Positive Obama thread

LAphoenix

It seems like everyone is agreeing that the trip has been a HUGE success for Obama.   McCain's probably kicking himself for goading him into going.  While Bush is yakking about "time horizons," everyone over there seems to be on board with the 16-month withdrawal.  The use of the word horizon is perfect for Bush, because as someone on the radio pointed out today, horizons are by definition unreachable.  Then we have McCain talking about the imaginary border between Iraq and Pakistan and how there weren't any oil spills after Katrina.  It only takes one quick google to find out that's a big fat lie.  And apparently Obama, himself, is to blame for the record-high gas prices!  I guess if you've got no ammunition, you're going to throw bricks.

      

NoH8

I don';t think McCain goaded obama into going on the trip, but I do think McCainb thinks he goaded Obama. I believe Obama would have gone either way, he simply had no time during his run against Hillary since she stayed in the race so long. McCain isn';t coming across well in the media these days. He sounds like an angry old man who's not going to change his mind about anything, He needs a pr person to help his presentation, but I hope he doesn';t get one. i'll be anxious to see the polls over the next few weeks,.

sccruiser

Obama just keeps rising!! Everyone is talking about his successful trip to the Middle East and Europe. All the while McCain is having trouble getting any press time at all. He keeps complaining but no one is listening!! Evidently one of the big papers (think it was the NY Times) recently published an editorial by Obama. McCain sent one in--and they returned it--didn't publish it--saying they'd be happy to publish an editorial by him--if he'd keep on the subject being discussed!! Hello, asleep at the wheel I think, or missing a few spark plugs!

Obama seems to be going up and up in the polls. And as always, McCain can't separate himself from the Bush regime no matter how hard he tries! Even continuing on and on about how he backed the surge from the start--and whose idea was this "plan"--Bushy's--he'll never convince us that he isn't going to be a Bushy 3rd term because he continually responds to questions with answers that tell us he is exactly that--a 3rd term for the Bush regime.

I've really been enjoying the press coverage of Barack's trip. Have a great day all. 

Beesie

Okay, I know that this thread is a love-fest for Obama and I won't say anything contrary to that.  But I am surprised at the comment about the media - about how great it is that Obama is getting good media coverage while McCain "is having trouble getting any press time at all". 

In a democracy, isn't the press supposed to be neutral (with the exception of editorial pages), providing fair, even and balanced coverage of both candidates? 

If you prefer Obama, don't you want him to win fair and square, not simply because he's the candidate that the media have selected as their choice?  Shouldn't the next president be elected by the people, not by the media?  If both candidates don't get equal and unbiased coverage, how can you say that it was a fair election and a legitimate win?

One of the reasons why there is so much dissatisfaction on the part of many Clinton supporters and why many will not join the Obama fold is because of lingering anger at the blatant unfairness of the media coverage during the primary campaign.  This has created a rift in the Democratic party that will be hard to heal; for some, it will never heal.  If the national election is decided on the same basis, won't this be harmful to the country?

Doesn't a biased media reinforce the divisiveness of the last 7 years?   And this is a good thing?

AnnNYC

If the media are simply running tape of McCain being cranky and Obama being statesmanlike -- wouldn't it be bias on the part of the press to "massage" the McCain presentation into something less cranky and more statesmanlike????

 (Just my thoughts, Beesie -- no hard feelings!)

EDIT: And just so you know, I was very pro-Hillary, and recognized that she was questioned far more "roughly" by the press. 

But in the U.S. press, especially during much of the current Bush administration, there has been (IMHO) an idea that "fair" and "balanced" means you have to defend the indefensible!  To allow a good spin to be put on a terrible situation (like the response to Katrina)!  That's kind of what I was getting at with my comment!  If Obama looks impressive on his trip, he looks impressive!  So be it!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dx 3/9/2007, IDC, <1cm, Stage I, Grade 2, 0/5 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2-

Beesie

Ann, I absolutely agree.  If the coverage of McCain were 'massaged' to make him look better, that would be bias and I wouldn't agree with that any more than I agree with the coverage (or more to the point, the lack of coverage) that McCain is getting.  On principle I believe that bias in the media is a bad thing, whether the basis is against the candidate of my choice or in favor of the candidate of my choice.  I don't change my principles depending on who is benefitting.  And as I see it, media bias can be exhibited in two ways.  The first is by editing a story or film clip to make a candidate appear more favorable or less favorable.  The second is by devoting more column inches and more media time to one candidate than the other.  That's the point that bygrace made about the recent press coverage, and that's what I'm questioning Obama supporters about. Just because your candidate is being favored, does that make it right?

BTW, personally I don't think that McCain looks or sounds cranky, but that's my interpretation and I understand that others might see something different.  As long as the press shows him and we all get to see him, we each can form our own opinion.  By the same token, when I see Obama speak off the cuff (rather than in a prepared speech), I don't see him as being impressive at all.  But I know that the Obama supporters here see it differently. Since we've all had lots of opportunities to see him in the media, we've each had the opportunity to form our own opinions. That's the way it should be.

As for whether there really is media bias towards Obama, according to a Rasmussen report released this week, it seems that more and more people think so.  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11912.html   (You can also get the full report on the Rasmussen site, but the url was really long so I didn't want to include it here.)

LAphoenix

I agree that it's getting harder and harder to find straight news these days.  It seems to me there are two different impulses going on in the media.  One is feeding the 24/7 cycle.  As many news people have said over the last few days, Obama is getting more air time and print space because he's new and different.  People know McCain; he's been around forever, running for president and being the "maverick."  Nothing new there.  Same with the Clintons.  People are less familiar with Obama, and he's the first black presidential nominee.  He's history-in-the-making, no matter what happens in November.  And he's young and attractive.  News stations and shows have to sell ads; Obama sells, McCain doesn't.    

Then there's the polarization of the news outlets.  It started with Fox, being rabidly right-wing, while pretending to be fair and balanced.  MSNBC followed suit, in the other direction.  More and more news outlets are staking out their territory and pandering to their target audiences.  The Internet is even more polarized.  The distinction between opinion and news reporting is becoming more and more blurred.  I guess this is another manifestation of the "feeding the 24-7 maw" syndrome. 

Some folks believe that news outlets try to get specific candidates elected, but I suspect it has more to do with ratings and the immediate bottom line.  I'm not sure which is worse! 

Anonymous

I saw part if Hannity's interview with McCain tonight.  Hannity asked McCain if he felt that the media was giving more time to Obama and about it's fairness.  McCain only responded, IT IS WHAT IT IS.  Then Hannity quoted the Rasmussen poll to McCain.  McCain responded that the American people were smart.  McCain wasn't a grouchy old man.  He was quite kind about the whole thing.  He needs to get LOUD!  And, as far as McCain being around a long time thus, old news..that's ridiculous.

sccruiser

The news is the news, and bias or not, it is up to the individual to determine what is the truth they believe is in the report. Of course the news channels are pandering to viewers as the higher the ratings the more money they can get for the advertising. Is that right? Of course not, but what choice do voters have? We can change the channel or cancel the newspaper subscription. I read and watch the news, and pull out what I consider to be the truth. It has been said, that when looking at 2 sides, the truth is somewhere in the middle. The candidates don't have any decision-making responsibility in how much the media puts their campaign on the air. But, McCain is right, it is what it is. Simply said and with a clenched jaw. He, to me, is oh-hum, and very very boring. It is interesting that his "my dear friends" and clenched jaw with a look of the teacher telling the student what is true, is simply another form of arrogance. I think all politicians are arrogant--it comes with the territory--some more so than others. We could all watch the same clip or read the same report; and we will each have a different interpretation. Our individual experiences will never be the same. And each experience is valid. We just agree to disagree.

After 8 years of Bush, and all the arrogance, we are ready for a party switch. It happens every 4 or 8 years. Bush has run this country into the ground, and caused this country to be the laughing stock of other countries. We have lost our legacy of helping other countries to improve their way of life, we have ignored the poor in this country, and we have tromped upon other countries with an arrogance that is truly dangerous--in my opinion, more dangerous than the terrorists we were trying to roust out of Iraq. We have behaved like terrorists, or more importantly, our government and the leaders in the White House have, and in doing so have put all of us in grave danger. Why would we want a 3rd term of Republican regime in the White House--for more of the same?

I look at voting for the lesser of two evils. After all we only have 2 choices. And at this time in this history of our country, I'm not willing to throw away my measly vote so that we end up with the 3rd term of Bush-like rein of arrogance. I'm sure McCain is not exactly like Bush, but I'm not taking any chances. I'd love to write in Edwards, or Clinton on the ballot, but not at the expense of our country continuing to be seen as oppressive imperialists! I'm ready for a change in government that doesn't pander to the rich as the last 2 terms in the White House has done. Historically in this country, the Democrats have been for and stood up for the working man; and the Republicans have backed the business side and corporations, IMHO. I'm ready to bring back the middle class in a strong way and improve the living and working conditions of the lower class. If we don't do that, there will come a time when we won't be finding produce on the shelves and we will be driving (if we can afford gas) to the fields to pick our own! We will be changing our own sheets in the hotels, washing the dishes before we prepare our own meal in the restaurant and serve it to ourselves at the table. We rely on a huge population of minimum wage earners to do all that backbreaking work that we "are too good to do," and yet we don't want to provide these workers with a living wage. There comes a time when we must look at how we treat people and what we expect in return. We must come to see this world as a part of each person who walks on the planet, no matter where they live, or what they do to live. We, as a nation, have raised our politician to be "arrogant," because We, as a nation are arrogant, and believe that we should have what we want, when we want it, no matter who we trample on to get it. And no matter what anyone believes, it always comes down to who do I walk over to get what I want--that's the meritocracy we have created in this country--not the democracy we think the oppressed people of this world want, need, and "We, the wonderful US is going to GIVE them the opportunity to have." Don't get me wrong, I am happy to be a US citizen, but I am ashamed of how our country interacts with others. Wouldn't you feel like that if your children behaved that way? We need to be proud of what we do right, but we also need to be able to criticize what this government does badly. Isn't that called Freedom of Speech? 

By the way, have you been watching Black in America on CNN? Great view of a full range of what it's like to be Black in this country--whether you are prospering and gaining wealth; or struggling to put food on the table for your family and trying as a single parent to raise your children to understand that an education is the ticket out in this country. An amazing little boy interviewed on the program is entering 5th grade this fall, and has been to 5 schools so far!! Most of us, and our children have not had that experience (speaking as a white woman). I hope those that need to watch it are; and not just those who have already "got it." Tonight the focus is on the Black male in our society. This documentary demonstrates how much more we need to talk about race in this country, and those that don't watch it will continue to believe that everything is just hunky-dory, and that there is no need to even consider race as a factor in success and the American Dream in the US. 

NoH8

Ahhh Grace, so glad to see your posts. It's amazing that with all McCain's whining about the press he fails to mention that he didn't invite the press along to his last trips overseas and that his campaign is selective about only having proMcCain people on the plane. Also, Obama used campaign funds to bring along the press and McCain chose not to have his campaign pay for his trips to bring the press. I doubt that was reported on faux news. Did you see where Scott McClellan (sp) confirmed that the Bush administration fed O'Reilly and the other nighttime pundits talking points for the shows. I'm so surprised LOL.

There was an interesting discussion on a local morning show this week about race and older white voter's reluctance to embrace Obama. While not using the term covert racism, most agreed, even anti Obama people, that race is a subliminal factor in trusting Obama and that for some in this bracket the litmus test of a black man is stronger than would be for a white man. A white Obama might have to jump through 10 hoops to convince them where as a black Obama has to jump through 50 to get the same reaction, Those in this group with adamantly insist that race has nothing to do with the equation, not because (most) they are lying but because they don't even realize it themselves. In another generation this won't be the case, because older folks are generally more resistant to change than their younger counterparts and when the younger folks become the older folks, they will already have more open minds.

I think it's funny that McCain thinks the american people are smart, because what gives with them electing Bush? Of course he's not grouchy when a republican news station is giving him positive press. I think the opposite is true that too many americans either don't care enough to get their political information from multiple sources to weed out bias and/or believe sound bites tell the whole story and/or don't know how to critically evaluate research/polls to understand how they're done. I think most Americans have their heads in the sand about a variety of foreign issues, because of that arrogance you speak of grace-- as a country we're very ethnocentric, in my opinion,.

I think the press is wrong in perpetuating the  misconception that Obama is arrogant. I heard some pundits who are usually balanced talking about how the Germany speech was arrogant. I think that's ridiculous. I was thrilled to see foreigners waving American flags. We haven't seen that since right after 9/11 before Bush chose to invade Iraq rather than going after Osama bin Forgotten and before Bush lied to the world about Iraq's danger to the world. I desperately want to see respect for the USA restored and love Obama's demeanor in being part of the world community once again.

Grace, I didn't have cable for the first 24 hrs I was back home and I was going through withdrawls without that. I finally saw the first part of Black in America and it was well done. I felt frustrated that the people who most need to see such a documentary probably won't and if they do, won't view it with an open mind and heart.

LAphoenix

I watched the CNN-sponsored Q&A with Obama in Chicago this morning and the theme of it seemed to be all those damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't media issues.  If he says he's not Muslim to correct the record, then he's implying there's something wrong with being Muslim, if he goes overseas in response to McCain saying he doesn't have any foreign policy experience, then he's being presumptuous and arrogant (is arrogant the new uppity?)  If he went to visit the wounded vets with the press, then he would be politicizing, if he doesn't go, then he's being disrespectful.  Is he black enough, is he too black?  I think he's shown humor and restraint when dealing with these no-win questions.  I didn't know about McCain not paying for press on his trips, Amy.  But that explains a lot.  Obama mentioned all the countries that McCain had gone to after he had clinched the nomination, and then said that he wasn't going to apologize for his campaign doing a great job organizing and publicizing his trip.   

Obama also spoke about the importance of reestablishing good relationships with other countries in dealing with all sorts of problems that affect Americans.  And it was good to see all those Germans waving American flags instead of burning them.  I don't know if Americans will get their heads out of the sand and figure out that what happens in Europe, India, the Middle East, etc. very much impacts what happens with their jobs, energy costs, the environment, etc.  But I'm glad that Obama understands it and can talk coherently and correctly about it. 

I saw part of Black in America and thought it was good and provocative.  The whole question about paying at-risk kids to get good grades/test scores is an interesting one.  I also watched the documentary of HBO about No Child Left Behind and Thurgood Marshall High School in Baltimore.  That was pretty depressing.  So many kids without fathers.  So few parents who are involved in their kid's schooling, for whatever reason.  The kids who succeed in spite of it all are truly amazing though.

   

NoH8

I saw the unity conference too. Obama made a few delicate comical responses that I thought he pulled off well. i think you're right, LA that some people seem intent on criticizing him if he says the sky is blue rather than cerulean. If he says cerulean, he's an elitist, if he says blue he's flip flopping.

I've also seen those HBO documentaries, although it was while unpacking. So heartbreaking. Growing up I never realized how lucky I was to go to a good public school that prepared me for college. I wonder how I would have turned out if I was born into someone else's skin and situation, whether that be "black in america", in a middle eastern country where i grew up subserviant to men fearing execution because i was gay etc.

LAphoenix

I thought another interesting point Obama made at the conference was how Europe is paying the price for their lack of diversity, that their populations are stagnating.  And how by contrast America is so much stronger and resilient because of its diversity.  It's easy to forget that when looking for scapegoats.

I read today that the Germans checked into Obama's geneology before his visit and found that one of his ancestors came from there.  That pleased them no end apparently.  Even the conservatives (who I guess would be centrists in the U.S.) like him, for all the reasons his U.S. supporters do.  He means hope and renewal to them too.  It's a big responsibility he's carrying on his shoulders, that's for sure.

AnnNYC

LAphoenix -- I expect I'll be quoting you throughout the campaign if accusations of "arrogance" continue ("is arrogant the new uppity?")  !!!

sccruiser

Isn't it interesting that many white people think that black voters are voting for Obama BECAUSE HE IS BLACK!! What's up with that? I'm sure they aren't insinuating that black voters aren't educated enough to vote for someone based on her/his platform?

So, if they believe that is true, then wouldn't it be true that they believe that white voters are voting for McCain BECAUSE HE IS WHITE? Or would that mean that white voters are stupid, and don't know how to vote for a candidate based on platform?

How ugly and arrogant that white people can make such arrogant statements! I must say that I wasn't shocked by that. Just what I thought--RACISM IS ALIVE AND WELL IN THIS COUNTRY!!

There is so much about race that the citizens of this country need to have an honest, gut-wrenching, get it out of your system dialogue needs to take place. And yet, I can't help noticing that at a McCain function when the camera pans the audience, it's really, really hard to find even one person of color! I'm getting rather disgusted with the unsubstantiated information and polls that appear everywhere on the internet. It's amazing how gullible some white people are, and lacking in any political education.

Gosh darn, I dare say, isn't it those uppity whites who are just raising all kind of stink about this election and who is telling the truth? I kind of like white uppity as opposed to white arrogance. And being white, I can say it too. Makes me frustrated enough that I hope we have a Black President in 2009--bout time.  

LAphoenix

Ann, I hope you won't have to quote me, but thanks!  It seems that McCain is going down the Rovian path with his latest ad about Obama and the canceled visit to the wounded soldiers in Germany.  We know he's just lying.  Not misinterpreting or distorting, but plain ol' lying.  I hope Obama does his own ad citing all the times McCain voted against veteran benefits.  He doesn't have to impugn McCain's character with lies, he can just do a laundry list of his "no" votes.  He didn't even support the GI bill that just passed, the one that even Bush signed.  And then he claims to be an expert on foreign policy but doesn't remember that Putin isn't the president of Russia anymore, or that Czechoslovakia hasn't been a country since the early 1990s.  Shades of George W.  Or Reagan after Alzheimers.  Hard to tell what's going on in his brain.  Is he forgetting?  Or just not making any effort to be correct?    

Interesting report from George Mason University about the recent media coverage.  Obama has indeed gotten more coverage, but it's been more negative than McCain's.  In fact, the network news coverage had the same percentage of negative Obama comments as Fox, around 77%.  So more coverage isn't necessarily better, or fairer.  Personally I would love it if the press did pay more attention to the McCain campaign.                  

I'm not at all surprised to hear that the Fox talking heads were getting their talking points directly from the White House.  I think Fox was just following the Bush administration prescriptive of disguising true intentions with opposite labels.  "Fair and balanced" really means propaganda just like the Clear Skies initiative really means pollution and No Child Left Behind means no child's behind left. 

Amy G.                       

    

NoH8

I wasn't aware that european populations were stagnating. I have a friend in holland and she tells me, at least there that is not the case.

I'm not surprised about Faux, but I guess I'm still disappointed. It's one thing to come by views I disagree with honestly, but another to blindly believe what's told.

I saw the same statistics about positive vs. negative comments, but the report that I saw was on the broadcast media (ABC/CBS/NBC) and not the cablew channels.This was from a watchdog group that does fact checks and has no left or right bias. Obama had 27% positive comments vs. 43% positive for Obama. The liberal media bias is more propaganda from the right.

Do you guys listen or watch Rachel Maddow? She's very liberal, but also one of the brightest pundits. She's only in her early 30s and was a Rhodes Scholar. She's also one of the only out lesbians that I know of doing political commentary on tv. Not sure about radio because I don't have satellite radio, http://www.rachelmaddow.com/ . She's got a great sense of humor too. I'm totally infatuated with her.

LAphoenix

I can understand why you're infatuated with Rachel Maddow!  She's wicked smart (as she would say), knowledgeable, attractive and seemingly very sweet.  If I were a lesbian I'd probably have a crush on her too.  I gather she's the golden-haired child over at MSNBC right now.  They're giving her her own show, yes?  You can hear her radio show live online on the Air America website.  If you become a member, you can also hear rebroadcasts.  I also love her sometimes co-host and "political guru" David Bender.  He's sort of the male version of her, except older and more optimistic.  Maddow does get gloomy about things sometimes.  She said yesterday that she thinks McCain is going to win, which was depressing!   

Speaking of lesbians, I'm sure you were thrilled to hear that the Justice Dept. was firing, or not hiring in the first place, qualified people because of their sexual orientation, real or rumored.  And no doubt, if they had to do it again, they would.   

Beesie

Isn't it interesting that many white people think that black voters are voting for Obama BECAUSE HE IS BLACK!! What's up with that? I'm sure they aren't insinuating that black voters aren't educated enough to vote for someone based on her/his platform?

So, if they believe that is true, then wouldn't it be true that they believe that white voters are voting for McCain BECAUSE HE IS WHITE? Or would that mean that white voters are stupid, and don't know how to vote for a candidate based on platform?

Oh, come on, bygrace.  In the primary, when approx. 90% of black voters supported Obama but Obama and Clinton had very similar positions on most of the major issues (and Clinton's track record of supporting the African American community was equal to or better than Obama's), do you really think that it was Obama's platform that drove all that support?  Of course not.  I've seen quite a few interviews with black voters - educated, intelligent people - who admit that they will be voting for Obama because it's a significant moment in black history in America.  There also are various election surveys that show the same thing.  This is not to say that if Obama was a Republican, he would get the same level of support from African American voters. As a group they do tend to favor the Democratic candidate, because of the issues.  So this is not an uneducated decision; issues are one factor.  But race is another factor.  The overwhelming support that Obama has among African Americans and the expected strong turnout is at least in part driven by the fact that he is black.  Anyone who denies that is denying the obvious and is simply fooling themselves.  By the way, on Fox News (which I'm sure few here watch) there is an Africa American commentator (I can't remember his name just now) who ran as a Republican in the last election.  Although he lost, he points out that he had a significantly higher percentage of the black vote than any previous republican.  Did all of these voters suddenly decide that they preferred the republican platform?  Uh, I don't think so. 

As for saying that whites are supporting McCain because he is white, that's an absurd argument.  Electing a white man as president has no historical significance for whites in America so the reason behind the extra strong support for Obama among African Americans simply doesn't exist among whites relative to McCain.  In fact, just as the historical significance of electing an African American is a factor in the decision for some blacks, I have also seen interviews with white voters who support Obama who say the same thing.  And I even know some personally.  So Obama is getting a bump from both whites and blacks because he is black.

Is he also losing some votes among whites because he is black?  No doubt.  Unfortunately racism is not dead.  But overall, I think race provides a much greater advantage for Obama than disadvantage.  That's not how the media wants to play it, however.  Whenever there is a news story questioning why Obama's support lags overall Democratic support, there is always a spoken or unspoken implication that it's Obama's race that is causing this.  In fact, if we all agree that most voters - black and white and Hispanic and Asian and everyone else - do make thoughtful, educated choices about who they will vote for, everyone (including the press and the women here) should realize that those who don't support Obama have based their decisions on something that is important to them, whether it's disagreement with Obama's his platform & positions, discomfort with his character, or concern about the fact that he's the least qualified presidental candidate in modern history. 

Sorry, I try to stay away, really, but sometimes I just have to comment.  Talk among yourselves as much as you want about how wonderful Obama is, but don't slander those who don't support him.  

Anonymous

 Grace says:

"And yet, I can't help noticing that at a McCain function when the camera pans the audience, it's really, really hard to find even one person of color! I'm getting rather disgusted with the unsubstantiated information and polls that appear everywhere on the internet. It's amazing how gullible some white people are, and lacking in any political education."

Do you see the bold print?  That's because the blacks are supporting Obama.  Grace, really, haven't you seen the polls.  It's okay if the majority of the blacks are supporting Obama.  We can understand that.

You can scream, holler, and have all the tantrums you want, but it's the truth.  And, yes, there are some whites who WON'T vote for a black man.  And, when the camera pans the audience at Obama's functions there are plenty whites to be found.  But, no women that are Muslin who wear scarfs.  He doesn't want to be "associated" with Islam.  How very sad.  I thought he was for all people of all religions.

I would vote for him IF I agreed with his politics.  His color makes no damned difference to me.  It's his character and experience that is lacking.  As much as you say rascism is alive in America, please don't accuse the majority of ALL white people with that idea.  There are a lot of "isms" in this country.  There's enough hatred to go around without you screaming about the majority of whites being racist.  Seems to me you really believe that.  I don't.  I believe there's more good in people than you give them credit.  Believe it or not, I, and I am sure many other whites, embrace any color as long as people have character.

I do believe there's been conversations about race since Obama has been running for president.  But please don't forget, Grace, that Obama was raised by his white grandparents.  He had many advantages over other blacks.  His grandmother and mother were two smart, independent women.  Have you read about them?  Obama had to make a decision which ethnic group he would identify best.  I believe that's why he went through some troubled times as a teen. 

Have a good evening.

Shirley

CherrylH

I want to weigh in as a black American voter. In November I will vote for Obama, because he will be the Democratic nominee. He is not my first choice nor my second choice, but he is what I have. There area many blacks voting for platform, on the issues and for many  things other than race.

 Cherryl

LAphoenix

Edwards was actually my first choice.  I was torn because I do think there's something to be said for voting with history in mind.  It shouldn't be the only reason to vote for someone, but it's certainly something to consider.  There will never be the perfect black candidate, nor the perfect female, because the perfect candidate, period, doesn't exist.  Being black, mixed race, or a woman brings experiences and qualities to the table that being a white male doesn't.  Some of us value those particular qualities more than others do when weighing a candidate overall.  I'm sure there are many white men who could less about having a woman or a black in the White House because they've never had to think about their sex or their race in any significant way.  That doesn't necessarily make them racist or sexist.  It may mean they're more comfortable on a gut level with someone who looks like them, though, and comes from the same background.  That's human nature, and it's something that Obama and Hillary and any other minority candidate have to deal with.   

Being a minority has given Obama certain advantages, but I'd say it's been used against him just as often.  He absolutely does have to prove to white America that even though he's black and has a funny-sounding, foreign name, he's safe.  Hillary went through the same thing when it came to proving she was tough enough to be commander-in-chief.  McCain doesn't have to do that, although he does have to prove that being old isn't a problem.  So that's what McCain and Obama are doing along with selling their policies--reassuring the public that things they can't change about themselves aren't things to worry about.  Who's doing a better job of that will be revealed in November . . .                            

shokk

Hello political talking heads..............yes I have been absent from the political threads for awhile.........someone accused me of "spewing" my political opinion around.........moi..........is that true?..........hmmmmmmm..........anyway I do find this topic of race quite fascinating............and let me spew this..........I think that there is a population of this country in this time that want to be a part of political "history"..........and that of course would be voting for a black man or woman..........of course Hillary would have also been a part of political "history" in being the first woman President but I don't think she was different enough............enough though she was female she was still white and I do think in many mind sets that race overrides gender..........with that being said I think this population is not necessarily black.......it is young people, people that feel they are more "progressive" then main stream America..........Academia, and of course the far left.............and yes there are some blacks that will vote for Obama because he is black..............but like Cherryl said I think that a large percentage of African Americans are democrats and would have voted for whom ever the Democrat nominee is regardless of their skin color or gender..................ok I am done "spewing" my opinion.........ha.........Shokk

CherrylH

Yes Shokk, voting the party line, not the racial line.

Cherryl

NoH8

Black voters have historically been one of the strongest groups for democrats, so it stands to reason that when that candidate is also black, those statistics would hold and that those on the fence between the two candidates might skew toward him. Hell, if there was a lesbian candidate and she  even partially matched up with my political views, I would vote for her because I want to see someone like me in a position of political power. I wouldn't vote for her if she had opposite views of me. I think statements that insinuate blacks are voting for Obama because he's black shows a lack of understanding about the nature of historical voting trends. As Shokk says, there will be blacks who vote for Obama because he's black but I bet there will be more whites who vote for McCain because he is white and there have been polls that show more than 2 to 1 people who say they are voting about race are whites. Blacks have voted for whites in most elections because there was no other choice.

Shirley, to say that Obama went through troubles as a teen because of racial identity is an oversimplification of adolescence. All teens go through some troubles and many experiment with drugs. Obama only met his father once, which is difficult on any child. Have you read Obama's book(s) or about his experiences from what he has said rather than what others have said about him?

I am thrilled to be able to vote for a black candidate as I would be to vote for a woman candidate or any candidate who wasn't a middle or older aged white male. Diversity matters. There are more women than men in this country. Soon whites will be a minority in this country if it hasn't already happened. Government is supposed to represent the people and it doesn't yet in the USA.

NoH8

Are any of you surprised by the negative commericals coming out of the McCain campaign? I expected the 520s to be negative, but not from McCain himself saying, "I'm John McCain and I approved this message." McCain, who 4 years ago denouncede the swift boat ads is now saying that Obama chose basketball over the troups? (Even though he was playing basketball with the troops). Now Mccain has an ad comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton? I expected more from McCain.

Beesie

Amy, for goodness sakes, it's politics, what do you expect? 

McCain is taking undisputed facts (Obama had planned the visit for weeks, cancelled the visit at the last minute, and went to play basketball instead) and putting his own interpretation on those facts.  What's wrong with doing that?  It's a political campaign; why wouldn't he do that?  The Obama campaign, on the other hand, is publicly interpreting those same facts in a way that is favorable to them. No one knows the truth so some level of interpretation, one way or the other, is necessary.  No one knows what was really in Obama's head when he cancelled the visit, so who's to say who is right and who is wrong?  You think Obama's explanation is the truth; I think McCain's explanation is the truth.  There's no way to ever know.

Let's compare that to the DNC television ad and numerous Obama speeches and interviews where he quotes McCain as saying that he's fine with the troops staying in Iraq for 100 years.  In this case, no interpretation was necessary to understand what McCain meant because in his very next breath, he explained exactly what he meant - a non-combat presence with no risk to American lives, no different than the current American military presence in Germany and many other countries.  It's on video; there's no need to read McCain's mind or guess what he might have meant.  We know the truth.  So given that we have this clear understanding of the intent of the statement (vs. the lack of clarity in the Obama situation with the troop hospital visit), how do you explain Obama intentionally misstating the intent of what McCain said, over and over and over again? 

Anonymous

I thought Obama went to work out at the gym instead of visiting the troops,

Perhaps Obama cannot find enough bad things to say about McCain except he's old and in pain and was a POW. 

BTW, on O'Reilly's radio talk show he had on McClellan.  He confronted him about his "lie" that O'Reilly used talking points from the WH.  O'Reilly said he NEVER used talking points.  McClellan finally "apologized" for not correcting himself about O'Reilly.  Talking points are sent to everyone.  Depends what you want to do with them.  BTW, I imagine the campaigning will get uglier as the months go on.  That's politics for you.  Pelosi's running around selling her book, and won't bring the energy bill to the floor because she's "saving our planet."  What a freaking joke!  Politics as usual.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMyAuzKOSSE&eurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/29/bill-oreilly-takes-on-sco_n_115601.html

sccruiser

My, My,

Look at the comments coming out of the woodwork!! Are you fence sitters (Repubs from the other thread) bored and decided to check out the Positive Obama Thread? We are all fine and dandy here. Glad to see Amy and a few others here can see the truth. And Amy, I must say, I am shocked to see McCain put out not negative ads, but really, really stupid negative ads--Britney Spears & Paris Hilton--please, he really thinks the American public is stupid--even though he says we are smart--Whatever!!

I can't believe anyone would vote for him. He is getting worse and worse. I bet his acceptance speech at the Repubican Convention will be a real snoozer!

Obama is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. So, he left a prayer at the Wailing Wall, and knew it would be picked up, and knew the media pundits would fall all over it. Who cares? What does that have to do with being a president?  So, he played basketball instead of visiting the troops--and was told if he brought cameras & media it would be seen as political--so he changed his mind--so who do we believe--the Pentagon? or Obama? I vote for Obama, as the Pentagon seems very able to lie to us often--isn't that how we got into this war in the first place?  And on and on and on, on every point, which I won't do because it's all out there for you Obama not-fans to research for yourself, if you would look other than at Faux News!

And I'm sure this little factoid fits in somewhere in the debate, but you'll have to do it yourself, because I'm laughing at all the "reactions" to my little comment about polls and voting for black or white based on skin color. Just over 10% of the population in the US is black, so there are a whole lotta other people with other skin colors voting for Obama and NOT McCain. And they are voting because this is an historic opportunity to make change in this country and shake up the status quo (which has run our country into the largest deficit ever recorded in the US--Bush did that with 6 years of a Republican run Congress--but that's another time to lay that out--I'll just stick with the factoid); as well as a platform that isn't perfect, but it's a whole lotta better than the white guy offers this time around!! Here's a picture for you: I'm standing with my right arm raised and my hand in a fist. Just having fun here.

And you have a good evening too, Shirley! 

Beesie

Ah, grace, it's so nice to know that you feel that only you and the other Obama supporters here can "see the truth".  I always suspected that many of you were blindly infatuated with Obama and it's so great to see you confirm this.  Thank you.  And for the record, I read this thread all the time.  It's my daily dose of humor.  Also for the record, although I don't support, like or trust Obama, I recognize that we all see and hear things with biased eyes and ears (even me!) and none of us own the truth. Everything any of us say here or on the other two political threads is shaded by our personal biases.

As for voting, what you are now saying is that people - blacks and whites - are supporting Obama because "because this is an historic opportunity to make change in this country and shake up the status quo", and oh yeah, Obama's supporters tend to prefer his platform too.  Strange, I would swear that this is almost exactly what I said in my post yesterday.  "In fact, just as the historical significance of electing an African American is a factor in the decision for some blacks, I have also seen interviews with white voters who support Obama who say the same thing."  Thanks so much for confirming my assessment that issues & platform alone are not the sole influencing factor in many people's decision to support Obama, with historical significance being a key factor as well.  Although based on your post yesterday we seemed to disagree, it appears that we do agree after all.  Isn't it great?  Agreement across the great divide!

As a last point, I have to say that I am very relieved to hear that you are "just having fun".  It would be scary to think that you actually believed some of what you've written.  So glad to know that it's all in jest.