US General Election: McCain vs. Obama

Remove all ads!

Amaster, you just proved LKD's point. you "assumed" that someone voting against the black candidate was because he felt the black candidate was inferior while voting for him was because he was more like you. that is racism pure and simple. If you your self are white you are exhibiting what is called "whitemans guilt" which is crap by the way.

 

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to blacks who vote for Obama primarily because of his race (no doubt some are racist, but I see no reason to believe most are). I'm not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to whites who vote for McCain primarily because of the race of either candidate (I see very good reason to believe these people are largely racist).

There has never been a framework in which black racism against whites has been institutionalized and propagated in America. Within living memory, however, white racism against blacks was institutionalized and propagated through what amounts to indoctrination. To claim that a black voting 'for' Obama is the same as a white voting 'against' Obama on the basis of race is to claim that history is no longer relevant, that Jim Crow and all its attendant attitudes and beliefs have no lasting legacy in this society. I don't believe such a claim has any merit.

Marty, a post ago you agreed that voting for something is not the same as voting against something. Now you seem to think they are the same. You also seem to think I suffer from white guilt. May I suggest that you don't know me nearly well enough to make such a judgment?

 

But amaster, don't you see that you tried to change the whole dynamic of the initial question?
person A who is white votes against obama because he is black not because of any political beliefs
person B who is black votes for obama because he is black not because of any political beliefs
This is racist on both of their parts. It has nothing to do with their political leanings.

And by "you" i was referring in general to white people who feel this deep-seated need to always try to apologise anytime someone other than a whiteman does something racist, not you per say. I'm sorry if it came off any other way.

 

What about the idea that a white person would vote for Mccain because they think his experiences more closely mirror theirs than Obama's would? I'm sorry, but racism is racism regardless of the history involved. Judging living whites by a different standard than that of living blacks is unjust. It doesn't matter what those whites' ancestors did.

For the record, I would say that ANYONE who makes the decision on who to vote for based only on race is a fool. That applies to blacks, whites, hispanics, orientals, and any little purple aliens.

 

Seeing as Obama is the first black candidate ever my opinion is that it is quite a stretch to view voting for him due to the colour of his skin as racism. If someone 60 years in the future where black people have hopefully settled in the corridors of power and have a fair representation vote purely due to the blackness of the skin then I could see the point.

In this day and age when a black man with power in the US is still a novelty the fact that he is black is a statement of his experiences and to some extent views that is at least as strongs as McCain's military background for example. Voting for Obama because he is black isn't racist and isn't even any less founded than voting for McCain because he is a warhero. I am not saying being black and being a warhero is the same thing, I am just saying that they are both things that have formed the candidate as a person.

Of course it would be nice if people could form more informed views of political candidates but come on, it is people we are talking about. They could elect a cucumber if someone gave it a catchy slogan.

 

It wouldn't even need to be THAT catchy of a a slogan.

It's just dishonest the steps that(yes i know that it sounds like i am ranting at them) the democrats have went to in my home state to "rectify" unequal representation. just check out district 12 :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina's_12th_congressional_district
Like the article explains it stretches for almost 200 miles & at many points is no wider than a highway lane !
This district was made to ensure that a black democratic candidate would be elected & he was.
He has held the seat since it was created in 1993.
I mean, come on, how blatant can you get.
Just take a look at the map of the district & realise that this is the REDRAWN district, it used to be longer & thinner!

 

I didn't get a chance to look at your link, Martaug, but I would agree in principle (as most thinking people would) that gerrymandering is immoral and dishonest. But I also should point out that gerrymandering is done by zealots of all political stripes, not just Democrats.

 

martaug - gerrymandering happens with both parties. The Democrats did create that district because they were in power when NC gained a Congressional seat in 1990. Here in Maryland, we have nearly the exact same thing - Congressional District 1 has stretches where it is very thin, although wider than a highway.

It also seems very strange to me that you feel it is unjustified for North Carolina to have a black Congressman. I just did a search, and North Carolina has 13 Congressional districts. Out of those 13, 10 are held by white men, 2 are held by white women, and 1 (District 12 as you mentioned) is held by a black man. I'm not sure what percentage of the people of North Carolina are black, but surely it's a lot more than 1 in 13. I'd say blacks are, if anything, under-represented.

Furthermore, the district in its current configuration has no area where it is only as wide as a highway. From the very link you provided, they said the original configuration was unconstitutional, and that the redrawn district actually has a plurality of whites. From your link:

 

Gerrymandering per se isn't a bad thing. It can be used to maintain that every delegate represents the same number of votes, and that is what I consider the proper use. It can be used correct migration out of or into a district.

What the D's and the R's have done is to redraw district lines so they have safe seats. As they had safe seats, party delegates no longer needed to appeal to 'the other side of the aisle', and didn't need to compromise the party creed. That led to the emergence of more ideological politicos. It is safe to assume that the current new generation of R's went through that school. One major consequence of this is the disappearing of the moderates or centrists and civility in the discourse. For the right wing (or left wing) these centrists are traitors. That and the '51% are a majority'-attitude, I think, are to a great extent responsible for the emergence of the current highly polarised American political climate. It has poisoned the political discourse and led to it's degeneration into he-said/she-said partisan bickering, cheap shots and little substance.

 

Like how blatant the Republicans were here in Texas?

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2004/10/20/gerrymandering-texas-style.htm

 

It's all bad no matter who does it. Because the republicans in texas did it to get back at the dems who did t 20 years ago who did it to get back at the reps who ... etc.
I would not have had a problem with them making 1,2,3 or even more districts to elect minority candidates if they would just be honest about it. They always refuse to acknowledge that is their goal even when it is crystal clear.

 

Ragusa, gerrymandering, as I've always heard it used, is the process of specifically designing districts to have an unrepresentative majority of one group or another. Merely adjusting districts so that their populations are all the same size is not gerrymandering, but designing a district to have, say 42% white, 44% hispanic, and 12% black, when the general population of the region is 75% white, 21% black, and 4% hispanic (randomly generated numbers) is blatantly unfair to blacks and whites, while unduely representing hispanics.

 

NOG,
thanks for the clarification; the legitimate use appears to be called re-districting.

 

I've heard that Gen. Wesley Clark made some comments about the candidates which TYT, among others, interpreted as a show of a VP ambitions. Thinking about it, he or John Edwards may be the biggest choices if you don't look at "he's from state X, so he should bring Y voters from there."

 

Clark recently made some comments about McCain's service that were blown out of proportion (oh, that liberal media), so much so that Obama had to disown and address the comments. I don't think Clark is in the running, at least not any more.

 

I heard a report that Bill Clinton said that "Obama will have to kiss my ass to get any support out of me." -- Now granted this was on a morning shock jock show so maybe they were just goofing around but from what I heard it was something Bill said in private, not at a rally or anything. No matter what the circumstances, it sure tickled my funnybone.

 

DR: Yeah, what was up with that. I mean, what he said was essentially irrelevant, but correct. As far as I can tell, he basically said that sitting in a fighter jet and then sitting in a POW camp does not actually train you to handle, nor test your ability to handle, international crises on the presidential level. Basically, McCain's military service proves he's loyal, brave, and willing to fight for his country, but not that he's a capable Commander & Chief. Of course, Obama hits the same problem, but I think everyone knew that one already.

LKD, CNN was reporting similar, so you know it's true. Seriously, though, I believe it. I imagine Hillary would have said similar if her political career weren't still viable.

 

Actually, NOG, that is pretty much what Wesley Clarke said: that John McCain's experiences as a fighter pilot and later as a POW do not, of themselves, qualify him to be Commander-in-Chief. This, I would have thought, is fairly self-evident. But the GOP spun Clarke's comments 180 degrees and acted as though he had said these experiences dis-qualified McCain for the Presidency, which of course he didn't say, and that he was in some way impugning McCain's patriotism, which he also didn't do.

Welcome back to the world of Distractions, where the tub-thumping salesmen are so easy; farewell to that messy and uncomfortable discussion of actual issues.

 

Please, obama is just as likely to get us in another war as mccain. He is the worst kind of war-mongerer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm

you notice that it is obama not mccain stating he would conduct military operations in a friendly country without their permission.

 

Ha! Ha! This is freakin' hilarious. All this carping and whining from the Republicans over a fairly benign comment by Wes Clark. They are not much more than a bunch of cry babies, especially after the way they shamelessly trashed the military experience of John Kerry. What a bunch of jokesters....

Yeah, he should be just what those on the right are looking for in that case...