The Reflector

Originally posted by

Jennifer

What about the people who voted for him JUST because he is black. It's not just white people who are being racist about this! (As your encounter at the store shows us.) Those are the people who have everyone "scared." Who are forgetting that he is a person of mixed heritage and are just using him and supporting him because he is black. We not only need to address the issue of people not voting for him because of his color but also the issue of people voting for him only because of his color. That's still ignorance and just as much of a problem. And those are the people much more likely to cause violence because of it, as your story proves.

The reality is that whites have voted for the "white candidate" since the inception of the open election system. So what if after 500 years of oppression, black americans vote for the most qualified candidate(who happens to be black). The problem is that if you honestly supported McCain, then you support Sara Palin, and feel comfortable with her as President. That is a scary and frightening thought, and can only be attributed to racism. Get over it white people, and stop complaining about so-called "reverse-racism". It's an absurd argument, but a typical argument from a nation of FOXNEWS lovers.

[QUOTE]

Originally posted by

Jennifer

What about the people who voted for him JUST because he is black. It's not just white people who are being racist about this! (As your encounter at the store shows us.) Those are the people who have everyone "scared." Who are forgetting that he is a person of mixed heritage and are just using him and supporting him because he is black. We not only need to address the issue of people not voting for him because of his color but also the issue of people voting for him only because of his color. That's still ignorance and just as much of a problem. And those are the people much more likely to cause violence because of it, as your story proves.

The reality is that whites have voted for the "white candidate" since the inception of the open election system. So what if after 500 years of oppression, black americans vote for the most qualified candidate(who happens to be black). The problem is that if you honestly supported McCain, then you support Sara Palin, and feel comfortable with her as President. That is a scary and frightening thought, and can only be attributed to racism. Get over it white people, and stop complaining about so-called "reverse-racism". It's an absurd argument, but a typical argument from a nation of FOXNEWS lovers.
[/QUOTE]

No, reverse racism is in fact present, and is not an absurd argument. Obviously you are a minority, and so you can only see it from your point of view. Look at how many "minority scholarships" there are. How many "majority scholarships" are there? None. Tax dollars have been spent to pay black people for reparations. MY tax dollars. I didn't get any freebies from the government. Obviously that isn't necessary because we just elected a black president. Nothing is holding black people back now besides their own individual self. There IS reverse racism in this country, and you are foolish to think otherwise. There IS also racism in this country, and both are unfortunate.

Another thing, is that black people are quick to point out that a black president was elected, but they forget he is half white, and he was raised by his white mother.

Originally posted by

2007 Alumnus

Furthermore, if you look at the data from this election you can see where between ~40 to 50% of caucasians voted for Obama whereas ~5% of black people voted for McCain. If there is racism in that I will leave it up to you to decide where. We need to move beyond this "we" stuff when it comes to race.

In order to make these numbers make any sense you should compare them to something. For example, the 2004 election. Around 12% of blacks voted for Bush in 2004. 41% of the white vote was for Kerry in 2004, 43% for Obama, 53% of the Latino vote went for Kerry, 67% for Obama. 56% of the Asian vote for Kerry, 62% for Obama. Let's not also forget that the African American vote made up 13% of the electorate this year, but only 11% in 2008.

When you put things in context, it's pretty interesting, isn't it? After all, it sure doesn't seem that the black vote is all that effected by the fact that a black man was the candidate, when compared to the Latino vote, or when compared to the number of votes that changed hands in the white vote. You're absolutely right though, let's leave the "we" out of this. We should only be used when we're talking about the nation as a whole. We are one nation, Black, White, Latino, Blue, Purple. We're all Americans.

Originally posted by

Clifferd

Bailey, please don't perceive as derogatory what I'm about to say, but you, and much of your generation are simply not old enough and haven't had the life experiences to understand the error of your vote for Obama. You have voted for, and put into office, easily the most untested, unknown, thus unqualified, Presidential candidate in American history. Will he be effective / do a good job? Possibly. Only history will tell. However, to vote for someone about which so little is known was absolute insanity! From my perspective, the most troubling trend in this campaign was the total disregard for (1) Obama's experience (or lack thereof), (2) his past associations, which were our only glimpse into who the man really is and what he will likely stand for, and (3) the tax / military policies that he actually stated during the campaign........Was John McCain the man for the job? I don't know. I thought it would be impossible to have a more lackluster candidate than Bob Dole was in 1996 (you were probably +/- 10 years old then), but I was wrong. However, McCain was a KNOWN quantity! Likewise, we have A B S O L U T E L Y no idea who Obama is or what he'll really do! Even the Democrat pundits are now questioning that (after the campaign, of course). To end by following up on the basis for your article, it should be crystal clear to anyone who doesn't want to deny it for the sake of denying it: Obama wasn't elected in spite of the fact he's black. He was elected BECAUSE he iss black. The idea that an equally unknown / unqualified white man could have been elected is simply preposterous! Bottom line: by definition, voting for someone because of their race is racism. It may be that you'll want to look in the mirror before writing another article like this.

Thank you for making my point. Your perspective that "Obama wasn't elected in spite of the fact he's black. He was elected BECAUSE he iss black" is why this article was written.

Thanks again for reminding how close minded people can be.

Originally posted by

Clifferd

Bailey, please don't perceive as derogatory what I'm about to say, but you, and much of your generation are simply not old enough and haven't had the life experiences to understand the error of your vote for Obama. You have voted for, and put into office, easily the most untested, unknown, thus unqualified, Presidential candidate in American history. Will he be effective / do a good job? Possibly. Only history will tell. However, to vote for someone about which so little is known was absolute insanity! From my perspective, the most troubling trend in this campaign was the total disregard for (1) Obama's experience (or lack thereof), (2) his past associations, which were our only glimpse into who the man really is and what he will likely stand for, and (3) the tax / military policies that he actually stated during the campaign........Was John McCain the man for the job? I don't know. I thought it would be impossible to have a more lackluster candidate than Bob Dole was in 1996 (you were probably +/- 10 years old then), but I was wrong. However, McCain was a KNOWN quantity! Likewise, we have A B S O L U T E L Y no idea who Obama is or what he'll really do! Even the Democrat pundits are now questioning that (after the campaign, of course). To end by following up on the basis for your article, it should be crystal clear to anyone who doesn't want to deny it for the sake of denying it: Obama wasn't elected in spite of the fact he's black. He was elected BECAUSE he iss black. The idea that an equally unknown / unqualified white man could have been elected is simply preposterous! Bottom line: by definition, voting for someone because of their race is racism. It may be that you'll want to look in the mirror before writing another article like this.

"Age does not always bring with it wisdom, sometimes age comes alone." Leave Bailey's generation out of it, Clifferd - she's absolutely right in what she's written, and you've proven it in spite of yourself. You can bring up people like Dole and try to act intelligent and aged, but you left out folks like Mondale and Goldwater.

Bottom line - the exit polls showed that among people who considered race an issue in this election, the results were nearly identical to the national results. And no matter how you wrap it or try to manipulate it, voting for someone based on race is not the same as voting against someone based on race. If a woman had voted for a female candidate because she wanted to support a woman, or identified with a woman, or thought the woman would advocate for her is she then sexist against men?

Originally posted by

Clifferd

Bailey, please don't perceive as derogatory what I'm about to say, but you, and much of your generation are simply not old enough and haven't had the life experiences to understand the error of your vote for Obama. You have voted for, and put into office, easily the most untested, unknown, thus unqualified, Presidential candidate in American history. Will he be effective / do a good job? Possibly. Only history will tell. However, to vote for someone about which so little is known was absolute insanity! From my perspective, the most troubling trend in this campaign was the total disregard for (1) Obama's experience (or lack thereof), (2) his past associations, which were our only glimpse into who the man really is and what he will likely stand for, and (3) the tax / military policies that he actually stated during the campaign........Was John McCain the man for the job? I don't know. I thought it would be impossible to have a more lackluster candidate than Bob Dole was in 1996 (you were probably +/- 10 years old then), but I was wrong. However, McCain was a KNOWN quantity! Likewise, we have A B S O L U T E L Y no idea who Obama is or what he'll really do! Even the Democrat pundits are now questioning that (after the campaign, of course). To end by following up on the basis for your article, it should be crystal clear to anyone who doesn't want to deny it for the sake of denying it: Obama wasn't elected in spite of the fact he's black. He was elected BECAUSE he iss black. The idea that an equally unknown / unqualified white man could have been elected is simply preposterous! Bottom line: by definition, voting for someone because of their race is racism. It may be that you'll want to look in the mirror before writing another article like this.

that might just be one the most closed minded stupid 1950s comments that I have ever seen. For you to be your so called age and wise you should really examine your morals and values...and most of all FACTS. The FACTS ARE THAT RACE PLAYED A HUGE ROLE WHY SOUTHERNERS AND DIDNT VOTE FOR OBAMA! THE FACTS ALSO ARE THAT 61% OF WHITE AMERCIANS VOTED FOR OBAMA IN THIS ELECTION...SO I ASK YOU..DID THOSE OTHER WHITE VOTERS VOTE FOR HIM BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK? COME ON NOW PLEASE KNOW THAT YOU ARE A TYPICAL RACIEST AND YOU DONT COME WITH WISDOM YOU COME WITH RACISM FROM YOUR PAST...NOTICE I SAID PAST..THIS IS 2008..ITS TIME FOR PPL DOWN SOUTH TO GET WITH THE REST OF THE FUCKING WORLD BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT WHITES,BLACKS,ASIANS,HISPANICS,ORIENTALS,AFRICANS AND ALL OTHER RACES WERE VOTING FOR CHANGE NOT FOR COLOR..IF THAT WERE THE CASE THEN WHY IS IT THAT THIS IS THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.... WHY DID BLACKS FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO VOTE SO HARD IF ALL WE WANT TO DO IS HAVE A BLACK PRESIDENT...COME ON NOW..GET FUCKING REAL

Originally posted by

Clifferd

To end by following up on the basis for your article, it should be crystal clear to anyone who doesn't want to deny it for the sake of denying it: Obama wasn't elected in spite of the fact he's black. He was elected BECAUSE he iss black. The idea that an equally unknown / unqualified white man could have been elected is simply preposterous! Bottom line: by definition, voting for someone because of their race is racism. It may be that you'll want to look in the mirror before writing another article like this.

What a dumb statement to cap off a whole wad of dumb statements. You work from an ignorant assumption - that people only voted for Obama because of his race - and then try to build a case on that flawed "logic." I know plenty of white people who voted for Obama, and we could care less about his race. And, to their credit, many of the Republicans who voted against Obama didn't do so because of racism, either. Most did it because of religious issues (they're not going to vote for anyone who's pro-choice).

Then, there are people like you, who've apparently put their intellect on a starvation diet of propaganda from unreliable sources. You don't know who Obama is? Where have you been? The man has been in public life for quite a while, he's got two autobiographies out, he's had documentaries made about him, I have read testimonies about him from students who took his classes and from friends who've known him for years... if you don't know who he is, then it's because you're willfully ignorant about him or too lazy to look into it. We know Obama as well as we do McCain. And I voted for him BECAUSE of what I know about him: his extreme intelligence, his good judgement, his intellectual curiosity, his communication skills, and his record of accomplishments. Since you seem to know nothing about him, here is a list of just some of the legislation he's been involved with:

The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (Introduced by McCain, co-sponsored by Edward Kennedy, with three ammendments added by Obama. It didn't pass, but the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Acts of 2006 and 2007 drew heavily upon this bill).

The Lugar-Obama Comparative Threat Reduction (to secure weapons of mass destruction from former Soviet states, to help prevent nuclear terrorism)

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (introduced by Obama and Coburn, this required the full disclosure of all entities or organizations that get federal funding. Not surprisingly, Ted Stevens tried to block this bill, but it passed, and now government has greater transparency on where our tax dollars go, thanks to this web site: http://www.usaspending.gov/ )

Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (Obama and Feingold developed this to require public disclosure of lobbying activity and its funding, places restrictions on gifts for members of Congress, and provides mandatory disclosure of earmarks.)

There are also the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, the Obama-McCain Climate Change Reduction Bill, the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007, the Comprehensive Nuclear Threat Reduction provision, and more.

There are a lot of reasons why I voted for Obama. And his skin color is not one of them.

If you don't know who Obama is, then it is because you didn't live up to your responsibility as an informed voter, because the information is out there, and Obama's record is available for anyone who actually wants to look into it instead of just repeating things they heard that carnival huckster Sean Hannity say, like some trained parrot. Remember, Sean Hannity is a guy who DEPENDS on keeping the country divided. What he's selling is outrage, and if he can't keep Americans at each other's throats, he won't have an audience to exploit. It is in his best interest to lie to you, to keep you on the string. Otherwise his ratings go down, he loses advertisers, and that costs him money. Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilley... they aren't journalists, as someone else in this thread has claimed: they're pitchmen, selling you noise, misleading you so they can make money off your outrage. You'd do better to check things out for yourself instead of being led like a sheep. It steered your party wrong, and that's why you are where you are: out of power.

Originally posted by

Clifferd

Was John McCain the man for the job? I ... However, McCain was a KNOWN quantity!

McCain was a known quantity, which is precisely why I voted for Obama. I knew that, although I respect McCain for his service to his country and for standing up against torture (most of the time, although he would not stand firm against waterboarding), I disagree strongly with him on his support for the war in Iraq, his support for the idea of expanding the war into Iran, and for his proposed economic policies. It may turn out that Obama is too inexperienced to extricate us from Iran within the time frame he envisions- but that is far preferable to have an experienced politician work at keeping us there. In addition, Obama has the intelligence and the awareness of economic principles to be talking about economic stimulus- while it is possible that he will not succeed in pulling us out of the quagmire that unregulated free market neocons have steered us into, at least he isn't proposing relying on McCain's proposed spending freeze to bring us out of a recession- when basic economic awareness argues strongly that that would make things much worse. Obama does not have all the qualities one could wish for in a president- no human being does- but he at least is realistic enough to recognize where he needs assistance and he chooses his advisors to fill in the gaps in his background, rather than on the basis of total agreement with his narrow view of the world (as Bush did) or on the basis of a misguided love of doing the unexpected at all costs (as McCain did with Palin). America is in great need of someone who will seek advice from experts and intelligently consider what they have to say- we have not seen that in the oval office in quite some time.

[QUOTE id="e96f6319-552b-4577-82f8-7f9f5aa9b1ad"]Obama wasn't elected in spite of the fact he's black. He was elected BECAUSE he iss black.QUOTE]

This comment is very unfounded. If you look back over the years, a few African Americans have tried to run for President including Shirley Chisholm (1972), Rev. Jesse Jackson (1984 and 1988), and Rev. Al Sharpton (2004). Did they even get nominated to run for Presidency? No, they did not. And to say that Barack Obama was voted to run for Presidency and later voted as President elect was because of his race is totally ridiculous. There had to be some other reasons Americans (not just African Americans because there is no way there's enough of us to get anyone in office) voted for Obama. I do not believe Americans have changed in only 4 years (2004 when Rev. Al Sharpton ran) that we would vote for an African American just to show that we are not racist. Americans as a whole (because we as a whole voted Obama in) had to believe in what he stands for, his politics, change, or whatever it is that made us vote for him. And this for many people do not include his race because if it did many Caucasians wouldn't have voted for him (and over 50% did). Note that I said many and not all people because I'm sure some did vote for him because of his race. But on the other hand, some didn't vote for him because of his race. And in my book, that makes things equal (they cancel each other out). Obama is in and no one can change that. We, as Americans, should come together (just like we did to vote him in) and show some support and encouragement. After all, he is representing us (Americans). And if you don't want him representing you, you have two choices: suck it up (and wait until the next election) or move. Obama is here to stay for the next 4 years.

Obama was not elected because of his race. Sixty-one percent of his votes came from white people. The reality of the situation is that America was ready for a fresh direction. The country is in an economic crisis, and the republican party was on watch when it happened. Is it fair? I don't know, but the American people have voiced their opinion. Now it is up to all Americans to support our President.

Originally posted by

Clifferd

Bailey, please don't perceive as derogatory what I'm about to say, but you, and much of your generation are simply not old enough and haven't had the life experiences to understand the error of your vote for Obama.

Just because you say it's not derogatory, does not mean it's not derogatory. What life experiences are necessary to pick a presidential candidate?

Originally posted by

Clifferd

Bailey, please don't perceive as derogatory what I'm about to say, but you, and much of your generation are simply not old enough and haven't had the life experiences to understand the error of your vote for Obama. You have voted for, and put into office, easily the most untested, unknown, thus unqualified, Presidential candidate in American history. Will he be effective / do a good job? Possibly. Only history will tell. However, to vote for someone about which so little is known was absolute insanity! From my perspective, the most troubling trend in this campaign was the total disregard for (1) Obama's experience (or lack thereof), (2) his past associations, which were our only glimpse into who the man really is and what he will likely stand for, and (3) the tax / military policies that he actually stated during the campaign........Was John McCain the man for the job? I don't know. I thought it would be impossible to have a more lackluster candidate than Bob Dole was in 1996 (you were probably +/- 10 years old then), but I was wrong. However, McCain was a KNOWN quantity! Likewise, we have A B S O L U T E L Y no idea who Obama is or what he'll really do! Even the Democrat pundits are now questioning that (after the campaign, of course). To end by following up on the basis for your article, it should be crystal clear to anyone who doesn't want to deny it for the sake of denying it: Obama wasn't elected in spite of the fact he's black. He was elected BECAUSE he iss black. The idea that an equally unknown / unqualified white man could have been elected is simply preposterous! Bottom line: by definition, voting for someone because of their race is racism. It may be that you'll want to look in the mirror before writing another article like this.

What we saw of McCain was not good. There is a difference between a person with experience showing good judgment and a person with a long history of bad judgments. McCain was the latter. The S&L disaster, deregulation, his abuse of POW/MIA families, a campaign run by lobbyists including people who had lobbied illegally on behalf of Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, a health insurance plan that would have penalized people with health insurance 5,000 dollars a year and an advisor who claimed that the ER was all the insurance you needed and who cares what it costs.
We have often had people as president with little to no experience and it is clear that without good judgment and character, experience means little. Bush II was a governor and repeatedly failed businessman who squandered every advantage his parents gave him, from the finest private schools to sweetheart deals and business connections. He drove America off a cliff just like he did his baseball team and his oil companies, spectacularly, and gave Osama Bin Laden everything he asked for. McCain looked like the same kind of spoiled son of privilege with the same problems and same weaknesses, except that he didn't desert the military before his hitch was up.l

"Obama was not elected because of his race. Sixty-one percent of his votes came from white people. The reality of the situation is that America was ready for a fresh direction. The country is in an economic crisis, and the republican party was on watch when it happened. Is it fair? I don't know, but the American people have voiced their opinion. Now it is up to all Americans to support our President."

Just because white people voted for Obama doesn't mean he wasn't elected because he was black. In fact, I have heard several white people say they voted for him because they didn't want to appear racist. So the statistics you gave are basically worthless in proving WHY Obama won. It only says what percent of white people voted for him.

Originally posted by

Student

Bailey,

Your article doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Your main idea seems to be that white Mississippians have shown racism towards black people since Obama's election, however, all of the examples you give are the opposite: black people displaying hostile attitudes towards white people. Without even touching on the irony of that, I'd just like to say that you can't play the "race card" just because Republicans are unhappy that a Democrat is in the White House. While I wouldn't doubt there has been some racism out there, on both sides, you certainly did not provide any proof that the point you were trying to get across is even legitimate, not to mention the fact that you firmly establish the opposite point!

Student,
Please review my article as this is a direct quote: "Both races are at fault when it comes to ignorance."

You need to get the facts straight about Rev. Wright. At first Obama said he can no more disown the black community or his with grandmother that disown Wright. He said that hey were just sound clips and not what Wright was all about. Then when Wright went before the media and basically said word for word what the Obama called "sound clips" then Obama disowned him. Obama did this because he knew that this was going to crush him, so he did what was politically expedient. So I guess Obama has disowned the black community and his now dead white grandmother. If you actually go to the church's website it is very obvious that they believe all the things that Wright was preaching about. It is a little naive to think that Obama did not know where his pastor was comming from and that Obama does not believe what his church preaches.

Originally posted by

Courtney

I agree with you Bailey. There is racism from both sides, and it is quite embarrassing to say the least. In class on Wednesday, several of the Black students were making racist comments that were obviously directed towards some of the White students. How have we felt in the past when the shoe was on the other foot? I can say from experience that it doesn't feel all that great. So why do it to someone else? There is a time and a season for everything under the sun. The classroom certainly wasn't the place for that. Obama isn't just the Black people's president, but he's going to be the president of the entire United States of America. Blacks are a minority, so obviously they didn't elect Obama by themselves. It took Whites, Latinos, Asians, and whomever else to make this happen. So why offend someone who may have supported the same person? That's ignorance at its finest. When I heard the comments, I thought about whether or not they remembered how Obama reprimanded Jeremiah Wright for his racist statements. It's fine for Blacks to want to support President Obama, but let's do it in a way that would make him proud and not embarrassed. I definitely don't think this particular behavior is something that he would condone.

Originally posted by

student

I just wanted to say that every week there is one thing in the reflector that my friends and I look forward to, and that is Bailey Singletary's article. I didn't really even read this particular article, but I just wanted to take the time to say thank you. Thank you for your wonderfully rambling, incoherent thoughts about topics that you learned about the day before. Thank you for not using grammar check. And thank you most of all for assuming the role of an expert when you actually have no clue.

I agree!! How did she ever make it to college? What a moron!

Originally posted by

Ryan

"The reality is that whites have voted for the "white candidate" since the inception of the open election system. So what if after 500 years of oppression, black americans vote for the most qualified candidate(who happens to be black). The problem is that if you honestly supported McCain, then you support Sara Palin, and feel comfortable with her as President. That is a scary and frightening thought, and can only be attributed to racism. Get over it white people, and stop complaining about so-called "reverse-racism". It's an absurd argument, but a typical argument from a nation of FOXNEWS lovers."

Khaleed, you are flat out ignorant. You are saying that the people who voted for McCain and Palin are racists. That is a rather idiotic statement. Here's a bright idea, maybe we voted for McCain because we are more aligned with his stances and policies than Obama's. By you making that comment the shows that you are beyond a doubt more racist than anyone else commenting on this article. The data from this election shows that around 40 to 50% of white americans voted for Obama while 95% of black Americans voted for Obama. So who are the racist ones? Open your eyes, there are more racist actions and words uttered by black people now than white people.
Did you notice that Obama tried to make racism an issue during the election. Obama said thinkg like: "I dont look like the other presidents on the dollar bills", "He's got a funny name", and "Did I mention he's black". McCain never brought up the issue of race it was Obama.

Lastly, Fox News has been the most fair and balanced news organization during this election and the statistics show it.

If anyone has brought up the issue of race it is the Republicans. They linked Obama to Osama bin Laden and him being Muslim plenty of times. Racists people made jokes about his middle name as if he was a terrorist. If you think Fox News is the least bit fair you are mistakingly wrong. Yes, 95% of Blacks did vote for Obama but 90% of Blacks always vote DEMOCRATS ANYWAY. I have also heard some Republican males say they vote for McCain because Palin is HOT!

Evidently Ryan you are the idiot. Obama never disowned the Black community nor did he disown Rev. Wright. On the Rev. Wright issue, Obama clearly stated that he was attending Wright's church services, but he had many different services and he only attend one. He also stated that the media took pieces of what he said in his sermons and did not look at the whole sermon to get the actual context of his message. How would you feel if someone, the media, took a piece of what you said and made it into a issue about racism and take it out of context, how would you feel? Besides, when you look at the video, you can clearly see Caucasians and African-Americans in the same church listening and following the same man. On the other hand, not once did the words "I disown the black community" ever come out of Obama's mouth or did he even say anything that pertained to the matter. So the best thing you can do is SHUT-UP!!

Originally posted by

Ryan

"The reality is that whites have voted for the "white candidate" since the inception of the open election system. So what if after 500 years of oppression, black americans vote for the most qualified candidate(who happens to be black). The problem is that if you honestly supported McCain, then you support Sara Palin, and feel comfortable with her as President. That is a scary and frightening thought, and can only be attributed to racism. Get over it white people, and stop complaining about so-called "reverse-racism". It's an absurd argument, but a typical argument from a nation of FOXNEWS lovers."

Khaleed, you are flat out ignorant. You are saying that the people who voted for McCain and Palin are racists. That is a rather idiotic statement. Here's a bright idea, maybe we voted for McCain because we are more aligned with his stances and policies than Obama's. By you making that comment the shows that you are beyond a doubt more racist than anyone else commenting on this article. The data from this election shows that around 40 to 50% of white americans voted for Obama while 95% of black Americans voted for Obama. So who are the racist ones? Open your eyes, there are more racist actions and words uttered by black people now than white people.
Did you notice that Obama tried to make racism an issue during the election. Obama said thinkg like: "I dont look like the other presidents on the dollar bills", "He's got a funny name", and "Did I mention he's black". McCain never brought up the issue of race it was Obama.

Lastly, Fox News has been the most fair and balanced news organization during this election and the statistics show it.

Originally posted by

Yvette

Hello Bailey,
I never blog because I find it useless. However, I felt the need to tell you what a well written article that was. You nailed the racism issue regarding our new president elect.
Although it is a bit ignorant to vote for a president because of their skin color, i dont blame those that did.
Only an African-American can truly grasp the greatness in this election. There was a sense of lost hope... it is almost as though we came to accept and believe that all presidents were always going to be white. Before today, it was difficult, almost impossible for a parent of color to raise their kids believing that they too can one day become the president of this great nation. This election has opened doors beyond our imagination ....Altough I am not of color..... Today I feel proud to be called an American

In spite of the fact that (1) this poster didn't blame people for voting for BO because of his color - which many of you have said didn't happen and even if it did, that wouldn't be racism (provided it was a black voting for a black) (2) I can't understand the "greatness" of this election because I'm not black - which, in and of itself seems to be an inherently racist comment, all of this brings up an interesting question: The poster here acknowledges that certain goals seemed to be unachievable under a white president (mustn't we assume that the office of the president was the "oppressing factor," since the change of color in the president is the only thing that has now changed?) Therefore, wouldn't it be correct (read: "fair" for Democrat readers) to say that, as the result of a black being elected to a position for which no higher level exists in this country (and, arguably, the world) that "racism" is hereby rendered null and void? If one, from a racial group who considers themselves to be perpetually victims of racial oppression, attains the highest level attainable by any group, wouldn't that / shouldn't that be indicative of that group's ability to achieve any level for which they might strive? Now, I realize that many of you will have the knee-jerk reaction of most liberals that my musings are nothing but racist rantings. I expect that, but since I have made the decision that I am no longer am willing to voluntarily give up my right to free speech because the PC crowd would expect me to, I could care less what you label me...........but back to my question: other than the fact that there is so much money to be made through racial claims against others, wouldn't it be realistic to render racism in America to be dead (basically, off the table for discussion or otherwise) as of November 4, 2008? Discuss.

[QUOTE id="3bb7d48a-912f-4c1a-ac15-c6f560dc4582"]

To have voted for such an unknown (openly admitted by both sides of the aisle) can only be attributed to one of three things: (1) McCain was not conservative enough, (2) Youth, or (3) White guilt (read Shelby Steele's books - by the way, he's black)
QUOTE]

Wrong again, Cliff! I'm over 40, I'm not a teacher, I'm in the workforce and get paychecks, and I'm white but I don't feel guilty for it. As for McCain not being conservative enough... it depends on what you mean by conservativism, because actually, results-wise, Democrats have been more fiscally conservative than Republicans in the past several decades. Reagan and Bush I rang up huge deficits, Clinton managed to pay them down, and then Bush II ran them right back up again. What Republicans are doing is not conservativism.

And, yes, I did know enough about Obama, because I take my vote seriously and I did my homework on both candidates. Because you see pundits saying "we don't know who he is" doesn't prove it's true; it means they're looking for something to talk about. You really need to stop relying so much on pundits to do your thinking for you, and use your own mind.

If you're talking about how he'll handle the job, then why single out Obama for that one? If anyone doesn't know exactly how he will govern, well, that's because nobody can read the future. Nobody knows how McCain would have governed, either; senator and president are very different jobs. There are no "known quantities" among non-incumbents, so your argument is a bit on the "simple" side, and obfuscatory.

Now, let's get into who's been hoodwinked and who hasn't, since you keep flinging that accusation. Much of the Republican base nowdays is made up of evangelical Christians who vote based mostly on social issues: abortion, gay marriage, etc. Now... do you REALLY believe the Republicans are ever going to overturn Roe V. Wade? They had plenty of chances. Bush, who's as evangelical as any president we've ever had, had control of all three branches of government for the first six years of his reign. Did overturning Roe V. Wade ever even come up, even though Bush ran on that? Nope. Know why? Because if the GOP ever overturns that, they're a dead party. Moderates and Independents will stay away from them in droves, and the evangelicals they've been teasing along will have gotten what they wanted and won't have any reason to show up to vote anymore. The Republicans know this, which is why they use that issue as a carrot to dangle in front of a very exploitable segment of their base. A lot of evangelicals are starting to realize this and are getting tired of being played with, so they're starting to back away from the party. Oh, they'll be lured back in again, but after a while when those promises keep turning up empty, they'll get the message. Hoodwinked, indeed.

As for changing political parties as you get older, well, that's sometimes true. I was a Republican until I saw who actually practices fiscal conservativism... and then I became an Independent, who, lately, votes mostly Democratic. Y'see, I look at *results,* and am not swayed by rhetoric. The Republicans talk a great game, but when they get into office, they don't actually practice any of those things. They've expanded the government, they've overspent, they've rung up the deficit, and they've shown horrible tactical knowledge in the use of our military. They don't know what they're doing.

Obama, at least, seems to understand these things. How far he'll be able to go in fixing them, given the extremely bad hand he's been dealt by the previous administration, remains to be seen. But I'll go with the guy who at least acknowledges the problems and indentifies them, instead of the guy who just proposed the same old solutions that have been tried for the past 8 years and didn't work.

Despite all of this, you'll still claim the only reason anyone would vote for Obama is because they're young or because he's black. You go on and keep fooling yourself with that hogwash, and your party will never get its problems fixed.

[QUOTE]
Finally, Bailey, I suspect the types of encounter you experienced at the gas station last Tuesday night are only getting started. Hope you enjoy it. Hide and Watch.[/QUOTE]

Why must you keep ranting and raving and playing the age card, the bullshit "wise" card and have an unnecessary need to capitalize..i would get that checked out if were you. But luckily I'm not pretending to have a clue as to what the real story is here and I don't quote what I hear on whatever news channel that happens to be on at the time. Hide and watch?? Get real.....

this was a quote from some close minded Clifferd:

Finally, Bailey, I suspect the types of encounter you experienced at the gas station last Tuesday night are only getting started. Hope you enjoy it. Hide and Watch.[/QUOTE]

So remarks before were in regard to Clifferd not you Bailey Keep up the good writing!!!

Originally posted by

Rob

Absolutely, Cliff. You're right on the spot!

Barack Obama "hoodwinked" the younger generation. The entire Democratic party, who, by all accounts, had a shoe-in candidate with Hillary Clinton. Hoodwinked. Dozens of newspapers, all blinded by their liberal bias. Even the Tuscaloosa News. Even the Hartford Courant, giving it's second ever endorsement to a Democrat in over 200 years. Hoodwinked. Ken Adelman. Hoodwinked. Even Sen. Moynihan's widow was hoodwinked by this great trickster. The Governator's daughter, Leiberman's son. Hoodwinked. Even Doyle Brunson, who when combined with Ann Nixon Cooper, is absolutely indicative of the younger generation! People like Colin Powell. Warren Buffett. Hoodwinked.

By the way, Cliff. I'm in the work force. I've been drawing a paycheck and paying taxes for a long time. You really should quit trying to pull this "I'm older so I'm smarter" card. It's not working in your favor any more than it did for John McCain.

I never said I'm older so I'm smarter. It's only a naive idiot who still believes the "never trust anyone over 30" mantra. I have more life experiences than the people to whom I'm talking, so if only stands to reason that my experiences have been of some benefit to me in analysis of things. I see the current first-time voters, and I look at why they voted in large numbers for Obama, and it scares the hell out of me. With all of his border-line Marxist rhetoric, none of that mattered to far too many people. It was simply the Cult of Personality ("Living Color" - see, I told you I wasn't that old.) This is the deal: For good or bad, Barack Obama is MY president of the United States. I couldn't care less where he was born, what his name is, how old he is, or the color of his skin. He's not black. He's not white. He's not Asian-American or Mexican. He's not Chavez's brother or Islamic. I don't see Americans as members of groups. I see individual human beings. It is his ideas I am terrifically, tremendously worried about. Above all of the bullshit platitudes, ideas, theories, opinions, yada, yada, yada, I've seen posted on this article today, most everyone here has totally overlooked Obama's position on anything other than CHANGE! This was a social experiment for far too many. They wanted something different (a/k/a Change) for the sake of something different without considering that change doesn't automatically have to be good.

Originally posted by

John

I voted for McCain and Palin and proud of it. I voted for them not because Obama is black but because I don't believe in "spreading the wealth around". I don't trust the people he has been aligned with. My wife was basically called a racist because some African Americans said "that girl probably voted for McCain." Why did she have to vote for McCain, because she is white. MLK had a dream which has only been partially realized. If someone going to call my wife a racist they better have some factual reasons to back it up because she is in no way a racist. MLK said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Until African-American, Caucasians, Hispanics, and others that are apart of this melting pot we call the United States of American then Martin Luther King's dream will not be fully realized.

What does spreading the wealth mean? Are you saying that you don't want higher taxes? Are you saying that you're voting with your wallet? Well, that is what most middle class Americans did. I have not understood why the upper class feel it is a bad thing for the rest of Americans to do the same thing they have been doing. You have to realize that the country is going through tough economic times. The same policy of the Republican party will not be sufficient. If the Republican party had been more conservative with spending in the last eight years, John and Sarah would have been going to the White House. I apologize for the comment about your wife, but Americans still have a long way to go when it comes to race relations. Everyone should ask themselves if they have done everything in their power to not be a part of the problem.

Originally posted by

mcQLA

"spreading the wealth around"?

As someone who grew up in Mississippi and now makes his home in California, I'm always amused when someone from "home" voices a worry about their "wealth" being "spread around."

I guess sometime between today and my last visit, Mississippi must have come into some kind of windfall! I say "windfall" because I've never understood why Mississippians continue to vote as if they're all billionaires. Wishful thinking, perhaps? The tax proposals Obama wants to enact will only benefit the vast majority of Mississippians, who, last time I checked, continue to hover somewhere around the bottom on the National Pay Scale.

Yeah, there's a few "rich" Mississippians, but the ones I know also know if they want to continue the lifestyle they enjoy, they're going to have to stay in Mississippi, because with the cost of living other places in this country, they'd be poor within a year.

Yet you can count on the people of the Magnolia State to consistently vote Republican year after year after year. I wonder why?

Never mind the fact that nationally, wealth has been traveling from the hands of working people into the hands of the wealthy few for the past 30 years thanks to "Conservative" economic policies (which is also why we're facing this economic meltdown). The point is, most Mississippians don't have any "wealth" to spread around. The majority of the wealth that's going to be "spread around" is going to come from "liberal" states like California and New York, and it will be going into the pockets of people in states like - you guessed it.

Mississippi has so much to recommend it, but underneath all that, there's still this culture of arrogant ignorance simmering (on both sides of the train tracks) and I don't know if that page will ever turn.

Speaking of arrogant ignorance..

One word..."Laughable"

More words:

1) Mississippians do not vote Republican because conservatism makes them wealthier automatically. Conservatism is an ideology, like Christianity. It says that if you want to get something done the most inefficient way possible, ask the government to do it. If you want to be efficient, do it yourself; this preserves your time, money, and liberties.

2) This "meltdown" is not the result of "conservatism" as you believe. It is the result of a government that has dug us into a $9 TRILLION debt and bankrupted Social Security. There is nothing conservative about either of those things.

3) To say that the majority of Mississippians don't have enough money to spread the wealth around is to seriously insult the generosity of Mississippians and your own intelligence. Mississippi is consistently ranked as the most hospitable/charitable state in the union, per capita.

Originally posted by

mcQLA

"spreading the wealth around"?

As someone who grew up in Mississippi and now makes his home in California, I'm always amused when someone from "home" voices a worry about their "wealth" being "spread around."

I guess sometime between today and my last visit, Mississippi must have come into some kind of windfall! I say "windfall" because I've never understood why Mississippians continue to vote as if they're all billionaires. Wishful thinking, perhaps? The tax proposals Obama wants to enact will only benefit the vast majority of Mississippians, who, last time I checked, continue to hover somewhere around the bottom on the National Pay Scale.

Yeah, there's a few "rich" Mississippians, but the ones I know also know if they want to continue the lifestyle they enjoy, they're going to have to stay in Mississippi, because with the cost of living other places in this country, they'd be poor within a year.

Yet you can count on the people of the Magnolia State to consistently vote Republican year after year after year. I wonder why?

Never mind the fact that nationally, wealth has been traveling from the hands of working people into the hands of the wealthy few for the past 30 years thanks to "Conservative" economic policies (which is also why we're facing this economic meltdown). The point is, most Mississippians don't have any "wealth" to spread around. The majority of the wealth that's going to be "spread around" is going to come from "liberal" states like California and New York, and it will be going into the pockets of people in states like - you guessed it.

Mississippi has so much to recommend it, but underneath all that, there's still this culture of arrogant ignorance simmering (on both sides of the train tracks) and I don't know if that page will ever turn.

Originally posted by

McCain was my vote!

Racism, racism, racism! That's all everybody wants to talk about. I didn't vote for Obama because I didn't agree with this thoughts, etc. But when I have been vocal about my opinion, I've had some of my black "friends" to automatically throw the race card. Its almost like some people think its just so radical that I DIDN'T vote Obama that it must have been based on race. Well guess what?! IT WASN'T BECAUSE OF HIS SKIN! I have a problem with his tax ideas, him being pro-abortion, etc. I wouldn't give a rip if our pres was neon green with pink and blue poke-a-dots! For those who like to automoatically assume a person is racist because they didn't vote for Obama, GET OVER YOURSELF! Although I'm sure that was the case for some, it wasn't the case for all so don't sterotype.

i think i would be afraid if our president was neon green with pink and blue polka dots...