Presidential debates on ABC right now-both parties

"Rosemary, I wouldn't generalize on canada's health care system by taking one example from one person."

Amy, Good then, Canada is safe.  While you wouldn't generalize about  Canada, does that extend to Hillary's campaign also?

Here's part of an essay from Tim Wise regarding the "Myth of Reverse Racism." The full text 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."

Amy,

You still haven't answered my question. Name one piece of legislature that has Obama's name it or at least name one specific accomplishment of his in Senate. Can you do it : yes or no !

Probably because they're willing to pick our crops, wash our dishes, and serve our burgers for next to nothing.

Oops, didn't mean to butt in....but....

I had to laugh the other day.  I was listening to someone talk about why he was voting for Obama, and the very reasons he was using actually comes out of Hillary's campaign.  I mentioned that he might have his contenders mixed up.

Ben Affleck did it too.  He's voting for Obama because of Universal health care...Hillary's plan.  What's nice about this, whether or not they have the author of the plans mixed up, is that everyone is talking about health care for all.  So if people are really voting on the difference of issues, or on the issues at all, its not showing yet. It still seems to be a personality contest.

Rosemary, no matter how you try to spin it, Obama does have a universal health care plan. Anyone who wants health care can have it-- just like Hillary's plan. There are almost no differences between the plans. It's interesting in doing calls for the obama campaign yesterday how many (of the few) people who said they were for hillary were surprised about the lies coming from the clinton campaign about certain things...

Amy...there are MANY differences between the plans...google them and read them.

Amy,

I googled Obama and nothing of substance came out. His site http://obama.senate.gov/

has no mention of any significant bills. At the best Obama "joined" other senators in some bills. Recently he did author a bill with Dirbin to help workers of ATA after the airline shutdown. This is ridiculous as there are a lot of people losing jobs Bear&Stearns rank and file employees for example and I don't see any special bills for them

At least you are hones enough to tell us that you don't know of any significant achievements that you can proudly share with us. Consider yourself lucky that you are not on the national TV as those supporters in the video were.

Amy...both (?) there are three people in the running right now and all three are different.

Backpedaling?  Hmm...let's go back to the drawing board!

Amy,

The reason I don't want to vote for Obama is because he is an empty suit with no credit to his name while in Senate. And you just proved me right by admitting that you cannot name ONE SINGLE bill authored by Obama!!! Wow!  To cover your embarassment you attacked me by saying even if he were a worthy candidate , I would still not vote for him.  Nice try !

But an empty suit is still an empty suit even he speaks well.

Another good reason to vote for a woman for President:

WASHINGTON - A proposal by Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton would provide $300 million a year in increased government funding on breast cancer research, focusing on treatment and exploring possible genetic and environmental triggers for the disease.

The Presidential hopeful and former first lady discussed her plan with talk show host Ellen DeGeneres on her television show, which was scheduled to air Monday. As president, Clinton told DeGeneres, she would set a goal of finding a cure for the disease within 10 years.

Clinton's plan would increase funding for breast cancer research and treatment through programs at the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, and the Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program.

It would also help more low-income women gain access to screenings like mammograms by making them more affordable. Among other things, she would eliminate Medicare co-payments for mammograms.

Clinton also planned to propose a new program to explore racial disparities in diagnosis and treatment of the disease.

About 40,000 women died of breast cancer in the United States in 2007, and some 240,000 new cases were expected to be diagnosed this year.

Amy,

If we can spend money on a war, we can spend money on breast cancer.  You don't have to worry about Hillary pandering the women for votes over this, she already has the women's vote. 

The time has come for someone in congress to make this their  project to eradicate breast cancer in 10 years.  JFK wanted us on the moon in 10, and he got it. 

There are many here that think we can do a lot better for eradicating breast cancer.  They want to march on Washington.  I'll march when Hillary has this bill in front of the Senate so they know we mean business. 

They have made more inroads into prostate cancer then they have for breast cancer.  I watch the prostate news as much as I watch BC news.  If Obama thought of this first, you'd be estatic.  Women tend to think of other women, it comes naturally to us.  If she can make some very needed changes, more power to her. 

And I agree, she doesn't have all the women's votes and she still won't get them over this announcement.  Breast cancer eradication needs an advocate, a powerful one.  We got one now.

While surfing came across this video.........   http://youtube.com/watch?v=sawN7uJ8s8s&feature=related and then second which I found to be a bit more interesting is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RLx05jgauU&feature=relatednow this may be old news.........Shokk