That is ridiculous. His race caused him to win? It doesn't matter what percentage of blacks voted for him, they most likely didn't do it just because he was black. Would you expect any minority to vote heavily for the party that people like this in the justice department as head of civil rights. What kind of commit to civil rights is this to put these people in the justice department and as head of the civil rights division. How shameful can it get? When one party is in power and puts these people in charge of civil rights, and then you claim that blacks only voted for Obama because of his is just ignorant. Add to that the fact that other black candidates have run such as Al Sharpton, and they didn't get the same number of votes. Add to that the fact that Obama won more in almost every area than Kerry did in the last presidential election. He won more youth vote, more women's vote, more white male vote etc. To ignore the evidence that shows that Obama won for a number of reasons, and claim he only won because of his race, is at the very best ignorant, possibly much worse.
Not true, they have election loser Michael Steele...as well as several promotional DVD copies of Shaq in "Steel"
Sorry not trying to pick a fight but I think this is an interesting debate topic. Totally agree and am not taking anything away from Obama as he is an extraordinary individul and not taking anything away from the signifigance of having the first Black US President. As I noted earlier in 1900 it was only a matter of time before somebody figured out how to do manned flight but that doesn't take away from the Wright Brother's achievement. Even if something is likely inevitable the first one to break that barrier there still is something special about them doing so. Obama would be an exceptional individual even ignoring his race and while he is fortunate to come to office at a time when racial attitudes have changed sufficiently enough to accept a Black man it still took an exceptional individual to be able to seize that opportunity. Obama was both the right man at the right time.
Military culture is different than civilian culture yet it does matter in regard to considerations for President otherwise it wouldn't be used as a campaign issue. Military culture also reflects the wider culture given that even though in Iraq and Afghanistan we have many women in combat there still is ambivalence about having the military change its rules regarding women in combat. Did you read the Salon article?
FB, I did not say he only won because he was black. I should not have said he won in "large" part b/c of race. I feel that he did have many individuals vote for him due to his race. You can call me ignorant all you want, but that is how I feel. And I don't think alot of people even know the information you listed in your post. And rimrocker, before you throw some whining face at me or what you want to do, I'm not saying that it is a bad thing. I'm giving Obama a chance to show he will be a good to great president. He does not have much history to go by so far. I'll wait and see what he does be for I coronate him as being great.
And as I noted I'm not discounting racism at all and my argument isn't that its far more likely that a black man would be president before a woman but that its more of a tossup which would be first. I think narrowly that all things being equal a black man had a better chance. Also I think this election was unusual that for the first time we had both a viable black man and white woman so it was difficult to look at th election in a vacuum. Even though we don't know how Powell would've campaigned I think it was telling that polling 13 years ago showed that Colin Powell had a great shot at being President if he had won to shows that even then race as a factor was lessening its hold on the American electorate. While in 1984 Mondale had put Ferraro on the ticket most analysis shows that she contributed to Mondale's collapse. Good points but Clinton's perception of toughness was what allowed her to overcome the impression of women not being able to be Comander in Chief. In turn though this hurt her quite a bit as it also led to the perception of her being a shrill power hungry b****. Sexism in this case shaped the view of Hillary Clinton in two ways. She had to play against stereotype and was considered cold and emasculating. If she played to stereotype showing emotion, then she was mocked for being a weak woman such as after New hampshire. Consider that when Patricia Shroeder tried to run for President was undone when she showed emotion during a debate. Many male candidates have often gotten misty eyed, heck Bill Clinton made an art out of it, but weren't considered weak for doing so but instead often praised for showing their empathy. As I said I don't discount racism at all but we shouldn't discount sexism as being a major barrier and I don't think it was anywhere as likely 80% to 20% that a woman would be President before a black man.
I do too. But maybe not in a thread about President Obama's inauguration? Let the dust settle....I'd likely be arguing along your side in a few months. Not here. Not now.
Look at the wealth of an average Senator compared to a member of the House. Then tell me that it doesn't have anything to do with financial disparity. U.S. senators had a median net worth of approximately $1.7 million in 2007. In the House of Representatives, the median net worth was about $684,000.
Are any of you forgetting that 24 years ago a woman ran for vice president? Wouldn't that indicate that woman would be president before a "black" man?
There were A LOT of boos for Bush, and a lot of folks were singing that tune as well. I actually accidently captured a picture expressing how the crowd felt about W:
I think Bush has been a miserable President, but that's really ****ty. 95% of the crowd was there because they supported Obama, and Bush has put more effort into making this transition smooth than any President in recent history. Obama a huge amount of credit to Bush for what he's accomplished in the transition. If the Bush administration had treated Obama like the Clinton administration treated Bush, Obama would be a month behind where he's at now. Besides that, the inauguration is a really classy event and Obama is a really classy man. Booing the outgoing President or flipping him off disrespects the Presidency and Obama as well as Bush.
I completely disagree. I agree with you that the inaug is a classy event, but those folks who feel Bush really screwed up the country and sent their kids off to die for nothing (yes, I met some folks there who had relatives die in Iraq) don't really think Bush having a smooth transition trumps all the bad that he has done (in their opinion). To those folks, being a classy event, etc....means nothing. Since when can you not tell a President he screwed up? Personally, I can't give the man props for having a smooth transition to Obama. Isn't that what he is supposed to do? To bite Chris Rock....that's like a dude bragging that he takes care of his kids. That's something that you are supposed to do.
I agree with this. It has impressed me, the transition has. I think Bush probably thought on day #1, 2001: I will NEVER treat the next guy like I've been treated... (as he looked down at his oval office keyboard missing the W key, etc, etc.)
What exactly are you referring to? As I recall, the Clinton WH gave extensive briefings and even told the incoming administration that they would be consumed with Al-Q. A warning blown off by the Cheneyites. Much of that stuff about the missing W keys and vandalism in the WH has long been proven as something the Repubs just made up to slam Clinton.
