Presidential debates on ABC right now-both parties

Susie--my husband and I are so close in our political views that it's rare we have a disagreement.  He doesn't like Obama, less than I do in fact, although he'll vote for him if he gets the nomination. When Obama said in the first debate that he would go into Pakistan without permission, my husband was turned off completely, and knowing him, he'll never turn on. (He doesn't drink Koolaid--says it's too sweet.) He has strong principles and rarely (in fact, never) deviates from them. DH abhors the U.S. tendency to invade anywhere and whenever it pleases, but perhaps that's because he grew up in SA during a time when the U.S. (and Russia) played in his backyard, not worrying about who they killed or tortured.  And if any of you don't believe we did such things, please read some history before returning to attack my statement.

So, back to Richardson and my DH.  I believe he'll feel as I do, sick to his stomach.  Not because it might help Obama or hurt Hillary, but because of what it says about Richardson, whom we both had liked.  

I don't think Richardson will bring any super delegates with him.  I think, particularly watching recent polls, that most of them will wait to see how it all pans out.  Also, super delegates are not voting now.  Those who say they support Hillary can leave any time they want up until the first vote at the convention (and can also leave her in a second vote if it comes to that); the same is true of Obama.  But forever Bill Richardson will be viewed by most Democrats as a man who cannot be trusted.  And that's sad. 

Amy--if you don't think that Obama humiliated his grandmother by telling the world that she's a bigot--and that's what he did--then we think very differently. Not much more we can say about that!  I read his speech, twice.  I think, aside from that one bit, it's brilliant and naunced.  He could have left that piece out and it still would have worked.  I hope, as I said yesterday, that she has Alzheimer's, or she must be very hurt right now.  Why do her feelings matter in the grand scheme of running for president.  Because they do! 

I've heard snippets of his speech, including that part.  I hate hearing him speak; I suppose it's his stutter, which he can't help, but nonetheless, I prefer reading his speeches to listening to them. He could take some lessons from Wright in how to give a speech, IMAO--not talking about the content (before anyone jumps) but the manner. 

I will also mention that like Inna you don't read these posts carefully, but jump to conclusions where there are none.  You write:

[H]ow do you see Richardson going with Obama, even if he does want the Veep job, as any better or worse than Hillary offering select superdelegates spots in the administration.

I wrote:

Obama publicly humiliating his grandmother is one example; Richardson leaving the Clintons is another; Bill Clinton throwing Lani Gaunier under the bus is a third.  Ugly, ugly people.

You persist in running down Clinton to beatify Obama.  It's not necessary and, I believe, counterproductive. I've said before, and will do so again, all politicians are ugly in that ambition and attaining power is the overriding reason for their being.  Occasionally, I think someone is an exception to my view (Richardson was one such exception; Obama was not).  I'm always disappointed to find I'm wrong.  I was wrong about Richardson and obviously, you're not going to convince me I was not wrong.  Only Richardson could convince me by being offered the VP spot and not accepting it.  If that happens, I'll return here and retract what I said.  

Until then  . . . 

Freudian slip, gaffe, whatever. Obama showed that he was human. He made a comment that referred to a stereotype. Yes he did, and? As far as I'm concerned his "gaffe" or whatever you want to call it is nothing compared to the slight that McCain placed on 2 countries and 2 groups in the middle east. I believe that Obama's comment shows how deep the conditioning is about race in this country. Even Jesse Jackson's comment is a conditioned comment. We have learned that seeing a particular color walking down a street at night can appear more dangerous than another. Have I crossed the street at night if I see a black man approaching me? Have I clutched my purse tighter in an area where a man of color is walking behind me? Have I locked my doors driving through a particular neighborhood at night? Of course I have, and so have many other white women. Our stupidity is that we don't do all those things no matter what man is coming towards us or in any neighborhood in America. It's conditioning. We were told this over and over. And women are even less likely to venture out at night alone, I believe, because we don't feel safe any longer. If I do i carry my keys spread between my fingers when I go to the car. Even in a mall parking lot I don't feel very safe at night. But I digress, sorry.



And yes, Obama has suggested evenly dividing the delegates, and yes it favors him. What person wouldn't try to get a decision that favors him? After all, Hillary last October knew that those votes wouldn't count and said so publicly. Now she wants the votes as it will help her. Of course, she wants a decision that favors her. I don't hold that against her. It's every woman or man for himself. However, Hillary has been pushing Obama to say something about this situation, when he firmly stated very early on that he would abide by the DNC rules and decision they make. Clinton is trying to hold Obama responsible for this not being settled, and suggests that he doesn't care about these votes counting like she does. She tries to make it look like she is fighting for these voters, when she is really doing what will benefit her most. She wants this nomination and she wants it badly!! I give her credit for strategy. She is a fighter. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. May the best woman or man win!



As for the Australian comments Beesie posted, I did read the entire post, and what I realized is that many Americans have stated all of these "points" listed that Rev. Wright put forth. And as Anne has put forth in her remarks with some history behind a few of them, I am not going to finish going point by point to prove that these are not "made up" by an angry black man.



I will say that the Australian commentator or whoever made those remarks has very little knowledge or understanding about race and its social constructs. A black man can't ever choose to be black--the color of his skin makes that decision for him. So even though he may have grown up in a white community, believe me, he was always seen as black. The racial divide also exists in Hawaii. There is much history and anger from native Hawaiians against the white man's invasion and destruction of their culture. The Hawaiians are still fighting to leave the United States and be an independent nation.



And why is it that we now have a black man running for president of the US, and someone thinks he should be representing every race in America? Huh? We have never expected that of any previous president. Why should one man, simply because of the color of his skin be considered the race president? This is why we need a serious discourse on race and what race means and how it is defined, and how it was created in the first place, in this country. We so do not understand the implications. Our country, its government and all of the systems in place, have been constructed to benefit whites. Its a fact. Its our history. Its what we continue to do here. Its flawed, as is our justice system, our prison system, and our educational system.



I agree with AnneShirley. I'm angry that an Australian should write such drivel, and that it should be considered meaningful--I'm not directing this toward Beesie because I think it is important that we know some of what is being thought about America in other parts of the world--however, Australians do need to atone for their absolutely horrible treatment (and undeserved treatment) of the Aborigines. And believe me, that treatment continues to this day. Maybe no so blatantly, but the Australian government has the same issues we have in this country--how these incredible people could be treated so inequitably. Time and time again, we see where well meaning whites have invaded countries and decimated the native populations without nary a thought. Anybody read about the Cherokee Trail of Tears? Learned that when the railroads were built it was great sport to ride the back car and shoot at the buffalo--to where they were almost extinct, and the starvation that the Native American people suffered because of this callous fun? And Teddy Roosevelt rode the train, and shot buffalo--this was a president of the US. Disgusting.



Shirley, I'm not sure I understand this: is Jesse jackson a "typical" white? Oh, are you saying that Obama was generalizing? Yep sure was. So Jesse Jackson is the argument against only typical whites saying this? I would think that Jesse jackson of all people would be more afraid of a white man coming up behind him than a black man! After all, he has said some pretty harsh things about racism in this country. So never mind responding to my question. I get now. Just med brain at work today.



And lastly, about Martin Luther King, Jr. and his preaching in comparison to Wright: MLK Jr, according to my African American friends who grew up in the south and participated in the Civil Rights movement are firmly convinced that MLK, Jr was assassinated because he was moving toward a more outspoken approach to addressing racism in this country. So, while his "I Have a Dream," speech is seen as very mild and gentle in treatment towards whites, personally he did not necessarily feel the same way. He was trying to bridge a gap. As many times as we have listened to that speech, and read his work, we are no closer to ending racism in this country. I wonder what would have happened had he lived and had Malcolm X not been assassinated also. How would we be different today? Would MLK have spoken more harshly about whites and their treatment of people of color in this country? Would he and Malcom X moved more toward the middle ground? Would we be needing to have this discourse about race today in this country? Would we have already had a black president or a woman president? We will never know. What did we lose, when we lost JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King, Jr?

Wow, I go away for half a day, and I can hardly catch up on the reading, let alone responding. So, since AnneShirley suggests that i will be along to discuss black family units in the US, her I am.



The destruction of African American family units in the US began with slavery in the South. The white plantation masters only allowed the slaves to "marry"--and that was not a legalized ceremony--but a jumping over a broom slave ceremony that the slaves were allowed to hold--but granted them no immunity from being sold any time it pleased the master. The reason the master allowed slaves to marry was that he wanted to make more money--he wanted the slaves to mate--just like his animals he owned--so he could sell the progeny that were born to the slaves. Often he sold off the mother and her babies, or he sold the male, or he sold the babies; taking them away from the parents. These slaves were chattel and were not even considered human beings. Not only did he do this, but if he liked a slave he would mate with her. Any progeny born of this unlawful union could be sold--they had black blood in them--they were property and not considered his children. And the mistress of the plantation overlooked all of this.



So, the Civil War comes along, and then Lincoln writes the Emancipation Proclimation. Now, the slaves are "free." Okay. Many of the plantations were destroyed or taken over by carpetbaggers. The slaves were free, but not free. They had no job, no place to live, and no money. While the women could often find work cleaning houses, or in the fields; the men wanted to make a life for themselves and those they loved. The men wanted to own a little piece of land and farm and raise their families. They left the place where they had lived--the plantation--and began their journey on foot in search of "the American Dream." Well, the whites in the south were not willing to give up their economy. They could no longer own slaves, but they found ways to control them. The black freed slaves were seen as dangerous--they were savage animals, and these white guys had to protect their women and children. So, some of the plantations were turned into prisons. Angola is one example of this, and is one of the most horrible prisons we have in this country. Laws were passed, targeting black freed slaves, that they could be picked up for "loitering." Walking down a road looking for a job was considered loitering. Soon, the plantations that became prisons started filling up with black men. The prisons instituted chain gangs (many of which still operate today), and sentenced these freed slaves to indeterminate sentences. Many of them lived the rest of their lives working on a chain gang and being whipped. If they weren't picked up for loitering, they were found guilty of "looking" a white man in the eye, or "looking" at a white woman, and heaven forbid they ever, ever touch one. Found guilty of looking, hundreds were lynched. Or they could be beaten, and then drawn and quartered, or beaten and burned to death.



Although, some believe the freed slave women faired better, there are many who would disagree with that. They often ended up as prostitutes, or mistresses if their skin was light enough of white men. They may have had children by these white men, but they were not acknowledged by the white fathers. There were very few family units. Many of these women slaved in wealthy white peoples' homes in order to make enough money to feed their children.



Education was minimal at best. If the African Americans lived on a farm, the children were needed to work in the fields most of the year. If they lived in a town or city, the children were often put to work cleaning houses or working in yards and may have only had a elementary education, sometimes as little as 2nd grade. There were no schools for blacks. Their learning came from what the adults around them knew. Occasionally there were white men and women who taught the blacks in their employ how to read and write. They considered the Jim Crow laws to be awful, but they were few and far between. Most of these blacks didn't have the boot straps to raise themselves up by.



While Whites, historically, had been amassing wealth to pass on to the next generation, the blacks were not as fortunate. Evidence of inequality in this country can be traced to the amassing of wealth by rich white men. Even women were not able to amass the wealth that men were, at least the majority.



And so it continues in this country.



Now, before you attack with examples of an opposite to what I have written here. There are always exceptions. That is a fact. We can always find an exception to deny the truth about our history in this country. Our forefathers might have wanted a country that was free for everybody, but there were some that were slave owners also.



And I don't want to be accused of generalizing about slavery and plantations. We have behaved badly. We kept a group of people in living quarters we wouldn't let our pets walk into. We treated these human beings as if they were less than animals. Not all slave owners were bad people, and some treated their slaves nicely to a point, but they wer still chattel and "owned by the master. AND the mistress was property of the master. Another example of why white men are often quick to align themselves with whiite women, and why women who are white have historically done better in this country than women of color.





Now, regarding McCain. I don't consider his gaffes to be age related. Political analysts have stated that McCain is great and brilliant when it comes to the "general" idea, but doesn't do well when it gets to the details. He has been quoted as saying, he doesn't like to get mired in the mud.

Appears that if he is elected we will just be continuing the present administration.



Now, regarding Obama, who some say threw his grandmother under the bus. I totally disagree. We don't know what his relationship with his grandmother is like. He may very well have had conversations with her about race and his mixed race. He lived with white grandparents in a state that is racially divided. We can only make assumptions about whether he embarrassed his grandmother or not.

I grew up with a father who was a bigot. I may have written that already on this thread. However, I thought nothing of saying just that to friends and coworkers. I thought nothing of saying that when speaking in front of a large class as an invited guest, or as the instructor. AND I often told my father that he was a bigot. He may not have liked it very much but I was honest with him. Now, unless I told you this, and I just told a story about my father's bigotry, you would not know whether my father was embarrassed by my telling about his racial bias or not. You would not know what my relationship was with my father. I think we must assume the same about Obama until he finds it important to tell us about his personal relationship with his grandmother--which I, for one, don't believe is any of our business.

Grace--about his grandmother.  He may have had hundreds of talks with her personally and he may have spoken of her before, as you speak of your father here or I speak of my husband here, but to do it to the world at large! Still not nice in my view.  The only single thing that would change my mind on that, is if he had asked her permission and she agreed.  And, also, if his personal relationship with his grandmother is not our business, then why did he make it our business?  He did, we didn't. 

Anyway, thanks for the post.  I knew all these things once but had forgotten much, and it's good to be reminded, probably daily, but daily is too painful.   

Caught the CNN interview with Obama. I liked what he had to say about his administration. Anderson Cooper asked him if he would consider Bill Clinton for his administration, and Obama replied that he thought Clinton was brilliant and admired him and would consider him for a position in his administration. In fact, Obama went further and insisted he plans to have a bi-partisan staff in the White House if he is elected president.



That is what Abraham Lincoln did when he was elected. He was able to bring all the arguing factions together by asking them to serve in the cabinet. He is considered brilliant by historians. I never knew this about him. It's very clearly laid out in the non-fiction book, A Team of Rivals. Evidently it worked.



I hope Obama does what he says if he is elected President. It's time we had a bipartisan cabinet as well as a bipartisan congress. What a big step forward. Perhaps a more open adiminstration, oh I should say absolutely would be an open administration--totally opposite of the past 8 years. I'm so glad they are almost over. Too bad Bush was able to run this country into such a deficit and the worst economy with this unjustified war. Time for change--big time!!

Yeah, but just one? i think Obama is thinking of more than one in his cabinet.



Thanks for the name. I did not know that about Clinton.

It's a good book. A tough one to get through as if I recall it's about 1100 or 1400 pages. Forget the number. But great history. Gives us a view most of us probably didn't know about.

We here in Chicago are buried under a snow storm advisory. As soon as I dig out I will go the local independently owned bookstore. I also want to read the new novel by NPR's Scott Simons. It's set in Chicago.

Cherryl

Appropriately enough it's titled Windy City.

I love the seasons, but I love the ones I  grew up with in North Carolina more than the ones in Chicago. I did not move here for the weather!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can only go so far with a bi-partisan administration.  The posts would have to be ones in which a Republican would fit without undermining the Democratic platorm.  (I'm a platform voter.)  So Secretary of Health, Education  . . . would have to be someone who not only believes strongly in universal health care but one who can effectively make it happen.  Same with Secretary of State--you can't have a Republican in that position if the Republican is diametrically opposed to the party platform, which is to get out of Iraq.  (Chuck Hagel is one possibility.) There are a small number of positions where a liberal president, with a liberal platform, can use a Republican in his cabinet--perhaps Commerce and Treasury, and even in those positions there are certain social issues (resolving foreclosures) that the candidate would have to support that may be directly opposed to the Republican position.  I don't even think Defense is a good fit since the vast majority of Republicans want to spend far more on Defense than Democrats, who prefer to use more of that money to cure social ills. I think bi-partisan administrations are more a sound bite than a reality and that we rarely see them happen.  And Obama is more liberal than Clinton so it would be particularly difficult for him to find the right people.  Another problem is this:  the nominees make lots of promises to get endorsements when they're running, and unless they're really sleazy types, they have to deliver, which is often a cabinet position, and there aren't that many to go around.

I think an endorsement of Hillary by Edwards before North Carolina would have a positive impact, perhaps in Indiana as well; beyond those two states, I don't think it would have much of an impact.  Where it would work is at the convention, since Edwards has some delegates that are still with him.  If those delegates listen to him, he can throw them to either of the candidates. I wonder if Edwards is holding himself in abeyance in case there's a locked convention and he's hoping he might be the alternate candidate. I don't remember exactly, but it may be that after the first vote the pledged delegates are free to move.  I'll have to look it up. 

He's also the ideal VP for either Obama or Clinton and if he stays clean with both, he may get the nod, and take it.  I think I prefer it if he stays above it all.  It's hard to continue to respect them when you think they're trawling for jobs.

North Carolina is starting to look strange.  Obama is now leading Clinton by only one point in recent polls.  Bill Clinton said recently that if she gets North Carolina, she'll get the nomination, and he could be right.  If Obama can't hold North Carolina, it would mean he's lost those who until now had been his strongest supporters.  

Interesting, but stomach twisting! 

Inna--I don't think they'll be rioting in the streets if Obama doesn't get the nomination. Many people will be upset, as will many people if Clinton doesn't get the nomination, but it won't come to that.  We are probably the least riotous people in the world.  After Florida, 2000, we should have taken to the streets in the tens of millions, but we didn't.  Not a single march as I remember. 

I was the one who used the term "aging brain" when I discussed what is and is not an ad hominem attack but I don't see how Amy's or my reference to McCain's age is evidence of RL's political astuteness.  And brains do age just like faces.  I'm a few years younger than McCain but I often make mistakes in spelling that I didn't make ten years ago.  Most of the time when I've edited a post, it's because I misspelled a word or used the wrong word and didn't notice until after I had posted.  It comes to us all.

But I don't think Clinton will get the nomination unless she's able to show that she has the popular vote versus the delegate vote, and that's still possible.  After all, a good portion of Obama's delegate vote comes from red states that the Democrats can't win in November.  I actually expect her to surpass Obama in the popular vote by the time Indiana is finished. (Maybe I should change "expect" to "hope.")

Anneshirley,

Just to ser the record straight. Amy did say

"I think McCain's gaffes might be a slip of the tongue as sign of aging. Remember Reagan made gaffes toward the end of his presidency and only after he left office was it announced that he had alzheimers. I do believe that McCain knows the difference, but might have trouble accessing the words or making the connections in his brain." 

It's pretty close to menioning ageing brain, don't you think. 

As far as Hillary goes I understood from political pundits that it is mathematically impossible even in the best case scenario for her to catch up with Obama as far as delegates go.

The Secret Garden is on TV in a few minutes--the original Secret Garden, with Margaret O'Brien, if anyone is interested.