[Potential Bombshell] Obama's Connections to Terrorist Fundraiser

But realistically, it's human to judge race and you can't seperate it. It's not a conscious choice always.

 

I'll answer your question first: Yes, it affects my opinion of Obama that he is black. It also affects my opinion of Clinton that she's a woman. In both cases, it affects my opinion of them as potential presidents positively. I want to say here that I acknowledge the implicit unfairness of affirmative action. I do believe it is implicitly unfair that a white man who had nothing to do with past injustices might be penalized for the crimes of his ancestors. But I believe affirmative action is still necessary. This is not a "black and white" issue for me. It's a difficult one, but I err on the side of continuing efforts to make this country an equal opportunity one and we are not there yet. And, sadly, we are not yet in a place where the goodness of most Americans sufficiently counters the badness of a small minority off diehard racists, sexists and homophobes (both soft and serious). The anecdotal evidence of finding ourselves in an election for the 44th president of this country, in which "all men are created equal," and considering for the first time in our nation's history a serious minority and/or woman candidate for the job bears this out. So, yes. It matters to me that he's black. And, though I liked quite a lot about John Edwards, I would have had a hard time in this historic year, voting for a white man when we had immeninently qualified minority and female candidates. (That is, until Hillary started pulling the stuff she pulled. She is no longer a viable first woman president in my opinion than Condoleezza Rice or Alan Keyes would be a viable first black one. But that's off topic.)

Back to the meat of the matter:

One of the major premises of Obama's campaign, from the very beginning, was about the cultural wars that have divided this nation since the Vietnam era. He has never suggested that those wars ought not to have been fought, but he has suggested that he is of a generation that did not have a stake in them sufficient to consider the other side a blood enemy.

His primary argument there was generational rather than racial, though it did suggest that his generation is a sight closer to an America undivided by such issues as race. And the campaign, and the demographics of its voters, have borne that out.

There are divisions of race among the voters for the two Democratic campaigns, but what strikes me most is the generational split. This split is also what excites me most about this entire cycle.

Because, the thing is that people younger than myself (I'm 39) are closer to color blind than ever. They are also less partisan. They do not belong to those old fights (the actual premise of Obama's campaign) and, as such, they are far more able to hear and understand each other on the issues that have traditionally divided us. They are not "in it to win it," they are not "fighters." They are less focused than any generation in our history on superficial divisions of race, religion, sexual preference or political party.

This is precisely the "change" that Obama's campaign represents. And he posits his chances of success on the idea that enough of the country is "ready to elect a black [or woman] president" for him to win. This has never been true before.

And if our electorate remains divided by race, it's not for nothing that it is voters over 65 that largely make that true.

We are in a nasty primary campaign now and our party is deeply divided. It might be true that supporters of either candidate are so dug in now that supporters of the loser will fail to provide the margin of victory for the Democrat that gets the nomination.

But for Democrats, for progressives, for liberals or supporters of the causes of any of these groups, better to lose those over-65 voters than the incredible wave of new, young, relatively color blind supporters who have been so energized by Obama's campaign. Those voters, should they stick around, will comprise a decades long new progressive majority. Or, at the very least, they will comprise a majority that rejects race, religion and sexuality as distractions from the issues that truly matter.

That's what Obama's campaign has been about from the start. And, while he may have been forced to give the speech he gave (and wrote himself) on race, he did write it and he did give it. And it was insightful, brave and completely free of the strategic pandering any candidate -- good, bad, great or horrible -- would have indulged in a similar and similarly difficult situation.

Here's a question for you, judoka:

Can you imagine Hillary giving such a speech, on any subject? McCain? Anyone?

The contents of that speech, and the obvious sincerity with which it was written and delivered, demonstrate better than anything else why I support Obama for president. He is a deep thinker, an exceptionally gifted communicator and a principled politician. This combination makes him a once in a generation public figure. And if the worst anyone can say about him is that he knew, knows or counts among his friends imperfect or even utterly repugnant people, I can live with that quite easily. I do too. Many of them reside right here on this board.

 

Small addition to my thoughts on affirmative action as it relates to our politics:

Given a choice between equally qualified (by various measures) candidates -- one a white man and the other a woman or minority -- I would vote for the woman or minority. I would do so specifically so that we would never have to enter another political contest hearing the question "Is America ready for a black/woman/Latino/Asian/GLBT/Mormon/Jewish/Muslim/Agnostic/Atheist president?" That question, in all its forms, offends me as an American and I can't wait until it's put to rest.

 

Very immature logic. You don't have good perspective

 

Fair enough and thank you for your well thought out answer and for understanding why I asked you that. I will admit to laying a bit of a rhetorical trap but you responded very well.

While I fully agree that Obama's campaign regarding change has much much more to it than race the generational change you talk about though race is a major factor particularly given that he is a black candidate. Part of the appeal of Obama is that he is not just a different candidate he is a different black candidate. One of the reasons why so many bristle at the comparison to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton is the view that Obama isn't Jackson or Sharpton. That while he is black he isn't one who is going to focus on redressing past grievances towards African-Americans. The problem though is when that image takes a hit and the real danger of Rev. Wright to Obama isn't that people seriously believe that Obama actually hates America but that Obama isn't as different from Jackson as many would think.

In regard to Obama's speech as you acknowledge he was forced into giving that speech by the situation and he did a good job at it. He's weathered that controversy, at least within Democratic circles, but I don't think this totally ends any controversy regarding who Obama really is and this is likely to keep on haunting him throughout the campaign.

No I don't but I've always agreed that Obama is a phenomenal speaker and far better than most.

I agree that he is a gifted communicator, I will hold off on principled politician given that we are still finding out more about his political career and I have my own doubts whether he can live up to his promises, or actually intends to. As for who he counts as his friends sure we're all imperfect and so are most of our associates. That said none of us, to the best of my knowledge, are running for President. At the same time as someone who has taken GW Bush to task for who he associates with you would agree that that is a valid issue for assessing candidates.

 

But this was precisely my point. Obama is pretty much the polar opposite of Sharpton and Jackson. Just as he is, in a different way, the opposite of Hillary Clinton. They are engaged, and have been engaged for decades, in a wholly different fight. That was the early premise of his campaign; not that America was color blind as you previously suggested.

You can say, and the media can say, that the important thing about him is that he is black. But he never said that. He did not, as you suggested, make that the premise of his campaign. What he made the premise of the campaign was that he was not a party to that old fight.

This is the entire basis of the change he speaks of. He can't help being black. Or half black. (Or half "Balack" as our racist friends here say.) Yes, it may be interesting to me that he is black in the AA way I spoke of, but it's not important to him that way. And he certainly doesn't use it to his advantage the way Hillary uses her gender to appeal to women (a far more lucrative appeal). He is an "acceptable" black man though -- a rare find in this time of "is America ready for blah blah blah." And that makes his race very important to me.

But being black (or "acceptably" black) has not and never has been the point of his campaign. Nor is it being a Democrat. Or a progressive or a liberal. The point of his campaign is to say, "Wait a minute. We have serious problems and our country is cut in two. And I am not on one side or the other of that fight. I am for getting health care to the uninsured or jobs to the jobless. I am for a reasonable foreign policy that is not based on proving which party is more 'patriotic' than the other."

I ceded the point to you that he gave the speech at the time he gave it due to circumstances. I should think that would be an impressive thing -- that he could give such a speech in response to circumstances; that he could turn a negative into a positive.

But it wasn't his gift for speaking that was impressive here. It was his gift for writing. Or rather, and way more importantly, it was his gift for thinking. And I re-ask you the question in that context. Which president -- which candidate for president has had such a gift?

That speech was a Jed Bartlett speech. It was the speech you wish a president would give, would have the power to give. But he didn't just give it, he wrote it. He meant it.

And, Hillary withstanding, words DO matter. They matter very much. This country was founded on words that matter. I want a president who writes and delivers speeches that matter. Obama would be one. Can you name the last one that was such a president?

Anybody, and I mean ANYBODY, who runs for president is going to have some unsavory friends. But don't hold Obama to the standard I suggested before here -- that of which friends you or I might have -- but to the standard of the others that are running.

Do you honestly believe Obama has more unsavory friends than Hillary Clinton? Or John McCain?

He doesn't. The major difference here between the three candidates is that Obama virtually refuses to bring up their associations. There are rare occasions, when he is forced, where he makes an exception. (Hillary on the Wal-Mart board or Bill Clinton pardoning Weathermen. Tiny exceptions when you look at what's been thrown at his two opponents in the past.) But he avoids such things studiously, using them only when they take it to the nth level, even while he is beaten up similarly and while he has such associations in his pocket to use if absolutely needed. He does this precisely because he doesn't want to be a part of those sorts of politics that have so divided our country in such bull***** ways.

If he wanted to play tit for tat, he could murder Clinton and McCain on the exact stuff they're throwing at him.

There are no questions about Obama's associations or his character or his patriotism that are not complete and utter BS politics of the past. The remarkable thing about his candidacy is that he chooses, again and again, not to indulge that stuff.

 

Well that's a ******* badge of honor coming from you, texxx. Thank you kindly, brah.

 

Rocketsjudoka:

I guess the main thing I want to say about this generational thing is that Obama is kind of like you or me in that he isn't 60 years old.

In other words, race doesn't mean to him what it means to Jackson or Sharpton or anyone else of the generations that have previously held power. Neither does gender. Neither does sexual preference. And neither does party.

The day we will no longer need a "fighter" in our column is the day we stop seeing the betterment of our country as a fight.

That is what Obama has represented on his best days. It is why he speaks to a new generation in ways that no one from that old fight ever could. And it is why I support him for president.

And I believe so deeply in this idea I would feel this way if he was a reasonable Republican. And I have never voted for a Republican.

That is the power of this post-partisan idea. That is the change. That is the hope. And people younger than us can understand it -- and do understand it -- in a way even we can't, which is why an unprecedented number of new voters are energized in an unprecedented way.

And that is why it blows my mind that anyone (especially ones on the left) could ever want to knock it down according to the old, cynical rules.

 

Jorge, I don't think Obama is Jesus or without sin or perfect in any way. Apart from that, as I've told you many times, you have lost the favor of my attention or response.

And why you haven't been banned from this site is utterly beyond me. The moderators and other keep complaining about the tenor of the conversation here, but while a lot of us get heated and cross lines you do absolutely nothing but troll here and you do so lately largely with posts that border on and often cross into blatant racism and religious bigotry.

If you want to reinvent yourself under a new screen name and talk in some non-troll (and non-racist, please) way, I'd be happy to talk this stuff over with you. Otherwise, expect a cheerful greeting and nothing else from me in the future.

 

If anyone other than our resident trolls would like to raise any question about my posts here, I'd be happy to address them. As everyone here is well aware, I don't go "poof" like they do when confronted. Apart from that...

Hi, Jorge!!