Vying for the Black Vote

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: orflaw @ 01/15/2008 5:57:19 PM

    This is ridiculous and really kind of sad. Hillary's comment was clearly emphasizing the need to have a concerned, capable president in order to move forward on race issues. The comment wasn't pro MLK or anti MLK, nor was it pro Obama or anti Obama. I think she was promoting her experience versus that of Obama, but that is a legitimate concern. I am undecided who I would vote for or who I want to win. I do think Hillary has more experience and sesoning. Her administration would hit the ground running rather than having the learning curve that both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration had pre 9-11. On the other hand I like Obama's vision and I am ready to move on from the Clinton "baggage". I am concerned about his lack of experience, just as I was concerned about Bush's lack of experience seven years ago. I am also concerned about Edwards' lack of experience, and I have bascially decided against him this time around. I haven't counted out Obama. Race has nothing to do with my decision, but playing "Gotcha" on statements such as the one Hillary made really doesn't help clarify the situation. I thought historians were pretty much in agreement that it was the Kennedy assassination and the Johnson presidency that enabled civil rights to move forward in the legislature. Does anyone believe Nixon would have introduced the sweeping civil rights legislation that Johnson got through?

    • Posted By: MissD14 @ 01/15/2008 7:42:38 PM

      Hillary has no experience in Civil Rights, so I don't see how she could have been trying to show her experience. No she was trying to show that the ultimate decisionmaker is the President and could care less about all the people who gave there lives and made so many sacrifices for the Civil Rights Movement to evolve.

      • Posted By: dewcooper @ 01/16/2008 9:36:01 AM

        Not to defend the witch, but I do beleive that Billary was involved with the Civil Rights Movement in college. Obama wasn't...

        • Posted By: MissD14 @ 01/16/2008 12:16:05 PM

          What do you mean when you say involved...............Obama is a Civil Rights Attorney, does that count for something?

          • Posted By: dewcooper @ 01/16/2008 12:22:20 PM

            Not in this day and age.

            • Posted By: MissD14 @ 01/16/2008 12:39:58 PM

              What does time have to do with anything? It does matter when he was, the fact is he was!

              • Posted By: dewcooper @ 01/16/2008 12:44:47 PM

                The 'Civil Rights Movement' was an era, a period in history.

  • Posted By: BubbaDownSouth @ 01/15/2008 4:23:37 PM

    Here is the math:
    About 35% of the voters are democrats, About 30% of the voters are Republicans and about 35% of the voters are Independents.

    No matter which Democrat wins the primary,, he/she will have to get every Democratic voter and at least 57% of the independent voters to get a majority. This still does not guarantee a win, as the Electoral College votes may still be with the Republican.

    So, to be on the safe side the Democrats will need every Democratic voter and 60% of the Independent voters..
    This is going to be hard for Clinton, let alone Obama. He will have to convince a pantload of people in the South (Democrats and Independents) that "he is the one" as Oprah says.
    She is going to have to do the same thing in the same area because she is a woman.

    The numbers are the numbers, so the Republicans are not going quietly into the night.

    • Posted By: Saltydog_0 @ 01/16/2008 12:15:09 PM

      People named Bubba should steer clear of math. Assuming your first statement that 35% of voters are Democrats, 30% Republican and 35% Independants is correct, the Democratic nominee would need 45.7% (not 57%) of the Independant vote to obtain a 51% majority.

      Salty loves word problems!

      • Posted By: dewcooper @ 01/16/2008 12:24:16 PM

        I think his point was to imply that in order to 'beat' the electoral college, a candidate would need more than a 51 percent majority, and thus more Independent voters.

  • Posted By: braindead5149 @ 01/15/2008 4:57:21 PM

    I'm not voting for Obama!! Not because he's black, but because of Muslim blood. They bomb our towers kill our sons destroy our peace of mind and now they want to be our President----I DON'T THINK SO!

    • Posted By: MissD14 @ 01/16/2008 12:22:50 PM

      I don't believe muslim bombed the twin towers, have you seen the move "Loose Change". If you think about it, the twin towers fell like they were being blown up with dynamite, not from the impact of the plane. You do some research on this subject. I believe you should also do more rsearch on the Muslim culture you might be impressed. I am not a Muslim myself, but have friends that are and they are no different than people from other cultures.

    • Posted By: Babygrl55 @ 01/16/2008 9:53:28 AM

      Stupid comments! because most of what I have read here is based upon two things race and gender. Don't vote for Obama because he's black and don't vote for Hillary because she's a woman and of course let's not forget she's also the former President Clinton's wife. People! wait up and spell the coffee its brewing. Black, white, blue, green or orange we need a CHANGE!

      • Posted By: dewcooper @ 01/16/2008 10:14:57 AM

        WHOEVER is elected, regardless of party will be a change. That is a basic fact (differnt person). To just say 'we need change' just for change sake, is an empty statement. What 'change' - higher taxes? weaker borders? more government incroachment into our lives? a quitting of the war on terrorism? When someone simple says, 'I am the candidate of change' YOU need to really look into WHAT are they going to change.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 01/16/2008 10:39:52 AM

    We need oil. We need to profit of oil. So how can we intelligently tap into oil revenues without having the oil companies raise the price. The billions of dollars in profit that they make must be used to pay our debts and balance the budget. We are getting ripped off and this OIL monopoly must be broken up. Any president that can do that and not have these maniacs raise the price to over a hundred dollars a barrel, would truly be amazing. Oil compainis operating in foreign countries must be taxed according to their profits. They must be transparent so everyone can witness that they can pay tax and still make a healthy profit. Cracking Oil, the Drug compainies and the insurance companies would put us back on track.. This task is next to impossible and only a movement can reform these entities.

    • Posted By: dewcooper @ 01/16/2008 11:10:14 AM

      You want to balance the budget - abolish the IRS and eliminate taxes. Then, all the government can spend is what they take in in tariffs.

  • Posted By: ledrwtie @ 01/16/2008 10:56:36 AM

    what i want black people to know that bill clinton is saying that we as blacks are stupid, when his said barack run for whitehouse is a bunch of balony.I want black people to teach the clinton's a lesson.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 01/16/2008 10:48:56 AM

    LEt me get this straight. Saudi Arabia owns thirteen per cent of our U.S. economy. The Jews recieve Billions of dollars in subsidies from the UNITED STATES. IS IT NOT IN BOTH FACTIONS INTEREST TO KEEp THE SATUS QUO. BOTH THE ARABS AND THE ISRAELI's ARE ENJOYING OUR TAX MONEY. THEY MADE US CUT WELFARE BUT K Ept their subsidies intact. THIS IS WHY LIBERMAN AND McCain CAN NEVER WIN. THE ESTABLISHMENT HAS HAD IT. EVERY SECRET SOCIETY IS BEHIND ROMMNEY. Michigan is desperate and everyone knows that ROMMNEY bought his victory.

  • Posted By: Mary Jane @ 01/16/2008 10:45:00 AM

    If Mr. Sellers was organizing sit-ins in 1960, he had to have been around 15 years old. Today everyone c laims they were on the civil rights movements even though they are just not old enough to even understand what it was all about. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this age thing.

  • Posted By: Mary Jane @ 01/16/2008 10:40:07 AM

    If Sellers organized sit-ins in 1960 he had to have been around 15 years old. No offense. Just what I figure timing was in that period. it seems everyone was on the band wagon organizing sit-ins. As I recall history of this period, they started around mid-60's. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

  • Posted By: edpeepers @ 01/15/2008 6:24:46 PM

    Obama has actively avoided bringing up race. I'll admit that his wife does seem to bring it up from time to time, but he is not making it an issue. The Clintons are (at the same time they have no shame pulling the gender card) in an attempt to avoid the real issues. The truth Hillary doesn't want you to fathom is NEITHER Obama nor Hillary has much Washington experience. First Lady counts as much as Obama's state experience, if that -- are we so naive to think that all First Spouses should become qualified to run for president? So with experience aside, we're left with the vision of the two candidates (they're almost carbon copies on issues) which means Obama has it hands down. I was born in 1980. There has been a Bush/Clinton in the white house my entire life. It's time to end the aristocracy. We need fresh blood, not more of the same "what do the polls say today?" politics!

    • Posted By: dewcooper @ 01/16/2008 9:41:49 AM

      Obama doesn't have to bring up race, he has Oprah and others to do it for him (the same with Hillary and her overies). Why do you think we read more about Obama's black father than about his WHITE mother?

  • Posted By: dewcooper @ 01/16/2008 9:14:52 AM

    First off, Hillary was correct (one of the few times) with her comment that it took a legislator (Johnson) to pass Civil Rights legislation. Citizens, no matter how vocal or prominant, cannot do that. The interviewee, however, slipped into a racists statement himself, by only noting the Blacks who were active in the Civil Rights Movement, and neglecting the countless Whites who risked their lives in the process (and actually passed the legislation (Republicans) that Johnson signed.

    As far as race and gender being injected into the process, both candidates and the media have played off of this since Clinton and Obama first announced. In fact, both candidates are betting on their race and gender for votes. Billary is counting on votes BECAUSE she is supposedly a female, and Obama is counting on votes BECAUSE he is black (thought the subject of wether he is 'black enough' is still being debated within the black community).

    However, isn't it really sexist to vote for Hillary BECAUSE she wears a skirt, as well as racists to vote for Obama BECAUSE he is black? In both instances, you are NOT voting for the other candidates because they are neither, which is discrimination by any other name...

  • Posted By: VoteResponsibly08 @ 01/15/2008 10:52:38 PM

    the Clintons always thruout their carreer have been civil rights activits. Bill was know as the Black President
    he had an ofice in harlem. Bill employed more black people than any other president. Black leaders are standing side by side with Hillary, My opinion is that anyone that knows its hisory will agree. I do think Mr. Obama's campaign twisted the Clintons comments. to his own politcal advantage. The media has also twisted for and used th race card for ratings, not really caring who they hurt. Sean Hannity has been talking about this so digustingly and in such a twisted way that it was very sad how he misused his powers to get back ag the Clintons, not caring how he was making the people feel. Everyone knows the Clinton stand on civil rights but he used this to manipulate along with the scum of the earth Mr. Dick Morris,who is the epidimy of the lowest of the lowest human being., he is a disgruntal employee, hypocrit, back stabing small man and I don't mean in stature I mean in mind, heart and soul. We need to bring back the unity of its people and not go back 50 years because these two disgusting men want ratings and have hate in their heart.

    • Posted By: HATETHECLINTON @ 01/16/2008 7:19:00 AM

      Please use spell check

  • Posted By: perci m @ 01/15/2008 6:03:54 PM

    Obama and the jealous afro-american, lousy american are really DISTORTING what Hillary commented about Martin Luther King. I can now see, how evil this Black People just to get the presidency of the USA.
    This is proof that they are more prejudice and hate White America. This blacks is the scam of the earth, they want it all after they have been emancipated. BULL!

    • Posted By: raiderphil @ 01/16/2008 4:22:34 AM

      Where did you come from? Of all the comments that one could make, this one takes the cake. This person needs to get up to date on their facts and come into the 21st century. Put away the noose and come to grips that bigotry is no longer envogue.

    • Posted By: Trenton Sims @ 01/15/2008 6:40:47 PM

      You are obviously not a part of 'white america'" as you called it.. You barely can write an intelligible simple sentence, Have you consiered some psychotherapy?

  • Posted By: RG123 @ 01/16/2008 2:27:13 AM

    What Hillary said is right. The civil rights movement has given tremendous credit to MLK but Lyndon Johnson was never spoken in the same breadth eventhough in my humble opinion his contribution is no less than MLK. Hillary's comments and intention, I believe, is not to belittle MLK, undeniably a great man, but to give proper due to Johnson, an unsung civil rights hero who was diminished by the problem of his time and circumstances. The whole episode seems to be distorted and manupilated by those with with vested interested. If we read between the line, the presence of an unseen hand is obvious.

  • Posted By: VoteResponsibly08 @ 01/15/2008 11:37:49 PM

    T the truth.. When someone resorts to name calling is only to make oneself feel better. The names one uses to insult others is a true refelction of one self............

  • Posted By: VoteResponsibly08 @ 01/15/2008 11:33:39 PM

    To the truth... Read gt yourself a history book...
    Sweet, charming, oh sooooooo good is a silly girls drool..These qualities are nice, but will be disasterous if this is all you can say..For we need a strong experienced candidate.. and that is Hillay Clinton..

  • Posted By: the_truth @ 01/15/2008 11:24:49 PM

    Clintons are sooooo bad and Obama soooo good and sweet, and charming. You call this crap journalism. Write a damn fair article and let people decide who they want to vote for. Don't try to convince people by injecting your own twisted ideas ande opinions in this article. Did newsweek officially endorsed Obama? might as well. When Hllary wins, please don't endorse her, because we sure as hell don't want you scums on our side.

  • Posted By: the_truth @ 01/15/2008 11:19:45 PM

    Does the people at newsweek have an Obama Shrine that they worship everyday. What kind of bulls#it is this article. Talk about being one sided. Obama is the new Saint Obama and Hillary the Devil? what kind of of bulls#it article is this. You folks from Newsweek week must pray to Obama and read chapters from his bible daily. This article is so onsided to the point that I don't believe you people are ethical journalist. If you want Obama to be president so bad maybe newsweek staff and Obama should go buy an island so you one sided bias journalist can elect him president. Newsweek is a disgusting magazine and I will now cancel my subscription. Newsweek is disgusting and blatantly biased.

  • Posted By: VoteResponsibly08 @ 01/15/2008 11:09:06 PM

    No! everone knows the Clintons are and have always been civil rights activist. Bill employed more blacks
    than any other President, He was considred the Black President..So NO!!!!
    This was Obama's campaign and the twisted Media...

  • Posted By: pharding @ 01/15/2008 10:44:01 PM

    Senator Hillary Clinton has said "I don't think either Senator Obama or myself wants to see the injection of race or gender into this campaign." Senator Hillary Clinton has done a good job of doing both herself. The Clintons' are good campaigners and they know just how far to use both issues to their advantage. Senator Hillary, in my opinion, used her feminine skills effectively to win the NH primariy. Again, Senatory Hillary, in my opinion, is cautiously using race to win the vote in Nevada. Hillary Clinton is not weak, Hillary Clinton is a bright talented politician who will use whatever technique she believes is necessary to win. Will it work? I don't know, but I support Senator Obama, not because he is a man but because I do believe America needs a fresh face (change). Hillary is status quo, Hillary will not produce change and like our current president will never be wrong.
    Pat Harding

    Pat Harding

    Pat Harding

  • Posted By: VoteResponsibly08 @ 01/15/2008 10:38:55 PM

    Hillary Clinton should not be seen in any negative way, All her life and Bill's life they have been standing
    and fighting for civil rights. Bill was considered the Black President.He gave the most jobs to blacks when he was president. He had his office in Harlem, therefore her and his comments have been twisted in order to bring the race card by the Obama campaign...The NAACP has endorced Hillary and I don;t think they would do this if they felt the Clinton were racist. These accusations does not hur Hillary like it hurts the people of America. I think the media is also at blame only thinking of their ratings and not caring for the crucial consequenses that may come of this if we continue with this. Martin Luther King would roll in his grave if he thoughtthat at this day and age that we have come so far, we retrack with such cruelty and twisted mis represention. The important now is to really look at the candidates and understand who has the experience to put our nation in their hands. We are facing crucial time, which requier experience. WE have to forget about all negative and really look who can handel the challenges ahead that will and is facing our country.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse