AAR
Click here for full forums index
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 
Racism in presidential election (split from sexism...)

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SweetOne



Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 52
Location: My Desk

PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:38 pm    Post subject: Racism in presidential election (split from sexism...) Reply with quote

Please don't flame me for what I'm about to say.

That being said. I don't know who I'll vote for come November. I voted for HC in the primaries, (I am woman hear me roar) Anyway my reason for not immediately deciding to vote for Obama is that when he first came on the scene, I had this very strong dislike for him. It has absolutely nothing to do with race. If Condaleeza Rice or Colin Powell were running I would vote for them. No Question. It was just this very bad feeling.
_________________
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
LLB



Joined: 21 Mar 2007
Posts: 869
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:06 pm    Post subject: Rice or Powell Reply with quote

SweetOne wrote:
If Condaleeza Rice or Colin Powell were running I would vote for them. No Question.


I can never see myself voting for Rice. Although she was over-shadowed by the Neocons in the Bush administration, she's been incredibly ineffective in her two positions, and because of her focus on Russia, she totally missed the boat about Al Qaeda. She's obviously a very intelligent woman, but she is less than impressive to me.

On the other hand, Colin Powell has always impressed me as a man of integrity and intelligence, and while it's unfortunate that he ended up a dupe for Bush, I think he would make a wonderful addition to any presidential ticket. If he were running against Obama as the Republican candidate, I would vote for him over Obama.

As a previous Clinton supporter, I will vote for Obama. I can never see myself voting for McCain. Part of me remains impressed with Obama, but another part of me is less and less pleased as he capitulates toward the center. If Bush won by being unabashedly conservative, why can't Obama win by being unabasheduly liberal?
_________________
Laurie Gold
http://laurie-gold.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
I contributed to Hillary’s campaign last year when she was featured by Emily’s List (see http://www.emilyslist.org/ if you’re not already familiar with it), but by the time my state primary came around this year she was looking too Dumbya/W/Shrub-like for me to vote for her. NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING is a signal for me to AVOID a candidate. It indicates a candidate who does not have anything POSITIVE to contribute if they end up in office, like the ruiner occupying the White House right now. Race and gender are WAY below platform for me--I wouldn’t care if a candidate was a purple hermaphrodite if I believed a positive election campaign.


If Negative campaigning is enough to make you avoid a candidate, how did you choose between either? And, now Senator Obama has already started playing his race card, accusing Republicans of using his race as a negative ... except until just very recently, the Republicans were pretty much sitting back and watching the Democrats do their thing. So far, the only ones using race in negative campaigning ... is Senator Obama.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LLB



Joined: 21 Mar 2007
Posts: 869
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LisaW wrote:
If Negative campaigning is enough to make you avoid a candidate, how did you choose between either? And, now Senator Obama has already started playing his race card, accusing Republicans of using his race as a negative ... except until just very recently, the Republicans were pretty much sitting back and watching the Democrats do their thing. So far, the only ones using race in negative campaigning ... is Senator Obama.


Lisa -

I'm sorry, but calling Michelle Obama his "baby mama" is a pretty disgusting display of the race card. I realize it was Fox TV as opposed to McCain himself, but I found that incredibly offensive. The Republican smear machine is a fearsome thing, as McCain himself discovered in 2000 when the baby his wife adopted in Africa was suddenly said to be his own, illegitimate baby. After what happened to Harold Ford in 2006, I'm pretty sure it's going to get really, really, horribly ugly.
_________________
Laurie Gold
http://laurie-gold.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LLB wrote:


Lisa -

I'm sorry, but calling Michelle Obama his "baby mama" is a pretty disgusting display of the race card. I realize it was Fox TV as opposed to McCain himself, but I found that incredibly offensive. The Republican smear machine is a fearsome thing, as McCain himself discovered in 2000 when the baby his wife adopted in Africa was suddenly said to be his own, illegitimate baby. After what happened to Harold Ford in 2006, I'm pretty sure it's going to get really, really, horribly ugly.


Fox News is not a Republican organ ... unless you consider CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, etal, Democratic organs? Interestingly, I listen to a lot of talk and news shows ... and I have never heard the story about the McCain's adopted daughter was McCain's illegitimate baby. I did hear Mr Obama actually refer to the bitter gun-toters of the Midwest. I did hear some of Mrs Obama's statements that, to me, appear she has strong bigoted and racist leanings.

You're right ... this is going to be very dirty. And it's already started being dirty directly from the mouths of the presumed Democratic candidate, his wife and his supporters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LLB



Joined: 21 Mar 2007
Posts: 869
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:36 am    Post subject: The main difference Reply with quote

LisaW wrote:
Fox News is not a Republican organ ... unless you consider CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, etal, Democratic organs?


The difference is this: Roger Ailes, the CEO and founder of of Fox News, has a background unlike the CEO's/founders of any of the other networks you listed. He was a media consultant for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Rudy Giuliani (when he ran for mayor). A media consultant is a political position. The founders of the other networks do not share a similar background. ABC, NBC, and CBS were obviously founded more than 50 years ago, and MSNBC was a marriage between Microsoft and NBC. These men, and I believe they were all men, were businessmen, and those they hired to start and run their newsrooms were journalists, editors, and producers - they were not media consultants to one party or the other.
_________________
Laurie Gold
http://laurie-gold.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:36 am    Post subject: Re: The main difference Reply with quote

LLB wrote:
LisaW wrote:
Fox News is not a Republican organ ... unless you consider CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, etal, Democratic organs?


The difference is this: Roger Ailes, the CEO and founder of of Fox News, has a background unlike the CEO's/founders of any of the other networks you listed. He was a media consultant for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Rudy Giuliani (when he ran for mayor). A media consultant is a political position. The founders of the other networks do not share a similar background. ABC, NBC, and CBS were obviously founded more than 50 years ago, and MSNBC was a marriage between Microsoft and NBC. These men, and I believe they were all men, were businessmen, and those they hired to start and run their newsrooms were journalists, editors, and producers - they were not media consultants to one party or the other.


The difference isn't a difference when those in front of the cameras and those in the writing areas, when polled, all admit to a liberal bias.

The difference is when the media (TV and Radio) source that is paid with public funding has a liberal bias.

Listen to any of the interviews with Senator Obama ... when questions are asked and answers given, nothing is probed deeply.

As far as Fox News .... like it, don't like it ... watch it, don't watch it. There are sufficient alternatives that suit everyone's needs.

However, don't ever think there isn't bias in whatever news show you watch. It may be the same as your bias and therefore sounds right or it isn't your bias and therefore sounds wrong, but whichever, the bias is there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 870
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's enough voters out there who will refuse to vote for Obama because he is black as if that's the only reason not to vote for someone. Surely, we have had eight dismal long years of incompetent rule by a white guy who is a complete f***k up. You'd think by now that the voters would realize that competency, intelligence and common sense should matter more than the pigment of one's skin. As far as I am concerned, McCain is just like Bush, another F**k up!

In some perverse way I want McCain to win so that our country will completely fall apart. Then we can divide our country into blue states and red states. People can then decide which side of the country they want to live in. For those moving to the red side, they can send their kids off to war, their money can be spent on building weapons of mass destruction and bailing out corporations. You can have your military and your police state which is the intent of the neo-cons. Have a happy life!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2498

PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's not race, but age, which puts me in a quandary. Obama says some impressive things, obviously has a pretty firm grasp of politics, but so far, I don't really know what he'll do. Bush always impressed me as a successful frat boy--let's cheer for the football team, of which I'm the quarterback. Obama strikes me as the heretofore overlooked editor of the student paper running for president of the student body--good with words, striking the right chords, but so far, more interested in how he'll fill the position than how he'll do the job. And I agree in some ways that he played the race card with subtle skill and probably will continue to. I'm don't exactly fault him for it. Politics is politics.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tee



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 4223
Location: Detroit Metro

PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dick wrote:
And I agree in some ways that he played the race card with subtle skill and probably will continue to. I'm don't exactly fault him for it. Politics is politics.

True--politics is politics. And most politicians will play any card that will help them win the game. I hope this particular card is not stretched to the max, this time around, though, in the presidential election.

Maybe it's because that's all we're hearing in the Detroit area here with the mayor of Detroit fighting accusations and allegations and wrong-doing on his part in serving that office. He has used the race card in the past and is doing so now and this fiasco is tearing the city apart further at a time when it doesn't need it, both economically and in spirit.

So, personally, I'd like to see the race card very downplayed in the national campaign, although I realize that not using it all is like living in la-la land.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LLB



Joined: 21 Mar 2007
Posts: 869
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:40 am    Post subject: I'll go back to the start... Reply with quote

Tee wrote:
So, personally, I'd like to see the race card very downplayed in the national campaign, although I realize that not using it all is like living in la-la land.


It's pretty hard to avoid the race card when your wife is called your "baby mama."
_________________
Laurie Gold
http://laurie-gold.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
LizE



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The news is full of stories about the election. Unfortunately, too few of them are about the very real, very serious issues facing our country. Instead, we hear about reporters calling a candidate's wife an unpleasant name, or a when a candidate's minister said things we don't all agree with, or speculation on whether a candidate snapped a bad word at his wife. These are interesting, but they are a distraction. Even issues like a candidate’s sex or skin color are a distraction. What matters is the content of the candidate's character and vision for our country, and those things matter a lot.

How does the candidate define our role in the world? What will he do about Iraq? How does he envision our long-term involvement there? How about private contractors (i.e. Blackwater and their ilk). What restraints should be imposed on them in present and future conflicts, both foreign and domestic? What about Afghanistan? What exactly are we doing there, anyway? I, for one, would like to have the candidates define our mission. I'd be interested to hear them do the same thing re: Iraq. Everyone talks about victory and winning, but what exactly is victory in Iraq? What does it look like? I'd love for a candidate to tell me what I (your average US citizen) have won there at such a staggering cost to both the US and the Iraqi people. Instead, all I get is, "I was right about the surge and you were wrong!" "Yeah, well, I was right about not going in there in the first place and you were wrong!" Get over it already and move on to the future.

We also have the home front to consider: the mortgage crisis, the failing banks, the recession. What do the candidates intend to do about these things? And why? How do they define the role of government in the economy?

Most of all, though: what are the candidates' core beliefs? I mean, when the cameras are off, what do they actually think about these issues? Do they even have core beliefs, or is it all about rising and falling poll numbers? This is at least partly what I mean by character as opposed to a candidate's view on individual religious or moral issues.

It's easy to get distracted by the "news" du jour (Clinton's cleavage!! Jesse Jackson uses the "n" word!!) but the media will never focus on the hard issues unless we insist. Here's an interesting factoid: the NY Times did a study on the major news stations' (CBS, NBC, ABC) coverage of Iraq--this year, it averages 2 minutes per week. Some claim this is because the war's going so well that the liberal media doesn't want to cover it. Or that the American public just isn't interested.

It seems unbelievable that the public doesn't care about something that is not only taking such a toll in human terms, but is costing us billions of dollars per month, yet apparently it's true. And deeply scary.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 870
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LizE:

Well said. Thanks so much for writing so eloquently. I appreciated your thoughts and feelings immensely!

Karen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group