The Brand New Respectful Presidential Campaign Thread

Deb its really just dried granulated cracked corn............and Susie is right with the cheese it's kinda like a grit casserole.......not for the faint of heart............hey Bren don't worry.........it's ok to like the Clintons........we ain't gona hold it against your honky backside..........ha...........Shokk

Can I put in my two cents?  Right now, I do not prefer a particular candidate I like because none of them sound convincing enough.  I am a registered Democrat who believes in the right to bear arms so I am a little of both I suppose.  But basically a liberal with conservative leanings at times.

I am having trouble with believing that the American public is ready yet for a female president or one of color.  It would wonderful to think they are.  And seems that McLean is just throwing a poor pity me party about being a POW.  Looks like he is OK now!  I am not a racist or prejudiced or against veterans.  I still remember when they still had signs on motels in Wildwood, NJ in the 60's no Jews or Blacks allowed.  I have experienced prejudice first-hand in college when a classmate kept looking at the top of my head saying he didn't see any horns.  He was serious and he was raised in Manhattan not Bohunk, Midwest USA under a rock!  Let us not get into that discussion.  You will not win with me on that score because my people have been oppressed for over 4000 years and still have people thinking Jews control the world money!  I am not thowing a pity party here either but look at history.  The Black Americans can only claim oppression since the 1400's and the Israelis are still fighting for freedom against the Arabs.  But that is not what this is for in this thread.  Just wanted to let you know where I am coming from.  I also get diarrhea of the fingers at times.

I truly think that everyone has something in their background that they want to keep hidden and if you rattle their past enough it will shake loose.  I am glad that there is not too much in the way of mud-slinging.  I pray that whoever is elected, they take a look inward at their constituents and help those on American soil.  The Social Security system needs an overhaul, FEMA sucks, the big industries are downsizing left and right and good people are losing their homes.  For a simlpe hernia operation, patients are going into debt.  And it is not just seniors who have to choose between food or meds. 

Whether Bill Clinton was a good 'person' or not is irrelevant.  When he left office, there was a huge surplus and the USA was out of debt.  The country was working, as in employed.  Within 3 months of Bush taking office they ate through the surplus and owed over 3 Trillion dollars again.  Why?  Nobody will take responsibility.  I support our men and women who are fighting because I fear for their lives and what it will do to their families (We personally have two members of the family over there one is being deployed in October).  I do not support the reason why we are there.

OK, my soapbox time is over.  I will not be back but needed to get my feelings about the election off of my chest.  When it comes time to vote, it is our right to cast a ballot for whomever we choose and I for one value that.  I also value the fact it is personal and we do not have to share with anyone.

Beth...McClean is throwing a pity party about being a POW? His name is McCain...and he is not looking for sympathy over being a POW, I cannot believe someone would have so little respect to even say something like that and not even get his name correct. Do you even know who is running for president?

Bohunk USA, midwest under a rock? You have a lot of nerve lady! 

Paulette, I am not a Republican and I made a mistake about his name.  Yes, I do know who is running.  Just watched Die Hard again with ds last night.  Call it being in a benedryl haze this morning.  I apologize for over-generalizing about the POW.  But every commercial I see he talks about being a POW.  The Vietnam war touched all of us in one way or another and anyone in any war should be applauded.  I do know who is running but I seriously don't pay any attention to the GOP side because I can't do anything about since I am registered Dem.  When it gets down to it, it is up to the delegates at the convention who will pick the candidates.

And I am not putting down the midwest either.  But I was trying to make a point about in 1977 someone still was being brought up thinking Jews have horns!  The majority of Jews live on both coasts, that is a true statistic.My brother, in 1987, went to school at Amherst where one classamate from Iowa made a comment when she saw matza at Passover time in the cafeteria had no idea what it was saying she never met a Jew before.  So that is where I am coming from.  I was trying to make a comparison that Manhattan is more cosmopolitan than a small town in the midwest.  I was not attacking and don't pick apart what I am saying!  Out of context it means nothing but you sure picked up on it. 

HMMMMMMMMMM I Really like {{Shirley}}

not nice Amy!!!!!

Puppy

Okay, just to clear the air here. I do not call anyone an "oreo," or use the N word. I don't call my white friends "honky." I have heard all these words spoken by other people, whether in jest or to define a political point being made. I don't profess to know what it is like to be black, but I DO PROFESS TO LISTEN TO THE STORIES AND EXPERIENCES OF PEOPLE THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM MYSELF AND NOT INVALIDATE THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN MY EXPERIENCES!!!



I did not ASSUME that Shirley hadn't read about other cultures or ethnic individuals. I was responding to her question--WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE ME DO? She had asked this many times throughout this thread and the debate thread. My ANSWER to her was to SUGGEST some books to read. Geesh, people, get a life!



I also find the direction of this thread very disrespectful. And I"m sure you'll tell me I'm just as disrespectful. Interesting, that rather than having a real honest discussion about race, it was reduced to a comical commentary on food choices. It seems that some in this thread have difficulty talking about race.



And Cheryl, rather than not giving a rat's ass about what you think, I actually do care what you think in terms of race and your experience. I can't help it if my friends in CALIFORNIA (yes, we are a state like no other--on our own island at times) define how some African American, Latina, Asian, Native American have "sold out." That is their term, not mine. And I certainly don't think that because a person of color wants and gets a good education, wants and gets a house in a good neighborhood, wants and gets the very best for their children is a "white" thing!! That's universal. You find that ALL OVER THE WORLD!



Now you can go back to your food defining of cultures. Tells me that no one here can define American for sure.

Hi Grace,

I thought the little break of joking about food was a welcome relief for a little bit.  I don't believe anyone on this thread takes the issue of race, our future commander in chief, poverty, education, etc., as comedic issues.  Just a brief respite from the intensity.

Amy ... while your wording and comments are at times hurtful, I actually understood what you meant.  I read your comment in context and took my emotion out of it.  If I am correct, and if you had left the prior posters name out of it, the gist was unconscious imbedded beliefs that we are not aware of, versus in your face extremist.

I do not believe I had a racist bone in my body ... however, living in the area of the south that I do now, I am confronted with it on a daily basis.  This is a generalization and certainly not true of all: Most of the Black people here don't like the White people and vice versa and neither of them like the Brown people.  And none of them like the Yankees and Jews.  Do not confuse what I'm saying.  I am saying this is in this poor County of south central VA, which is apx a 60% Black /30% White /10% Brown community. My little area is White.  Didn't know that when I bought my house.  I just wanted the land and I could afford it. My neighbors still complain about the Brown people who used to live in the area, but have since left. We have a very poor economy here.  It's just fine if you have a good job, working at the local hospital or community college or govt. service agencies.  The main economy ... furniture factory business is gone.  Tobacco, farming and cattle are also gone.  Travel an hour in any direction and you have a whole different picture.   

I guess my point is our various views of race are based on our personal experience, and while I may not see myself as racist in any way, shape or form, someone else might perceive that I am based on the way I write, my lack of education in expressing myself, where I live in the country or my political views.

The other thing I truly believe since living in this part of the south for the last couple of years is that what may possibly be defined as a race issue, appears to be a cultural and economic issue is this area.  I may be naive.  But that's my take on this little part of VA.

Actually, Amy, I wish you an extremely healthy future, no bc and wish you didn't have fibromyalgia.  One could see that I only get upset with what you say to others and to me, not your political views. If everyone's views are to be accepted then calling various posters "rigid," "judgmental," and acting like you are the only one who can see the Emperor has no clothes on .... well, that is not playing nice.  Differing views make this country up ... we are not pasteurized and homogenized.

Amy - Your experience is the point I was trying to make.  We, as indviduals, do not know what others experiences are.  We have not lived their lives or experienced their history. As a White person coming from where I did, I had not experienced the culture I now live in, just as I had not experienced the religious prejudice while living in Utah. I love the Commonwealth of Virginia and I'm blessed to have been able to live in many different areas of the U.S. 

Since it is out in the open I believe all three of them could handle it...of course, here again it will come from three different perspectives.

I believe that each person can define their own experience, and that they would have to label it by whatever definition they chose--be it white, black, russian, jew, etc. And each one would be different.



One thing I learned from several of my African American colleagues, was that they did not celebrate the 4th of July holiday. The reason was (in their opinion) that African Americans were not treated equally in this country, and until all groups were treated equally in this country, it is hard to celebrate "independence." Some individuals don't experience independence in the same way we others do.



And while unemployment, social security, health insurance, and the elderly are some of the biggest problems we have in this country, I would also add Bush's WAR which is disapproved by over 2/3rds of Americans in this country. And if they come up with a viable answer to all these issues, what makes us think that these will be solved for everyone equitably, regardless of race, creed, gender, age, religion, disability? They would have to be three mighty spectacular plans to choose from that--and to be spectacular and worth putting in place--they would have to include answers that provide equitable treatment to each and every group.



And here's part of an essay from Tim Wise on the "Myth of Reverse Racism." The full text of his article can be found at TIMWISE.ORG



Enjoy!



In other words, if voting for a white person because of their race is racism, then so too must be voting for a black person because of theirs. So see, those black Obama boosters are every bit as racist as we are, maybe more so, because they're breaking his way by about eighty-five percent, while whites are splitting between Obama and Clinton by about fifty-fifty. So if anything, the e-mailer said, it was blacks who were more racist and whites whose voting behavior portended open-mindedness. And now that Obama has won the Mississippi primary, almost entirely due to the votes of blacks--and among those who said race mattered, nine in ten voted for him--this refrain will only become more prevalent, one supposes.



Such an argument--which is really the political equivalent of "Why can't we have white history month, I mean, we have black history month?"--suggests how far we have to go in this nation simply to have a productive dialogue about race, let alone to really conquer racism.



Simply put, there are any number of reasons why whites voting for a white candidate because of race is altogether different than blacks voting for a black candidate because of the same. For African American voters, voting for Barack Obama--a man of color who actually stands a chance of winning the Presidency--is an opportunity to participate in a major historic moment. The pride and excitement caused by such a possibility (even for black folks who might not agree with all of his positions, and who might wish he spoke more about issues like racism and discrimination) is completely understandable and to be expected. Just as millions of women as women are understandably excited about the possibility of a Hillary Clinton Presidency--because it would be a history-making first and a real breakthrough in terms of gender (at least symbolically)--and just as many Catholics were likely inspired to vote for JFK because of a shared religious background, so too are many people of color likely to hop on board the Obama train as a way to make a statement. So if black folks say race was important to their vote, and they voted for Obama, it is this sense of achievement, and "firstness" that likely animates them. That, and of course the fact that they really do believe him to be the best person for the job.



Or if not the historicity of the moment, then perhaps black voters casting their ballots for Obama, and saying that race matters to their decision, were animated by a desire to elect someone who, because of his own identity, might better relate to their daily struggles. It would be nice, one imagines, to have a President who could understand because of some of his own life experiences, what it means to be a person of color in America. In that sense, identity and the experiences that such an identity likely gives a person, become bona fide qualifications and credentials in the eyes of persons sharing that identity.



But one thing we can almost guarantee is not among the reasons why a black voter might say race matters to their vote, and then vote for the black candidate, is deep-seated anti-white bias. After all, black folks have been voting for white people for years. They have voted for white Presidential candidates, white Governors, and white Congressional candidates time and time again, seeing as how they are often given very little in the way of a choice. So it's not like black folks refuse to vote for white people. Indeed, the kind of black person whose anti-white biases were that deeply rooted, would probably be the kind of person for whom Obama would be unacceptable too (given his biracial ancestry, generally moderate positions, and fairly bland approach to addressing racial concerns), and who wouldn't vote for him, in spite of a shared skin color. In other words, we can rest assured that when blacks vote for Obama, after saying that race mattered to their vote, they were casting a ballot for the black man, not against the white woman per se.



On the other hand, for a white voter to say race matters to their vote, and then to vote for the white candidate and against the person of color, is almost by definition about something else. It certainly can't be due to excitement at the prospect of electing the first white President, or breaking with tradition, since we've had forty-three white guys in a row. And it's not likely to be about the desire to vote for someone who can relate to their "struggles" as white people. After all, although there are millions of white people in the U.S. who are struggling to make ends meet, none of them are in that position because of their race, but rather in spite of it. So the "white struggle" as such simply doesn't exist. The class struggle is real--and if a white, working-class candidate stood a chance of winning the Presidency lots of white working class folks would turn out for him or her because of that shared experience, and understandably so--but it is simply silly to think that whites would vote for Hillary Clinton, after saying race mattered to their vote, because they think she will be more understanding about their plight as white people.



What this leaves us is the very real likelihood that when whites say race mattered to their vote, and they voted for the white candidate over the candidate of color, the vote so cast was largely an anti-black vote. It wasn't cast for the white person out of some form of in-group bonding so much as it was cast against the man of color, as an act of out-group rejection. And given the way in which the Clinton campaign has made Obama's presumed inexperience and "lack of qualifications" the big issue in the primaries--and given how the "qualifications" trope plays so neatly into longstanding white biases about black ability and competence--it is hard to imagine any non-racist reason for someone to say "race matters" to their vote and then to cast it for Clinton.



In the end it really is as simple as this: for persons belonging to groups that have been consistently subordinated to view the world through the lens of their group status is both predictable and rational. It would be hard, indeed, not to do so. One's identity as a subordinated group member shapes one's experiences to such an extent that it will naturally come to inform how one views the world, and how one operates within it. This has been true for all subordinated groups. Even those groups whose institutional subordination has largely ended in the U.S. (like Italian or Irish Americans, or Jews) often see the society through the frame of their particular ethnic experience--and certainly did so in generations past. So naturally, for persons of color whose subordination has continued to be institutionalized, engaging in acts of racial bonding makes sense. Voting for Obama may be one such act, for at least some black voters.



But for members of groups that have not been subordinated to "think with their skin" or their racial identity is quite a bit different, and more problematic. For dominant group members to engage in racial bonding only makes sense as a way to maintain dominance. It can't be about "getting a piece of the pie," since such persons already have access to it, and pieces galore; rather, it has to be about preventing others from getting theirs, from taking parts of the pie to which the dominant group had come to feel entitled. It is not to seek a place at the table, but to seek to secure the table you already have from the intrusion of others. White bonding, in other words, amounts to racism because it is redundant: it amounts to having those who are already largely in control, secure that control in perpetuity. It results in the maintenance of racial inequity, unequal opportunity and massive disparities in access and life chances. Black and brown bonding, on the other hand, is about gaining access, securing a spot, and collectively lifting up members of subordinated communities to a place where they can compete as equals with those who have always been in charge. There is nothing supremacist or racist about that at all, unless one presumes that--as Jesse Jackson and others have long said--there is no fundamental difference between a "Welcome" mat and a "No Trespassing" sign.



But there is a difference, in both practical and ethical terms. Those black voters (and for that matter non-black voters) who vote for Obama because of his race are striving for the welcome mat, however naive they may be in thinking that his victory would really open the door all that widely for others. Those white voters who vote for Clinton because of hers, on the other hand, are quite clearly continuing to hang the "No Blacks Need Apply" sign from their electoral window. And if we can't see the distinction between those two things, it becomes hard to imagine how we will ever conquer the larger racial inequities that continue to plague us as a nation. How indeed.

Can anyone explain or point me to a website that explains the three candidates health care plan?  I saw an interview with Elizabeth Edwards that she and her husband are in favor of Clinton's plan and gave rumor to the fact that she had words with Obama regarding his and told McCain he would not qualify for his own plan because of his prior health problems.  There are many issues out there right now, but this is a big one for me.  Our bc sisters in Canada often reference their health care system in the negative so I want to make sure I understand who is for what. 

Diane