Obama: U.S. Ready for Black President

[240 is Back]

Are you saying Barack Obama is a Black conservative? What planet are you on?

BB is a history professor ya know.

[24KT]

I am saying several so-called "black leaders" have said he is "not black enough", on the grounds that he may not support their full agenda.  I don't know if the NAACP specifically is one of them or not, but I think it is beyond ironic that groups who claim to support the advancement of Black people would try to deny Senator Obama his "blackness" on this basis.  It demonstrates that these groups are not really all about helping Black people, but are rather about maintaining their own wealth and power-base.

Complete jibberish & double-speak.

If the NAACP has not disparaged him as being "not Black enough"... how do you justify the charge they have?

That's like saying David Dukes disparages Jews, then interpreting that as the ADL being holocaust deniers.

Who are these "Black leaders" who have disparaged Obama's ethnicity? And who are their constituents?

[G o a t b o y]

Complete jibberish & double-speak.

If the NAACP has not disparaged him as being "not Black enough"... how do you justify the charge they have?

That's like saying David Dukes disparages Jews, then interpreting that as the ADL being holocaust deniers.

Who are these "Black leaders" who have disparaged Obama's ethnicity? And who are their constituents?

You're being too literal, Judi.  I don't remember the specific groups, and I was using "NAACP" as a metaphor to represent the "Black leadership" establishment. Sorry if I didn't make this clear.

I've read at least two stories on this in the past week alone.  I'll do a search and dig up the specifics if it's that important to you. 

[Dos Equis]

Are you saying Barack Obama is a Black conservative? What planet are you on?

   No.  What I said was "The NAACP does some good things, but I doubt they support many, if any, black conservatives."

[Tre]

Tre his timing is actually very good.  He is still a rock star.  The race is wide open (although I think the Democrat nod is Hillary's to lose).  The Republican party does not have an unbeatable candidate.  There is no incumbent.  I completely understand why he's running now. 

Bush is a very unpopular president, but if the Dems stick a Black or female candidate out there now...I think that would galvanize a certain very large segment of the population.

I'm not arguing that no Republican is capable of leading the country right now, however.  My argument is that it would be better to select a Democrat in order to ensure regime change once W is retired.

[G o a t b o y]

Bush is a very unpopular president, but if the Dems stick a Black or female candidate out there now...I think that would galvanize a certain very large segment of the population.

I'm not arguing that no Republican is capable of leading the country right now, however.  My argument is that it would be better to select a Democrat in order to ensure regime change once W is retired.

Well, Hillary is the last thing we need, so Obama would be a much better choice... if he can get past his own party, that is. 

[Tre]

I tend to agree.  The NAACP does some good things, but I doubt they support many, if any, black conservatives. 

I need to look into this 'new' NAACP. 

From what I saw on C-Span last month, the NAACP might be a lot more progressive today than they were 5-10 years ago.   

[Tre]

Well, Hillary is the last thing we need, so Obama would be a much better choice... if he can get past his own party, that is. 

Agreed on Obama > Hillary, but I'm puzzled as to why - after SEVEN YEARS - the Democrats still do not have an electable candidate identified and ready to assume the position. 

[G o a t b o y]

I need to look into this 'new' NAACP. 

From what I saw on C-Span last month, the NAACP might be a lot more progressive today than they were 5-10 years ago.   

It would certainly surprise me if that were the case.  Black conservatives such as Clarence Thomas, JC Watts, Colin Powell, and many others seem to receive little support from such groups.

[G o a t b o y]

Agreed on Obama > Hillary, but I'm puzzled as to why - after SEVEN YEARS - the Democrats still do not have an electable candidate identified and ready to assume the position. 

Because they've not been able to get over their love affair with the Clinton legacy.

[Dos Equis]

I need to look into this 'new' NAACP. 

From what I saw on C-Span last month, the NAACP might be a lot more progressive today than they were 5-10 years ago.   

If there was any movement, it hasn't been noticeable.  I know of a guy here who was asked to speak to the local branch of the NAACP about the political process.  When they found out the guy had Republican ties he was disinvited (is that a word?), because the talk was too close to an election and the NAACP didn't want to appear "partisan."   

I think this has been their recent history.  They are still in bed with the Democrat party. 

[tu_holmes]

Because they've not been able to get over their love affair with the Clinton legacy.

This is true... but many people (including myself) do believe that Clinton was a very good president... especially considering what we've had since his tenure.

[tu_holmes]

I need to look into this 'new' NAACP. 

From what I saw on C-Span last month, the NAACP might be a lot more progressive today than they were 5-10 years ago.   

This may be true, but didn't it take Bush like 6 years to even go to the NAACP... I mean, he seemed very set against it... perhaps his middle american white  Christian base was a factor?

[Dos Equis]

This may be true, but didn't it take Bush like 6 years to even go to the NAACP... I mean, he seemed very set against it... perhaps his middle american white  Christian base was a factor?

I don't really blame him.  Hostile crowd.  They don't support him.  Why should he? 

That said, I do believe there is a disproportionate number of bigots in the Republican party. 

[tu_holmes]

I don't really blame him.  Hostile crowd.  They don't support him.  Why should he? 

That said, I do believe there is a disproportionate number of bigots in the Republican party. 

I don't think they were hostile in the beginning... a large group of black Americans voted for him and his christian faith.

It took a couple of years before the crowd was hostile towards him and they certainly were behind him after 9/11

[G o a t b o y]

That said, I do believe there is a disproportionate number of bigots in the Republican party. 

Perhaps, but many people would have you believe that not supporting certain policies, such as affirimitive action on the grounds that it's reverse discrimination, or not supporting hate crimes legislation on the grounds ithat it criminalizes what is in one's mind rather than ones actions would automatically make one a "bigot".

[Dos Equis]

I don't think they were hostile in the beginning... a large group of black Americans voted for him and his christian faith.

It took a couple of years before the crowd was hostile towards him and they certainly were behind him after 9/11

Tu just so we're clear, I'm only referring to the NAACP, not blacks in general. 

[G o a t b o y]

Tu just so we're clear, I'm only referring to the NAACP, not blacks in general. 

Make sure you explain that to Judi! 

[Dos Equis]

Perhaps, but many people would have you believe that not supporting certain policies, such as affirimitive action on the grounds that it's reverse discrimination, or not supporting hate crimes legislation on the grounds ithat it criminalizes what is in one's mind rather than ones actions would automatically make one a "bigot".

I don't believe that, but what I find disturbing is the same people who oppose, e.g., affirmative action (which I DON'T want to debate) are the same ones who opposed The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Brown v. Board, the end of Jim Crow, etc.  One of the problems I think the Republican Party has is far too many bigots find a haven in the party.  I think they've made great strides, but they still have work to do.  

[Dos Equis]

Make sure you explain that to Judi! 

   Jag is a smart lady, but she reads and understands what she wants.  I don't have any control over that.  Sorry.   

[tu_holmes]

Tu just so we're clear, I'm only referring to the NAACP, not blacks in general. 

That could be true... I hate the NAACP.

[Tre]

I don't believe that, but what I find disturbing is the same people who oppose, e.g., affirmative action (which I DON'T want to debate) are the same ones who opposed The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Brown v. Board, the end of Jim Crow, etc.  One of the problems I think the Republican Party has is far too many bigots find a haven in the party.  I think they've made great strides, but they still have work to do.  

So true.

One of the things that many of the uneducated White racists do not understand is that affirmative action programs have helped to ensure that Whites would continue to hold positions of great power in disproportionate numbers.  Throw the ol' dog a bone and you can keep him at bay. 

That being said, there was a time when affirmative action was needed, because you had Black taxpayers who were unable to attend 'White' public schools.  It may seem common sensical to us today, but our larger society was not always as open as it is now and when you really think about it, 1954 wasn't all that long ago. 

[tu_holmes]

So true.

One of the things that many of the uneducated White racists do not understand is that affirmative action programs have helped to ensure that Whites would continue to hold positions of great power in disproportionate numbers.  Throw the ol' dog a bone and you can keep him at bay. 

That being said, there was a time when affirmative action was needed, because you had Black taxpayers who were unable to attend 'White' public schools.  It may seem common sensical to us today, but our larger society was not always as open as it is now and when you really think about it, 1954 wasn't all that long ago. 

You're right on all counts... The power ideal is how Stalin maintained his control over The USSR.

1954 wasn't that long ago, but many people especially those in power, seem to have a much shorter memory than those who are not.

[Dos Equis]

I agree with both of you.

[24KT]

You're being too literal, Judi.  I don't remember the specific groups, and I was using "NAACP" as a metaphor to represent the "Black leadership" establishment. Sorry if I didn't make this clear.

I've read at least two stories on this in the past week alone.  I'll do a search and dig up the specifics if it's that important to you. 

I don't believe I am being too literal. Literal is what is called for. My point is that you took a legitimate organization and discredited & tarnished it's name,  by lumping it with a bunch of kooks. That's like saying the current US Administration is X because David Dukes or (insert KKK member here) says X. The KKK does not speak for America, and they don't speak for this presidential administration, though they may claim to. By the same token, race baiters and poverty pimps do not speak for all blacks nor do they speak for the NAACP. The NAACP is a separate and distinct organization that is very real, and is NOT a metaphor, and should not be used as a metaphor... especially not for something that bears absolutely no resemblance to what it is all about.