The only racism being exhibited here is that of Jacob Weisberg. He apparently believes that Barack Obama should become our President "for a simple reason: the color of his skin." He won't even allow that there are those of us who disagree with his policies or object to his slender résumé. I look forward to the day that a black American represents this country as our President, and I will gladly and proudly cast my vote accordingly. However, that person will only get my vote if he or she also represents my values.
By the way, I don???t give a hoot what the neighbors think, and believe you me, as an American, I would never, EVER cast a vote in order to please (or appease) any other nation.
What Will The Neighbors Think?
-
Posted By: Lanternshine @ 08/26/2008 1:57:07 PM
-
Posted By: pumapurr @ 08/26/2008 1:48:30 PM
Ahh... the total satisfaction of Nov. 5th is coming. The crickets chirping their chorus of "racists...racists...racists..." lulling me to a peaceful sleep. And then year after year after year of President McCain. It's a wonderful gift, brought to us beautifully wrapped by the very people who despised it. Ironic, ain't it?
-
Posted By: mjwsatx @ 08/26/2008 1:45:01 PM
This essay clearly shows that racism is alive and well in America - ON THE LEFT. To assert that an Obama loss would be due to racism is preposterous and inflamatory. Apparently Mr. Weisberg forgot Dr. King's admonition that we are to judge a person by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. Ironically, Mr. Weisberg admits that he likes and admires John McCain but only discusses Senator Obama's speechifying, his ability to raise campaign funds and - of course - his skin color. Mr. Weisberg forgets to mention anything about Mr. Obama's character.
-
Posted By: repub4obama @ 08/26/2008 1:06:39 PM
Yeah the right wing conservatives love to hate. Any reason they can find to hate someone or something that is good, they will find, or just plain make up some bullsh*t about them to hate them.
The right wing conservatives want racism to exsist in the world. It is one of their tools that they use to manipulate their hate agenda.
-
Posted By: ABCs of Politics @ 08/26/2008 12:45:22 PM
I wish I could vote for Barak Obama. Having a black man become president of the United States would be a extraordinary first in our nation???s history. It is true that racial tension is a part of America???s history, but it need not be a part of our future. Arguing over the past and claiming that electing Obama is ???a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us??? is just as racist as encouraging individuals not to vote for him due to his race.
Barak Obama is a charismatic speaker, his campaign is a marketing phenomenon, but the candidate himself lacks credibility. Obama has never run a company or been elected governor of a state. He has not served as a public servant for decades as he would like you to believe. Before deciding to run for president of the United States, Barak Obama served 143 days in the Senate. 143 days.
His election to the Senate in and of itself was not much of an achievement. During the election the two leading candidates were forced to drop out when confidential court documents outlining indiscretions were leaked to the media. His opponent in the election? Alan Keyes, a Maryland politician with few ties to Illinois.
-
Posted By: ABCs of Politics @ 08/26/2008 12:45:11 PM
On August 23, 2008, Newsweek ran an article written by Jason Weisberg entitled "What Will the Neighbors Think?" This article is both inflammatory and ridiculous. Jacob Weisberg's assertions about Barak Obama and the racism surrounding his candidacy serve only to propel racial tension in America.
In his article Weisberg asserts that "if Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: the United States had its day, but in the end couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race."
The reality is that, if Obama loses this election, it will be because Americans were unable to accept his highly liberal, borderline socialist policies and minimal experience.
-
Posted By: ABCs of Politics @ 08/26/2008 12:44:48 PM
The man who would have you believe that he vehemently opposed the war in Iraq on the Senate floor was not even present when the issue was brought forward. The Iraq War began in March of 2003 and Obama was not even elected to the Senate until November of 2004.
-
Posted By: ABCs of Politics @ 08/26/2008 12:44:34 PM
After being sworn into office on January 4, 2005, shock and awe had given way to sluggish conditions and a stale war that weighed on the minds of Americans. Obama did not have a record of voting for the war as his primary opponent Clinton did. Why? Because he was not a Senator when that vote took place. The old saying says that hindsight is 20/20 and Barak Obama???s Monday morning quarterbacking will not cut it if he is elected President.
-
Posted By: ABCs of Politics @ 08/26/2008 12:44:17 PM
For Weisberg to assert that Obama???s race is a liability in this campaign is preposterous. If anything, his race is an asset. No white politician with Obama???s resume would have succeeded in beating out the Democratic favorite, Hillary Clinton, for the nomination. No freshman senator from Iowa, New York or anywhere else could have slid into the shoes of presumptive nominee without people questioning his abilities were he white. The sheer excitement about the possibilities that Barak Obama represents is how he has reached as high as he has. This excitement, however, is not a reason to vote for him.
-
Posted By: ABCs of Politics @ 08/26/2008 12:41:51 PM
http://abcsofpolitics.blogspot.com/
-
Posted By: Interesting Steve @ 08/26/2008 12:40:50 PM
The only thing as damangin as actual racism, is those who cry wolf on racial issues. To distill remaining American ambivalence toward Obama as simply a function of race, is patronizing and myopic.
-
Posted By: neocon @ 08/25/2008 1:41:41 PM
Now if J.C Watts was running or Colin Powell they would have my vote.
Obama=TOO LIBERAL-
Posted By: FREETHINKINGAMERICAN @ 08/26/2008 10:23:37 AM
Now why is liberal a dirty word in the land that is proud to call itself the home of the brave and free?
-
Posted By: rangerjoe @ 08/25/2008 1:54:51 PM
The only real prosperity that we???ve had the last 40 years have been under a liberal president.
-
Posted By: neocon @ 08/25/2008 2:01:04 PM
I would disagree with that. The Clintons were far worst for me and my family from a earnings and tax persective.
-
Posted By: AskPlus @ 08/25/2008 2:04:17 PM
That would be your fault then. Not theirs.
-
Posted By: neocon @ 08/25/2008 2:07:34 PM
And how would my increase in taxes be my fault? I would love know.
-
Posted By: AskPlus @ 08/25/2008 2:12:43 PM
Because you did not take advantage of the period economics, housing and investments - and BTW, every President since 1980 has raised taxes. The Reps actually cost you more since. But read-my-lips - you knew this right?
-
Posted By: neocon @ 08/25/2008 2:16:51 PM
Yes but Bush1's increase was less than Clintons, plus George's worst year of economic growth was better than Clinton's best. But you knew this right? If not look it up.
-
Posted By: AskPlus @ 08/25/2008 2:25:59 PM
If the war ended tomorrow, will there still be a significant tax increase regardless of president? The only reason Bill Clinton balanced the budget was because of pendulum swing. He did not have to pay for the cold war, the bad international economics, or new government entity. He basically had to do nothing but raise taxes proportionate to need. Taxes will be raised again. John McCain or not.
-
Posted By: neocon @ 08/25/2008 2:33:52 PM
Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.
The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).
While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the cold hard facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.
Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained.
When Clinton (and others) said that he had paid down the national debt, that was patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intergovernmental holdings.
Interestingly, this most likely was not even a conscious decision by Clinton. The Social Security Administration is legally required to take all its surpluses and buy U.S. Government securities, and the U.S. Government readily sells those securities--which automatically and immediately becomes intergovernmental holdings. The economy was doing well due to the dot-com bubble and people were earning a lot of money and paying a lot into Social Security. Since Social Security had more money coming in than it had to pay in benefits to retired persons, all that extra money was immediately used to buy U.S. Government securities. The government was still running deficits, but since there was so much money coming from excess Social Security contributions there was no need to borrow more money directly from the public. As such, the public debt went down while intergovernmental holdings continued to skyrocket.
The net effect was that the national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: AskPlus @ 08/25/2008 1:58:48 PM
No. You would find a reason not to vote for them.
-
Posted By: neocon @ 08/25/2008 2:04:39 PM
No, their values are more centric then BHO. I could care less about the color of the skin but what they stand for. Look up J.C. Watts. You probable have never heard of him.
-
-
-
Posted By: brye @ 08/26/2008 9:45:59 AM
I find Mr. Weisberg's column ludicrous. Dr. King stated that he hoped his children would one day be judged not on the basis of the color of their skin, but by the character of their hearts. Instead of that, Mr. Weisberg states that American should vote for a man who hasn't yet completed his first term as Illinois' junior senator SOLELY because of the color of his skin, not because of the increasingly obvious perception that his talk is backed up by very little substance. His reaction to the Russia-Georgia conflict was awful, and his idea to place a tax on "windfall" oil profits is beyond absurd. The United States is, by FAR and away, the most opena and inclusive country in the world; we take in more legal immigrants each year than the rest of the world combined, and the fact that Senator Obama outfought the Clinton machine speaks volumes about the country's willingness to embrace change. Heck, there are multiple black governors, the governor of Alaska is a former beauty queen, and the governor of Louisiana is the son of two Hindu parents from India. If the rest of the world is so concerned with this perception, then I look forward to a person of African descent winning France's next presidential election and/or being appointed the next Prime Minister of Great Britain. Mr. Weisberg, you are only fanning the flames that Dr. King fought so hard to overcome. Though I disagree with his positions, Senator Obama has worked extremely hard and deserves to be judged on the basis of his ideas and his ability to lead, not on the color of his skin.
-
Posted By: FREETHINKINGAMERICAN @ 08/26/2008 10:07:01 AM
So, what do you think made George "Bush qualified" to be elected President for two times in a row????
-
Posted By: brye @ 08/26/2008 10:22:22 AM
As I recall, Kerry and Gore were also white sons of privilege. Gore lost because he couldn't win his home state of Tennessee, and Kerry lost because he had no connection with everyday Americans. What do those elections have to do with anything related to racism?
-
-
-
Posted By: SPORTLOCK09 @ 08/25/2008 6:06:02 PM
The Double standard rears it's ugly face once again.
Barack Obama has not made it this far this quickly because he is black.
If Barack Obama loses the election it is solely because he is black.
Go figure........-
Posted By: FREETHINKINGAMERICAN @ 08/26/2008 10:15:32 AM
Quite logical, actually.
It could be said that Barack Obama has made it this fact this quickly DESPITE the fact that he is "black" because of the nature of the majority (just about) of Democratic and open-minded voters who cabn accpet the idea of a "black"
And he might not be elected BECAUSE he is "black" because of the nature of the (perhaps slight) majority of American voters.who cannot accept the idea of a "black" President.
Or is this too subtle for you?
P.S. I say "black" because Obama is actually bi-racial : his father was black and his mother was white. -
Posted By: marksgershenson @ 08/25/2008 7:14:34 PM
Whether you think your right or wrong your right...almost paraphrasing Henry Ford.
-
-
Posted By: FREETHINKINGAMERICAN @ 08/26/2008 10:01:28 AM
Indeed. The very fact that Obama is alamost always described as "black" when he is bi-racial indicates the subliminal racism in much reporting (and much popular comment).
This is reminiscent of the days of apartheid.in South Africa, where if you had "one drop" of black blood in you, you would be classified/condemned as black, irrespective of the fact that you were one-half white.
Many of the comments questioning Obama's lack of substance (did anyone question George Bush's lack of substance?) and criticising his elitism (George Bush in comparison comes from American royalty) actually are subliminally racist. Because he is not pure white, a higher bar somehow has been set for Obama than ever was set for George Bush. If Obama were pure white, he would undoubtedly be hailed in the same John Kenndy was hailed by the vast majority of Americans..
If Obama were elected, he would not necessarily be very much better than another candidate in trems of changing policy, but it would mark a transformation in the way America sees itself and the way the world sees America.
It is a pity that perhaps America (as many Americans thermselves admit) is not quite ready for a "not pure white" President - and so may miss a perhaps unique opportunity to show what is perhaps America's most positive quality - the capacity for change and renewal.
-
Posted By: josemarti @ 08/26/2008 9:29:05 AM
Listen up you gringos, crackers, rednecks, gueros, melanin challenged, moonshine drinking, autosomal recessive prone, left hemisphere dominant Homo sampiens. If you don't vote for Barack, then that means you are a racist.
-
Posted By: jymb @ 08/26/2008 8:56:50 AM
a bit simplistic what about people who may be inclined to vote for Obama but are concerned about taxes. I don't know who's more out of touch McCain saying 5 million mark descibes a rich person or the Democratic canidate saying 250 k does. Both a joke but McCain closer to reality.
-
Posted By: Davole @ 08/26/2008 4:22:41 AM
Senior Dems Concerned Over McCain Gains
The Hill by Alexander Bolton Aug. 25, 2008
DENVER ??? Senior Democratic politicians are signaling concern about Sen. Barack Obama???s (Ill.) slip in the polls and are urging him to regain his edge against GOP rival Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).
Rep. John Dingell (Mich.), the longest-serving House Democrat, said Obama must realize the primary season is behind him and Republicans will ???run a very rough campaign against him.???
Dingell???s critique comes in the wake of polls showing that McCain has gained ground on Obama since the Democratic senator left the campaign trail for a family vacation in Hawaii. A CNN poll released Monday showed McCain and Obama in a dead heat.
???The campaign has not yet taken off,??? said Dingell in a telephone interview. ???He???s got to address things that go into a presidential campaign as opposed to a primary campaign. They???re very different campaigns.???
Even Obama???s allies, including Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the co-chairman of Obama???s campaign, acknowledge McCain has gained ground. Durbin said Obama???s absence from the news cycle during his Hawaii vacation, combined with Russia???s invasion of Georgia, gave McCain a chance to dominate the race over the last 10 days.
???We realize over the last week or 10 days that John McCain has had a 12-0 run in this basketball game,??? said Durbin, who hastened to add: ???We know the momentum can shift.
???My observation is, and I talked a little bit about it with Barack after [his] tour overseas with dramatic positive results, that we expected an evening of the playing field,??? he said.
Dingell said Obama can regain momentum if he addresses substantive issues such as a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, rebuilding of the nation???s roads and infrastructure, and the lack of health insurance for an estimated 47 million Americans, including 1 million in Michigan.
Dingell???s words carry weight because of his seniority in the House and his knowledge of Michigan politics. The AFL-CIO, an important ally of the Democratic Party, has identified Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania as the three most important battleground states of the campaign.
Durbin said Obama???s family vacation was ???well-deserved,??? but blamed Russia???s invasion of Georgia for focused media attention on McCain???s national security credentials. McCain is a former prisoner of war and senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
???All those things came together in a moment giving McCain the field ??? I mean, a stronger position than he might have otherwise have had,??? Durbin said.
-
Posted By: oentje @ 08/25/2008 3:50:18 PM
I am just amazed at these mean spirited, ugly remarks from some people. We do not have to agree, but just be civil. At the end of the day, either McCain or Obama gets elected, and we all have to deal with the same issues as before. Racism is not going to end with choosing Obama, neither will poverty, unemployment, high gas prices, nor grocery bills. We still will struggle with things as how to afford Healthcare, and the same will be the case if McCain gets elected. Just inhale, relax a little, and appreciate the fact that we in this great nation have freedom of speech to voice our opions, nice and not so nice, and that we do not have to be afraid to be picked up by authorities and put in jail for some of these fulgar comments. America ain't that bad. It is not perfect, but it is a whole lot better than a majority of these countries we are surrounded with
-
Posted By: m.mcc @ 08/25/2008 4:46:28 PM
Well put, oentje. The only thing I find more disturbing than this race-baiting article is the legions of Obama supporting haters posting here who buy into this garbage. I???m becoming angry as I realize that the DNC and much of the media seem to either embrace or tacitly support this divisive lunatic fringe. The hypocrisy makes them as bad, or worse, than the evangelical and radical right wing extremists. I???m sad to say that the Democratic Party???s core values that I grew up with, and have supported all my life, seem to be fading away.
Although I did not support him, I will have to give a huge amount of credit to Ronald Reagan for his policy and practice of "We can disagree without being disagreeable". But I'd guess this is probably just more irrelevant ancient history to this crowd.-
Posted By: oentje @ 08/25/2008 6:49:15 PM
Amen to that m.mcc. I am very saddened by the fact that the media makes us want to believe that if Obama is not elected we are a racist country. I am an African American and am not voting for him because I do not believe for what he stands for, plus I am feeling more disconnected with the Democratic party than ever. If Obama does not get elected it is because of the issues he stands for and the demoralized party he represents. Not his race (he is bi-racial by the way). Americans are smarter than to believe that. I think I am going to vote independent, even McCain seems a better choice to me at this time.
-
Posted By: m.mcc @ 08/26/2008 12:42:01 AM
Thanks for the balanced insight oentje. So you're an Af/A and I am a WASP (well, only part Protestant) and we are in virtual lockstep on this issue. If you listen to the left wing of our party or (God forbid) the media like Newsweek we not only shouldn't agree, we should be trying to kill each other. What a shame that all the progress that has been made on civil rights for all these years is being marginalized by the media, the party and the nominee's supporters. They have no clue! But hey, for those of us that take the middle of the road we have to expect to get hit from both sides. Right? :)
Keep the faith and God Bless
-
-
-
Posted By: SPORTLOCK09 @ 08/25/2008 4:08:34 PM
I have always been proud of my country. Unapologetically AMERICAN !!!!!!
-
-
Posted By: Omaar @ 08/25/2008 11:45:39 PM
ALL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES AND FORMER PRESIDENTS WE'RE MEMBER S OF (CFR) ...
COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
DAVID ROCKEFELLER: HE RUNS THIS COUNTY AND BOTH PARTIES AND ITS CURRENCY (THE FED.) YOU LIVE IN A SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT, YOU DO YOU THINK YOU'RE FOOLIG...SURELY, ONLY YOURSELVES !!!
FOUNDED BY DAVID ROCKEFELLER
DAVID ROCKEFELLER IS AN UNAPOLOGETIC, UNASHAMED SOCIALIST AND BIG TIME CAPITALIST.
SO YOU (SOCIALIST FEAR MONGERS) SHOULD STOP WITH THE FEAR MONGERING AND SOLELY,TRYING TO TAG & LABEL OBAMA AS A "SOCIALIST"
BECAUSE JOHN MCCAIN, RONALD W. REAGAN, BOTH GEORGE H.W. BUSH & SON GEORGE W. BUSH JR. BILL AN HILLARY CLINTON ARE ALSO (CFR MEMBERS) AS WELL AS OTHER KNOWN PRESIDENT.
ITS A (MONOPOLY) ITS CALLED BEING SMART, BY CONTROLING BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES, WHATEVER THE POLITICAL PERSAUSION, YOUR AGENDA IS FOLLOWED AND ADHERED TO.
DAVID ROCKEFELLER IS (SOCIALIST-CAPITALIST-ELITIST-INTELLECTUALIST)
SO ARE ALL CFR MEMBERS AND YOU LIVE IN A SOCIALIST-CAPITALIST WORLD...ANYWAY
MOST OF THE WORLD IS SOCIALIST (W, EUROPE ) ARE SOCIALIST-CAPITALIST. THEY ARE NOT COMPLAINING, AT ALL, ARE THEY ?
NOTE: JOHN MCCAIN IS A CFR MEMBER AND HIS SOON TO BE RUNNIN MATE "MORMON" MITT ROMNEY AN ALSO BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN...
YOUR PRES. AND VICE PRES. WILL BE CFR MEMBERS, NO MATTER WHAT...NO MATTER WHAT !!
-----------------------------------------------------------
NOW GO AHEAD AND CALL "SEMI-SENILE" JOHN MCCAIN & "MORMON" MITT ROMNEY (SOCIALIST)...
YOU LOW LIFES !!!!
------------------------------
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- Black Friday should unleash pent-up demand. Analyst Bill DreherNYT
- The task is to restore our conservative bona fides James Bopp Jr. on a 10-pt GOP checklist NYT
- Twenty five years feels right in my bones and right in my spirit. Oprah on ending her showCST
- It’s going to be a holy war Orrin Hatch on debate over the Senate health billNYT
- The nation and the world will see him for the coward he is Holder, on trying KSMAP
Discuss