Black supporters react to primary : RSS 0.91http://www.plime.com/politics/en-usBlack supporters react to primary : RSS 0.91http://www.plime.com/politics/<![CDATA[Black supporters react to primary]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/59589/1/
I dont know why this video only shows black supporters I thought that was odd]]>
  comments (19)  share edit history (0)
< 1 >
<![CDATA[DerAlt @ 4/26/2008 2:32:03 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/59589/1/rss0_91.rss#q20« ImNotBlue:This didn't seem very vague to me:

Now, why you call Hagee a "personal friend and confidant" of McCain, I'm not sure. The main difference between Hagee and Wright, is that Obama IS a close friend with Wright, going as far to say that he's "like a member of the family." It is impossible for Obama to have missed all of Wright's anti-American, anti-white, sermons as a member of the Church. That is not to say that Obama necessarily agrees or believes the same thing as Wright, but it is to question Obama's judgment and backbone when it comes to standing up to someone who challenges his beliefs. In other words: If Obama disagrees strongly with Wright now, why didn't he disagree strongly then? And Obama hasn't really answered that question.

The Diamond stuff is changing the subject, so I'm going to ignore it.No, it wasn't vague but it essentially is no real answer. To my way of thinking neither Obama or McCain has answered the question meaninfully. But I do think we're seeing some of Mr McCains temper showing through.

The problem with posting, particularly in the comments area, is the work involved to keep track of sources and be able to submit data to back up ones statements. I have no problem with anyone questioning a statement or asking for proof. I'm 100% behind that idea and wish there could be some requirement to provide footnotes for the "facts" that are posted.

Unfortunately for me, being retired, I have the great opportunity to read and browse the news both on the web and on TV but lack the determination to keep accurate logs on where I saw/heard what. So while I read the difference in relationship between Obama's pastor and McCains friend I cannot provide the souce.

I'll try not to post things that I cannot verify in the future.

However, I can post the story on McCains involvement with Mr Diamond. and it reflects on his self promoted image as "Mr Straight Talk."

http://www.nytimes.com:80/2008/04/25/opinion/25fri1.html?th&emc=th
]]><![CDATA[ImNotBlue @ 4/25/2008 10:05:18 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/59589/1/rss0_91.rss#q19« DerAlt : I wonder if Obama or Hillary for that matter would get away with a non-answer like "Nonsense?"
We'll see how investigative the media is going to be.

While they are at it they could check into the association of McCain with Donald Diamond. He's an Arizona multi-millionare that has had sone very intersting favors from Sen. McCain.This didn't seem very vague to me:

It’s nonsense. I don’t have anything more to say about that. Of course–I apologize for that. It’s nonsense. I reject that categorically and I would point out there’s a lot of people who have endorsed me. They support my views. That does not mean that I support–would I consider repudiating his endorsement? I certainly condemn those parts of his remarks. I continue to appreciate his support for the state of Israel and for many of the good things that he and his church has done. But I repudiate as strongly as possible those remarks and those of the Catholic Church as well.
Now, why you call Hagee a "personal friend and confidant" of McCain, I'm not sure. The main difference between Hagee and Wright, is that Obama IS a close friend with Wright, going as far to say that he's "like a member of the family." It is impossible for Obama to have missed all of Wright's anti-American, anti-white, sermons as a member of the Church. That is not to say that Obama necessarily agrees or believes the same thing as Wright, but it is to question Obama's judgment and backbone when it comes to standing up to someone who challenges his beliefs. In other words: If Obama disagrees strongly with Wright now, why didn't he disagree strongly then? And Obama hasn't really answered that question.

The Diamond stuff is changing the subject, so I'm going to ignore it.]]><![CDATA[DerAlt @ 4/25/2008 9:33:27 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/59589/1/rss0_91.rss#q18« ImNotBlue : You are a correct, Hagee is just a guy who endorced McCain. Here's a story about it for you:

Although, I don't understand why the Hagee non-story makes you hate McCain.I wonder if Obama or Hillary for that matter would get away with a non-answer like "Nonsense?"
We'll see how investigative the media is going to be.

While they are at it they could check into the association of McCain with Donald Diamond. He's an Arizona multi-millionare that has had sone very intersting favors from Sen. McCain.]]><![CDATA[DerAlt @ 4/25/2008 9:24:45 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/59589/1/rss0_91.rss#q17« 1thirteen3:My theory for that is not because all the whites in Pennsylvania are racist, but rather it's black culture to "stick together." Thus, Hillary is viewed as the stronger candidate in general, but in high black districts, she loses because of the "stick together" ideal.

Right, I think it's stupid to be honest with you. It's collectivism and I hate it. I actually hate referring to people as "black" or "white" because a stereotype automatically enters someone's head. But it's sometimes necessary because we're so interested in demographics.

Unless Hillary a.) becomes the nominee and b.) doesn't choose Obama as her running mate."Sticking together" is a euphemism for predudice.

Looks like the whites "stuck together" too. I'm not trying to be holier than thou, I think we should understand the social forces that exist all over the world.

The "honorable" Rev. Wright had retired from the church last month. Obama has repudiated what Wright has said and shows no indication that he ever shared those beliefs.

John Hagee is not McCains spiritual advisor, he's a personal friend and confidant and McCain has actively sought his support for over a year. Where is the media here asking some hard questions like they've done with Obama.

Regardless of what it sounds like I'm not trying to support, in these posts, any of the candidates.
I'm just upset that we do the same things over and over. In the last election John Kerry was smeared, distorted and maligned unfairly. It doesn't matter if you hated John Kerry the point is that with these tactics against candidates we end up voting on everything but actual issues.

It seems to be happening again.]]><![CDATA[ImNotBlue @ 4/25/2008 8:59:54 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/59589/1/rss0_91.rss#q16« DerAlt : Funny though that very few folks are upset with McCain's confidant, Pastor John Hagee who claims New Orleans brought the disaster on itself and seems to want the US to bomb Iran to fulfil a bible prophesy.
« 1thirteen3:From what I understand, the difference is between a spiritual advisor and a pastor that just endorsed McCain. I don't know McCain's relationship with Hagee, but as I understand it Hagee is not McCain's spiritual advisor, nor is he McCain's pastor. Again, I could be wrong, but I do think that's the issue.

I disagree completely with Hagee, and it just goes to show me why I hated McCain in the first place.
You are a correct, Hagee is just a guy who endorced McCain. Here's a story about it for you:
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/24/mccain-calls-hagee-views-nonsense/


Although, I don't understand why the Hagee non-story makes you hate McCain.]]><![CDATA[1thirteen3 @ 4/25/2008 5:32:17 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/59589/1/rss0_91.rss#q15« DerAlt:To think that in today's world that racism has been modified to the point where it isn't a big issue with white people is a bit out of touch.

The advances that minorities have made in the last 70 years or so has been mandated by Federal law for the most part and not because people have become enlightened.Wow, I thought we'd NEVER agree on something this divisive, but I agree with you IN FULL. (Though I have a feeling you might disagree with me after this sentence.) I think that Affirmative Action and the Civil Rights Act have done much more harm than good. Yeah, a bunch of people have been enlightened, but at the same time AA and CRA have suppressed minorities into an incapable group of people which then translates to the majority that they only do well because of AA or the CRA. Shelby Steele has a great book on this.

Of course race is an issue here, it always is even when there no outcry. Apparently it's part of the human condition to to support "one of us." It doesn't seem to matter whether the issue is race, religion, ethnicity or nationality people will support "their own kind."

I do think the real change is the need we feel to cover it up by citing policy, ideology or any number of reasons. Of course anyone looking for an excuse of putting Obama down will point out Rev Wright.
I think it's a little ridiculous to put Obama down just for what Rev. Wright said. I do, however, fully support attacking Obama for continuing to use Rev. Wright as his spiritual advisor after the comments. It's one thing to attack someone for association. It's an whole other thing to attack someone because they revere the person.

Funny though that very few folks are upset with McCain's confidant, Pastor John Hagee who claims New Orleans brought the disaster on itself and seems to want the US to bomb Iran to fulfil a bible prophesy.
From what I understand, the difference is between a spiritual advisor and a pastor that just endorsed McCain. I don't know McCain's relationship with Hagee, but as I understand it Hagee is not McCain's spiritual advisor, nor is he McCain's pastor. Again, I could be wrong, but I do think that's the issue.

I disagree completely with Hagee, and it just goes to show me why I hated McCain in the first place.]]><![CDATA[1thirteen3 @ 4/25/2008 5:25:46 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/59589/1/rss0_91.rss#q14« DerAlt : Just to focus on the single issue, race will be a very large part of Obama's problem.

In Pennsylvania Obama won every black district and lost every white one.My theory for that is not because all the whites in Pennsylvania are racist, but rather it's black culture to "stick together." Thus, Hillary is viewed as the stronger candidate in general, but in high black districts, she loses because of the "stick together" ideal.

It works the other way also, blacks vote for Obama in droves just as Irish vote for Irish, Jews vote for Jews and people vote for their own regional candidates. That's one reason choosing a Vice President has always been decided with these issues in mind.
Right, I think it's stupid to be honest with you. It's collectivism and I hate it. I actually hate referring to people as "black" or "white" because a stereotype automatically enters someone's head. But it's sometimes necessary because we're so interested in demographics.

It's going to be a long time yet before we can say that race is not an issue. Unfortunately in this race it will be THE issue.
Unless Hillary a.) becomes the nominee and b.) doesn't choose Obama as her running mate.]]><![CDATA[lilyang @ 4/25/2008 5:14:56 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/59589/1/rss0_91.rss#q13
One, I think that you could vote for Obama solely because of his race and not be racist if you are black. Mainly this would be because of the belief that you need solidarity as long as it puts someone more like yourself into a previously denied position. This rests on the assumption that racism is a societal problem in which case, black folks can be prejudiced but not racist because as a group they do not have the appropriate economic power. In other words, if racism is about power of one group oppressing another, and black folks have traditionally been that group, voting for a guy to achieve a position solely on his race would actually seem like a legitimate way to fight racism, prejudiced though it may be.

I do think that there was an agenda in this report, realized or not.

The black community, and I'm saying this as a white guy, is a lot more diverse in ideas and opinions than this report showed.]]><![CDATA[DerAlt @ 4/25/2008 2:14:36 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/59589/1/rss0_91.rss#q12« 2manyusernames : I didn't say it wasn't an issue, just that it wasn't the issue. It is not the primary reason for people not wanting to vote for him.I do understand that is your opinion. I'm saying that it doesn't jibe with data from, well lets just stay with Pennsylvania.

Somehow all the black districts agreed with his political stance and all the white districts didn't.

Do you really have any doubt that racial predudice is alive and well? It works in all directions, not just white against black. The blacks are just as predudiced, as I said, it just seems to be part of the human condition and I don't think it will stop anytime soon.

Remember this was a Democratic primary with two candidates that are not significantly different in philosophy. Certainly not enough to split the white /black vote on issues alone.

I think we need to face up to the fact that ALL sorts of bias exists and still affects a good deal of our daily lives.]]><![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 4/25/2008 1:50:35 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/59589/1/rss0_91.rss#q11« DerAlt : To think that in today's world that racism has been modified to the point where it isn't a big issue with white people is a bit out of touch.I didn't say it wasn't an issue, just that it wasn't the issue. It is not the primary reason for people not wanting to vote for him.]]><![CDATA[DerAlt @ 4/25/2008 12:39:14 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/59589/1/rss0_91.rss#q10« 2manyusernames:It might be an issue, but I wouldn't say it was "THE issue". Sure some won't vote for him because he is 1/2 black but far more won't vote for him because of his views, his socialism, liberalism, his policies, etc.

I would bet that more blacks will racistly vote for him just because he is 1/2 black than whites who won't vote for him because of his skin color.

100% of people I know that aren't voting for him are doing so because of his policies. Obviously there is no way to know but I still think the percentage of whites who won't vote for Obama strictly because of his skin color is small.

Not saying racism doesn't exist, just that the majority of people are looking at him for his policies. Also of course the "rev" Wright situation and his wife's statements aren't helping either, but again those are not racially based.To think that in today's world that racism has been modified to the point where it isn't a big issue with white people is a bit out of touch.

The advances that minorities have made in the last 70 years or so has been mandated by Federal law for the most part and not because people have become enlightened.

Of course race is an issue here, it always is even when there no outcry. Apparently it's part of the human condition to to support "one of us." It doesn't seem to matter whether the issue is race, religion, ethnicity or nationality people will support "their own kind."

I do think the real change is the need we feel to cover it up by citing policy, ideology or any number of reasons. Of course anyone looking for an excuse of putting Obama down will point out Rev Wright.

Funny though that very few folks are upset with McCain's confidant, Pastor John Hagee who claims New Orleans brought the disaster on itself and seems to want the US to bomb Iran to fulfil a bible prophesy.

In all fairness that last bit about Iran is not confirmed as fact but I don't see the media doing much reseach into it either.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/hagee-mccain-endorsement/
]]><![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 4/25/2008 10:22:46 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/59589/1/rss0_91.rss#q9
I would bet that more blacks will racistly vote for him just because he is 1/2 black than whites who won't vote for him because of his skin color.

100% of people I know that aren't voting for him are doing so because of his policies. Obviously there is no way to know but I still think the percentage of whites who won't vote for Obama strictly because of his skin color is small.

Not saying racism doesn't exist, just that the majority of people are looking at him for his policies. Also of course the "rev" Wright situation and his wife's statements aren't helping either, but again those are not racially based.]]><![CDATA[DerAlt @ 4/25/2008 8:42:17 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/59589/1/rss0_91.rss#q8« 1thirteen3 : See this is part of my major issues with the whole Obama thing.

First of all, Hillary's campaign was no more negative than Obama's. But the Obama love in the media has characterized Hillary as this evil attacker and Obama as this defenseless little being. Both campaigns were negative, and Hillary won.

The second part of it is race. Two of the interviewees blamed Obama's loss on race. Again, this has to do with the media's portrayal of Obama as this little guy that's being unfairly trated. It reminds people of color (specifically) of slavery, and it almost forces them to vote for Obama to avoid being oppressed again.

This primary is nothing about race. Why when Obama loses is it racist, but when Hillary loses it's not sexist? It's a very stupid way to look at thingsJust to focus on the single issue, race will be a very large part of Obama's problem.

In Pennsylvania Obama won every black district and lost every white one.

There are many, many people in this country that will not vote for a black man for president no matter what. I know some people like this I assume you do too. I spent quite a bit of time in the South during the 50's. Race then was an open issue and there was official discrimination.

There probably, hopefully, has been some enlightenment since then but it has been more prudent to just keep your feelings on the issue quiet.

It works the other way also, blacks vote for Obama in droves just as Irish vote for Irish, Jews vote for Jews and people vote for their own regional candidates. That's one reason choosing a Vice President has always been decided with these issues in mind.

It's going to be a long time yet before we can say that race is not an issue. Unfortunately in this race it will be THE issue.]]><![CDATA[ImNotBlue @ 4/25/2008 8:35:18 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/59589/1/rss0_91.rss#q7
__________

As for the content, this is an interesting story! I saw a report last night that said of the black primary voters (it may have been black men, I don't remember) in Pennsylvania... Obama took something like 96% of the vote!

On "The View" one of the hosts (Sherri Shepherd) said that she was going to vote for Obama simply because "He looks like me"... ie, he's black.

Now, we've discussed this before, and I'm sure it will keep coming up... the question of "Is it racists it vote for Obama just because he's black?"

(IMO) Yes, it is racists. If you vote for someone because they are a particular race, is just like NOT voting for someone because they are a particular race. Both are racist.

And if nothing else, this Obama candidacy will question the typical line: "White people are racists against blacks." And ask, "Are black people racist towards whites?"]]><![CDATA[1thirteen3 @ 4/25/2008 3:04:36 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/59589/1/rss0_91.rss#q6
First of all, Hillary's campaign was no more negative than Obama's. But the Obama love in the media has characterized Hillary as this evil attacker and Obama as this defenseless little being. Both campaigns were negative, and Hillary won.

The second part of it is race. Two of the interviewees blamed Obama's loss on race. Again, this has to do with the media's portrayal of Obama as this little guy that's being unfairly trated. It reminds people of color (specifically) of slavery, and it almost forces them to vote for Obama to avoid being oppressed again.

This primary is nothing about race. Why when Obama loses is it racist, but when Hillary loses it's not sexist? It's a very stupid way to look at things]]><![CDATA[xenity7 @ 4/25/2008 1:59:28 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/59589/1/rss0_91.rss#q5<![CDATA[gammerus @ 4/25/2008 1:14:31 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/59589/1/rss0_91.rss#q4<![CDATA[dork @ 4/25/2008 12:03:25 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/59589/1/rss0_91.rss#q3« chinook : Why wouldn't you expect any "kind of people" to be voting? Wouldn't you expect, oh I don't know, everyone to vote?I just was surprised I guess that people dont seem to really know about whats going on and after having a pretty bad president for 8 years, still dont seem to care.

The kind of people I am refering to are the uninformed kind.]]><![CDATA[chinook @ 4/24/2008 11:56:59 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/59589/1/rss0_91.rss#q2« dork : 
You should see what kind of people are going to be voting.Why wouldn't you expect any "kind of people" to be voting? Wouldn't you expect, oh I don't know, everyone to vote?]]>