliment. I mean it sincerely - I respect your thoughtfulness, your restraint and your strength on these boards.

I just wanted you to know that.

Peace.

@ artandsoul:

Not to worry. I did in fact take your comment in the spirit it was intended. The Fray is a complex environment in which there are many niches to be filled. (I do have a very deep seated antagonism towards certain posters who project their own neuroses onto other posters. You have met some of them. It is a continual effort to show restraint and I don't always succeed.)

Every once in a while I like to consolidate my thoughts which is what I did today. I'm a chemical engineer with a fair amount of experience in the analysis of complex dynamic systems. The interaction between politicians, the media, the voters, and special interests is amenable to the analysis tools of system dynamics.

Suffice it to say that the dynamic system which Hillary Clinton and John McCain are used to and accept is totally dysfunctional in terms of being responsive to the multiple challenges and crises America now faces. And it's not just Washington that is the problem. The media and the voters are deeply complicit in creating and perpetuating this mess.

In January I expect that Barack Obama will wade into this mess as Chief Executive of the United States. He is a lawyer and a political neophyte. What he has going for him is his fondness for the pronoun "we". I like that a lot. Obama also has passion and energy. He'll need both. Finally Obama is a gifted orator who can inspire and mobilize others. That will no doubt come in handy especially after the election.

God be with you.