"They're Attacking Me Because I'm White!"

[sinewave]

The media didn't really attack him from the beginning. Every now and then a report would surface about his past drug use, or his rumored stay at a Madrassa, but other than that, he wasn't brutally attacked by the media on a day-to-day basis. None of his opponents attacked him until the last few months of the campaign, even though he felt the need to attack them...

which "attacks" are you referring to from his side?

One could argue though, that Obama would've never reached the level of prominence he did were it not for his skin color. What launched Obama into the national spotlight? His keynote address at the 2004 convention. It would've never happened if he were a young, white, congressional candidate. Don't put it past the Democratic party to parade a young, charasmatic, handsome black man simply on the grounds of him being just that. If he tried to run against Hillary as a young, white senator who no one has ever heard of, he would be crushed. Why? Because the media, unlike any election before this, created these rockstar candidates based on their minority status, and there would be only one. Clinton.

it was in 2002, not '04.

 

[lazur]

Who would be allowed to run for governor than?

Anyone who would normally be eligible; I don't believe that should be changed. I just think that if you want to be President, you need to work your way up to that level of responsibility. It shouldn't just be given to people based on race, gender and/or 'charisma'.

 

[The Senator]

which "attacks" are you referring to from his side?

They're the exact same attacks now, only they took place last April rather than now.
------

Rather than post again,
I want to point out how much the Obama campaign has taken the issue of race and used it against his opponents:

--Joe Biden referred to Sen. Obama as a "clean" and "articulate" African American candidate, causing many within Obama's campaign to say that he was referring to all African American candidates before Obama as "unkempt."

--Hillary Clinton said that MLK didn't get his goals passed into law without LBJ being able to draft and sign the Civil Rights Act. Her comments are criticized by the Obama campaign, and many see them as a direct attack on race.

--Bill Clinton says that Obama is an "articulate" speaker. He is criticized for the same reasons Joe Biden was criticized.

--Geraldine Ferraro says that Obama wouldn't be where he is today if he wasn't black. Immediately, her comments are seen as "racist" and crude.

Now... none of these comments are derogatory. They don't scream "racist." Hell, the two similar comments by Joe Biden and Bill Clinton makes it quite clear that he was being praised, not criticized-- and neither were past African American candidates, either. To paraquote Congressman Charlie Rangel: The only reason why 'race' became an issue with this campaign is because Obama made it one.

Why can't we as a nation have an intelligent conversation about race and gender in politics, without one side pointing and screaming and making it as big an issue as the war in Iraq or faltering economy? We're basically being told we can't discuss race or gender because it's "taboo." We can't mention Obama's middle name because it may make people think he's a terrorist. We can't mention his race because that may make people uncomfortable. We can't mention Hillary's gender because it will offend all working women, etc. etc. It's discouraging as an academic to see this take place on a national level, that we aren't allowed to say, "hey, would people support Obama if he was white?" or "what was Obama doing dressed in that strange outfit?" No one is saying "Obama sucks because he's black!" or "Hillary's a woman so she'll govern as a pansy!" They're asking legitimate questions, which deserve legitimate answers-- not "well that's racist/ sexist, now suffer the ensuing media wrath!"

 

[The Senator]

Anyone who would normally be eligible; I don't believe that should be changed. I just think that if you want to be President, you need to work your way up to that level of responsibility. It shouldn't just be given to people based on race, gender and/or 'charisma'.

There are Senators, Congressmen and Generals who are capable of leading our country, too. Just as there are Governors who can't manage for **** (Eliot Spitzer, Rod Blagojevich). I think it's stupid to confine those who are eligible to seek the Presidency to fifty or so politicians, because they had "executive experience." Bush had executive experience, and... oh yeah... look what's happened

 

[ObakeTora]

My opinion on this?

Even if there was a shred of truth to Ferraro's statements....


The old broad should have kept her mouth shut about it. Some things are better left unsaid.

 

[sinewave]

They're the exact same attacks now, only they took place last April rather than now.
------

Rather than post again,
I want to point out how much the Obama campaign has taken the issue of race and used it against his opponents:

--Joe Biden referred to Sen. Obama as a "clean" and "articulate" African American candidate, causing many within Obama's campaign to say that he was referring to all African American candidates before Obama as "unkempt."

--Hillary Clinton said that MLK didn't get his goals passed into law without LBJ being able to draft and sign the Civil Rights Act. Her comments are criticized by the Obama campaign, and many see them as a direct attack on race.

--Bill Clinton says that Obama is an "articulate" speaker. He is criticized for the same reasons Joe Biden was criticized.

--Geraldine Ferraro says that Obama wouldn't be where he is today if he wasn't black. Immediately, her comments are seen as "racist" and crude.

Now... none of these comments are derogatory. They don't scream "racist." Hell, the two similar comments by Joe Biden and Bill Clinton makes it quite clear that he was being praised, not criticized-- and neither were past African American candidates, either. To paraquote Congressman Charlie Rangel: The only reason why 'race' became an issue with this campaign is because Obama made it one.

Why can't we as a nation have an intelligent conversation about race and gender in politics, without one side pointing and screaming and making it as big an issue as the war in Iraq or faltering economy? We're basically being told we can't discuss race or gender because it's "taboo." We can't mention Obama's middle name because it may make people think he's a terrorist. We can't mention his race because that may make people uncomfortable. We can't mention Hillary's gender because it will offend all working women, etc. etc. It's discouraging as an academic to see this take place on a national level, that we aren't allowed to say, "hey, would people support Obama if he was white?" or "what was Obama doing dressed in that strange outfit?" No one is saying "Obama sucks because he's black!" or "Hillary's a woman so she'll govern as a pansy!" They're asking legitimate questions, which deserve legitimate answers-- not "well that's racist/ sexist, now suffer the ensuing media wrath!"

sorry if i wasn't clear, but i was asking for the attacks that obama's campaign made, not attacks on his campaign.

 

[The Senator]

sorry if i wasn't clear, but i was asking for the attacks that obama's campaign made, not attacks on his campaign.

And I replied by saying "they're the same as they were last April."

The "----------" separated my reply to your post from a reply I was going to/ did make.

 

[sinewave]

And I replied by saying "they're the same as they were last April."

The "----------" separated my reply to your post from a reply I was going to/ did make.

those are supposed to be attacks made by his campaign?

 

[Darkdd]

Well, Ferraro just stepped down from the finance committee, effectively leaving the Clinton campaign...

 

[The Senator]

those are supposed to be attacks made by his campaign?

LEARN TO READ.

MY RESPONSE TO YOU WAS THAT OBAMA HAD MADE THE SAME ATTACKS HE IS MAKING NOW, ONLY THEY TOOK PLACE IN APRIL.

THE REST OF THE POST HAD NOTHING TO DO YOU WITH YOUR POST, BUT WAS A COMPLETELY SEPARATE ARGUMENT.

DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS AGAIN?

 

[sinewave]

Well, Ferraro just stepped down from the finance committee, effectively leaving the Clinton campaign...

wise move, though i was rooting for her to derail clinton's campaign even more.

LEARN TO READ.

MY RESPONSE TO YOU WAS THAT OBAMA HAD MADE THE SAME ATTACKS HE IS MAKING NOW, ONLY THEY TOOK PLACE IN APRIL.

THE REST OF THE POST HAD NOTHING TO DO YOU WITH YOUR POST, BUT WAS A COMPLETELY SEPARATE ARGUMENT.

DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS AGAIN?

detract those claws, kitten. man, emotionally imbalanced much?

i'm asking you to outline the attacks be made towards other candidates supposedly before anyone else started attacking him. if you can't do that then i'll assume it was all just hot air from you.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Two words.


John Edwards.

 

[lazur]

There are Senators, Congressmen and Generals who are capable of leading our country, too. Just as there are Governors who can't manage for **** (Eliot Spitzer, Rod Blagojevich). I think it's stupid to confine those who are eligible to seek the Presidency to fifty or so politicians, because they had "executive experience." Bush had executive experience, and... oh yeah... look what's happened

You're probably right. I'm just being a little too idealistic. I'd like for those who become President to actually be qualified, but I doubt there's any tangible way to make that happen. Which sucks.

 

[The Senator]

wise move, though i was rooting for her to derail clinton's campaign even more.



detract those claws, kitten. man, emotionally imbalanced much?

i'm asking you to outline the attacks be made towards other candidates supposedly before anyone else started attacking him. if you can't do that then i'll assume it was all just hot air from you.

He attacked her because she accepted money from lobbyists and special interests-- despite the fact that his campaign is chaired by lobbyists. He attacked her over her vote in favor of the war with Iraq-- despite the fact that he voted to fund the war repeatedly while in office. He attacked her on social security-- something she has supported throughout the campaign. He attacked her for being unable to take a stance on drivers licenses for illegal immigrants-- something he proved he didn't have a stance on when the issue came up at a later Democratic Party debate. The first time she ever explicitly attacked him was at that very debate, when Obama decided to slam Clinton for her inability to take a position on that issue.

And while we're at it, Obama attacked the other candidates, even though it was minimal and unnecessary:

He attacked John Edwards' health care plan, saying it wasn't enough. He said that many of John Edwards' plans were not going to work, that they'd cost too much money... such as setting up regional health care markets and setting up a program which would allow everyone to go to college at the government's expense. Whether you agree or disagree with those issues, they were still attacks.

Obama attacked Joe Biden for wanting to divide Iraq into three separate countries.

Obama attacked Denis Kucinich... actually, he insulted him... by poking fun of his UFO 'encounter' on a national stage.

Obama attacked Bill Richardson, implying that his policies were fluff and simply wouldn't work.

We saw all of these things emerge before the primary season was officially underway. Obama attacked first, but then claimed to be a victim the second race was even implied. We've seen it over and over again, repeatedly, and it's quite unsettling.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

I'm mean, his actually skin tone as well as his ethnicity. He's a very light skinned black guy. I think if he was really dark skinned, he wouldn't be given so much attention.

Remind me to do a sequel thread entitled "They're Attacking Me Because I'm Lightskinnededed!!!"

 

[bell110]

It's funny, I was watching Hannity and Colmes last night, and he was talking about why it's different when he mentions his middle name rather than people like Coulter. He's such an asshat that he can't see that Coulter mentions his middle name to link him to Saddam where as he mentions his middle name because IT'S HIS ****ING MIDDLE NAME

 

[bell110]

Remind me to do a sequel thread entitled "They're Attacking Me Because I'm Lightskinnededed!!!"

I actually remember near the begining, when he started taking off, that some blacks actually accused him of not being black enough. They were mad because the possible first black president is not only half white, but his dad's from Kenya, so he's not a decendent of Africans who were brought here to be slaves.

 

[sinewave]

He attacked her because she accepted money from lobbyists and special interests-- despite the fact that his campaign is chaired by lobbyists. He attacked her over her vote in favor of the war with Iraq-- despite the fact that he voted to fund the war repeatedly while in office. He attacked her on social security-- something she has supported throughout the campaign. He attacked her for being unable to take a stance on drivers licenses for illegal immigrants-- something he proved he didn't have a stance on when the issue came up at a later Democratic Party debate. The first time she ever explicitly attacked him was at that very debate, when Obama decided to slam Clinton for her inability to take a position on that issue.

And while we're at it, Obama attacked the other candidates, even though it was minimal and unnecessary:

He attacked John Edwards' health care plan, saying it wasn't enough. He said that many of John Edwards' plans were not going to work, that they'd cost too much money... such as setting up regional health care markets and setting up a program which would allow everyone to go to college at the government's expense. Whether you agree or disagree with those issues, they were still attacks.

Obama attacked Joe Biden for wanting to divide Iraq into three separate countries.

Obama attacked Denis Kucinich... actually, he insulted him... by poking fun of his UFO 'encounter' on a national stage.

Obama attacked Bill Richardson, implying that his policies were fluff and simply wouldn't work.

We saw all of these things emerge before the primary season was officially underway. Obama attacked first, but then claimed to be a victim the second race was even implied. We've seen it over and over again, repeatedly, and it's quite unsettling.

i guess this is a matter of perspective, because i don't see those as being attacks, necessarily. he's been very good about pointing out the differences between his policies and his opponents' without stepping over the line of being disrespectful or dirty, imo. is pointing out how someone voted an attack on them if it's the truth? i don't consider that tactic an attack-oriented one. do you have any direct quotes from him that might shed more light on these supposed attacks?

 

[Franklin Richards]

Even the UFO one? Come on!

Bad form.

 

[sinewave]

Even the UFO one? Come on!

Bad form.

i'd have to see the quote. this is the first i've heard of it.

 

[The Senator]

i guess this is a matter of perspective, because i don't see those as being attacks, necessarily. he's been very good about pointing out the differences between his policies and his opponents' without stepping over the line of being disrespectful or dirty, imo. is pointing out how someone voted an attack on them if it's the truth? i don't consider that tactic an attack-oriented one. do you have any direct quotes from him that might shed more light on these supposed attacks?

I don't have direct quotes, no.

But seriously, it's obvious he was attacking for the sake of attacking. Look at the issue of drivers licenses for illegals: He attacked Clinton at the debate for not having a position, then two seconds later was laughed at by the audience because he couldn't come up with a position himself. He attacked Hillary Clinton because lobbyists and special interests donated money to her campaign, but thinks it's perfectly fine that lobbyists chaired his operations both at a state level (a former pharmaceutical lobbyist in New Hampshire) and nationwide (Tom Daschle is a national chair). And really, who has more influence-- the people donating the money, or the people dictating which issue areas your campaign is going to focus on?

His attacks on John Edwards were hypocritical as well, because as far as I can tell, Obama didn't even have a position on the matter until after the debate. Edwards was the first candidate to come out with a health care plan... Clinton and Obama followed after the debate, yet Obama was still able to attack him even though he didn't have a plan himself. If that's not attacking for the sake of attacking, I don't know what is.

Basically, the argument I'm getting out of this is "as long as Obama says it, it's fine." Which is part of the reason why I've given up debating the issue of Obama's hypocrisy as of late.

 

[terry78]

This thread title could also be the answer to the 25,000 Pyramid question, "things overheard at the Soul Train Music Awards."

 

[redfirebird2008]

Clinton's name and gender are both huge assets as well. Likewise, there's a flip side to gender and race. Plenty of sexists voting against Clinton and plenty of racists voting against Obama. But overall, I think the two things are strengths for both candidates, despite the flip side of the coin that they face.

 

[Cosmic]

1. Geraldine Ferraro is a joke. It was somewhat painful watching her trying to clarify her statements, as if they had any validity whatsoever. Sometimes it's just better to admit that you were wrong. People will understand...everybody messes up, sometimes. Don't make it worse for yourself.

2. Attacks are one thing, criticism is another. If someone's attacking your stance on the issues, it's not exactly what I'd consider playing dirty. I mean, damn. It's politics. Grow a thicker skin or move along.

 

[sinewave]

I don't have direct quotes, no.

But seriously, it's obvious he was attacking for the sake of attacking. Look at the issue of drivers licenses for illegals: He attacked Clinton at the debate for not having a position, then two seconds later was laughed at by the audience because he couldn't come up with a position himself. He attacked Hillary Clinton because lobbyists and special interests donated money to her campaign, but thinks it's perfectly fine that lobbyists chaired his operations both at a state level (a former pharmaceutical lobbyist in New Hampshire) and nationwide (Tom Daschle is a national chair). And really, who has more influence-- the people donating the money, or the people dictating which issue areas your campaign is going to focus on?

His attacks on John Edwards were hypocritical as well, because as far as I can tell, Obama didn't even have a position on the matter until after the debate. Edwards was the first candidate to come out with a health care plan... Clinton and Obama followed after the debate, yet Obama was still able to attack him even though he didn't have a plan himself. If that's not attacking for the sake of attacking, I don't know what is.

Basically, the argument I'm getting out of this is "as long as Obama says it, it's fine." Which is part of the reason why I've given up debating the issue of Obama's hypocrisy as of late.

again, i don't see a lot of that as "attacking". if he's getting personal and slinging mud about her, then yeah, i'd call that an attack, but stating your position, clarifying what differentiates you from your opposition and questioning their policies seems rather tame to me.

This thread title could also be the answer to the 25,000 Pyramid question, "things overheard at the Soul Train Music Awards."

t:

1. Geraldine Ferraro is a joke. It was somewhat painful watching her trying to clarify her statements, as if they had any validity whatsoever. Sometimes it's just better to admit that you were wrong. People will understand...everybody messes up, sometimes. Don't make it worse for yourself.

i'm not making excuses for her or any of her comments, but apparently she's been struggling with cancer and all the treatments that go along with it.

2. Attacks are one thing, criticism is another. If someone's attacking your stance on the issues, it's not exactly what I'd consider playing dirty. I mean, damn. It's politics. Grow a thicker skin or move along.

that's how i see it. i mean, if he brought up the allegations that she forced female interns to *ahem* "service her" while first lady, i'd call that an attack, but not this stuff.