Democrats are turning on the Clintons

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

I still think quite a bit of it has been overplayed, ie the 'fairy tale' comment.. not sure how that's racist at all.. the Jesse Jackson thing as well

race issues always get overplayed and taken out of context.

[JaJae]

There's a very big difference between playing racial politics and being racist. I think it's important to be clear on that because it seems that idea is already being muddled.

However, since we're on that topic now, it isn't uncommon for the racial politics to bring out racist behaviors in people in people who otherwise wouldn't engage in such activities. It hasn't gotten to that point yet, but it isn't above the Democratic party or even the posters on this board to stoop to that level. We've seen it in the past.

And if Obama wins the Democratic nomination I'm sure we'll see it from the GOP as well.

[Thorgrim]

I can't see his posts unless you quote them motivez, but I like how someone is claiming someone else is using race in a bad way, and then in the next breathe saying that they are sending out black hitmen to do their bidding...as if the chairmen of BET can't have his own indepedent thoughts, he needs to be told by the Clintons what to think and do

When Rep. Clyburn or black Obama supporters went out and told the Clinton campaign to basically give up in SC and not play hardball, it was objective wisdom from enlightened african americans...when an african american states problems he has with Hillary, it's because he's an idiot pawn of racial politics with no mind of his own

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

There's a very big difference between playing racial politics and being racist. I think it's important to be clear on that because it seems that idea is already being muddled.

However, since we're on that topic now, it isn't uncommon for the racial politics to bring out racist behaviors in people in people who otherwise wouldn't engage in such activities. It hasn't gotten to that point yet, but it isn't above the Democratic party or even the posters on this board to stoop to that level. We've seen it in the past.

And if Obama wins the Democratic nomination I'm sure we'll see it from the GOP as well.

Let me guess, the people you like do the good one, and people you don't like do the bad one?

Your view of racism is subjective...what do you think of white voters in New Hampshire who told pollsters they were going to vote for Obama, and then when they got there changed their minds because of his race...many would call that racist

What would call black voters in South Carolina who admitted that they told pollsters they were undecided or Edwards/Hillary...that they liked their positions...but they knew deep down they'd vote for Obama but didn't want to look like blacks who were voting for a black man because of his race...some would call that racism

Where was that youth vote in NH? Nevada can be excused as a first time early caucus state (actually wasn't it their first caucus in recent memory?)

The youth vote is fleeting, which is what Obama is basing his 2 wins (and future ones) on...do I really trust high school seniors to pay attention all the way until november and go out and vote? No

What we have here is a temporary alliance of various factions who for their own reasons either want a non-white youthful candidate and other factions that just don't want Hillary

Come November, that will collapse, because they won't have Hillary to kick around anymore

So, come this fall, there will be an Islamic/Terrorist event, anti-Hillary moderates will scare and rally to the GOP (Romney has more executive experience and McCain has infinite more foreign policy experience), the youth vote won't know what to make of everything going on...with all the hate that will be coming from the right by then...I can only imagine all the high school seniors going "Is Obama really a muslim? His middle name is what? omg! Isn't that the guy who hit us on 9/11? I'm not voting, I'm going to rent a movie instead"

It'll be 1988 all over again, Dukakis with a 20 point lead watches it evaporate because of race-baiting attacks and he doesn't look "tough" enough...remember JFK looked tough and ran to hawkishly right of Nixon on several issues...Obama does not look tough, and he is going to be much more dovish than JFK and his GOP opponent (and JFK barely won...)

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Let me guess, the people you like do the good one, and people you don't like do the bad one?

Your view of racism is subjective...what do you think of white voters in New Hampshire who told pollsters they were going to vote for Obama, and then when they got there changed their minds because of his race...many would call that racist

What would call black voters in South Carolina who admitted that they told pollsters they were undecided or Edwards/Hillary...that they liked their positions...but they knew deep down they'd vote for Obama but didn't want to look like blacks who were voting for a black man because of his race...some would call that racism

Where was that youth vote in NH? Nevada can be excused as a first time early caucus state (actually wasn't it their first caucus in recent memory?)

The youth vote is fleeting, which is what Obama is basing his 2 wins (and future ones) on...do I really trust high school seniors to pay attention all the way until november and go out and vote? No

What we have here is a temporary alliance of various factions who for their own reasons either want a non-white youthful candidate and other factions that just don't want Hillary

Come November, that will collapse, because they won't have Hillary to kick around anymore

So, come this fall, there will be an Islamic/Terrorist event, anti-Hillary moderates will scare and rally to the GOP (Romney has more executive experience and McCain has infinite more foreign policy experience), the youth vote won't know what to make of everything going on...with all the hate that will be coming from the right by then...I can only imagine all the high school seniors going "Is Obama really a muslim? His middle name is what? omg! Isn't that the guy who hit us on 9/11? I'm not voting, I'm going to rent a movie instead"

It'll be 1988 all over again, Dukakis with a 20 point lead watches it evaporate because of race-baiting attacks and he doesn't look "tough" enough...remember JFK looked tough and ran to hawkishly right of Nixon on several issues...Obama does not look tough, and he is going to be much more dovish than JFK and his GOP opponent (and JFK barely won...)

Anyone's opinion of racism is subjective. But I think there are clear-cut examples of racism such as calling people racial epithets or actively doing things to hurt someone's feelings based on their race. Or simply supporting those actions against someone would be racist. I don't think anyone would disagree.

Someone saying they support a candidate and then not voting isn't an act of racism.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Anyone's opinion of racism is subjective. But I think there are clear-cut examples of racism such as calling people racial epithets or actively doing things to hurt someone's feelings based on their race. Or simply supporting those actions against someone would be racist. I don't think anyone would disagree.

Someone saying they support a candidate and then not voting isn't an act of racism.

I find it hard to say someone is racially objective (not racist) when they tell a pollster they are going to vote for a black candidate, but when they get to the voting booth, they can't get themselves to vote for a black person

But that same high bar for calling anyone racist, as you're implicitly citing, appplies to black people who call other black people uncle toms

now, this topic died when a youthful charismatic black man lost the african american vote by an overwhelming margin to an old cranky white man who won his primary using machine politics that denied a black democrat the chance to be in the general election

I remember after the election talking to a friend with family in maryland who thought it was outrageous that any white person could tell a black person (like himself) when or when not he could use the term "uncle tom"

a lot of black voters were, not surpisingly, insulted that in areas that were completely abandoned by the GOP for years...all of a sudden the GOP sends in a black man to win them over...their obvious first thoughts "why are you the first republican to ever ask us for our votes here...do you think just because you are black you get some special bonus...why don't you talk issues" ofcourse, he talked in vague terms about a new era and talked about rejecting Bush and really didn't make a lot of sense, he just made a few good tv commerciails, subsequently he was rejected by the black voting bloc

Blacks are obviously more tightly knit than whites, I don't need to give you a history 101 why

Increasingly, they are becoming less significant in politics as hispanics take up more room in the Democratic Party, Republicans have nothing to offer the black community, and their population percentage is dropping...this is why people on fox/cnn will talk openly about a rift between black and latino voters

They do not want to become the asian-american community, which gets basically zero political attention

The African American community is disportionately not a part of the "investor class" that would benefit from things like a capital gains tax cut, and are part of a group that is significantly affected by underfunded schools...now what would you call a member of that group who doesn't have many career prospects, is unhappy with his situation, and gets an offer from whites to make propositions that will hurt his more community and benefit the white community more...

Specifically, a black republican goes to a poor urban area with his talking points stating that a capital gains tax cut is very important, at the same time, we must also cut federal programs and also not expand any, or create any new ones

what...the vast majority of the crowd doesn't have a 401k, and spends every last dime they have just to get by...retirement planning is something to think about if they get a lucky break...this benefit will overwhelmingly go to the white suburbs...and what are they getting in return, a total rejection of their call for more federal spending and programs to revive their impoverished neighborhoods, especially what they could use is brand new schools and high-paying salaries to attract the best teachers

now, the black republican isn't stupid, he knows how badly the black community is impoverished, they know how small of a number of african americans are significant investors, and they know how to compare the needs of the many and the needs of the few

it's pretty clear, he's taking money from whites who are actually running the policy show, and doing their bidding that will hurt the black community he is preaching do...and he doing this all by taking advantage of the color of his skin to get a job trying to sell enough of his people a bad deal so white policymakers will have another (R)

Infact, words much worse than "Uncle Tom" could be used by blacks and I would not find them innaccurate, nor am I one to judge such a deeply inter-racial matter as being fair/unfair

A quick look into wikipedia gives the modern usage:

It is commonly used to describe black people whose political views or allegiances are considered by their critics as detrimental to blacks as a group.

Are there black people who have political allegiances that are obviously detrimental to blacks as a group, specifically to benefit another group? Most certainly

So should black americans be able to call them out for filling out that EXACT definiition...being IN FACT an Uncle Tom? I certainly have no right to stop them

Now, am I able to look at an objective situation, with objective criteria, and make such an accusation? It's certainly up for debate, considering the objective nature of the analysis

[JaJae]

You're being very defensive. That's a lot of double-speak for "I think it should be acceptable for me to use racial epithets against people I disagree with." That's fine if you think so or if you have friends who don't mind. I think most people would disagree though and would think it's bad politics to resort to such childish and immature attacks that have nothing to do with the campaign.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

You're being very defensive. That's a lot of double-speak for "I think it should be acceptable for me to use racial epithets against people I disagree with." That's fine if you think so or if you have friends who don't mind. I think most people would disagree though and would think it's bad politics to resort to such childish and immature attacks that have nothing to do with the campaign.

It hasn't gotten to that point yet, but it isn't above the Democratic party or even the posters on this board to stoop to that level. We've seen it in the past.

I have a basic memory, we both know you were talking about the label "Uncle Tom"

And we already know where "you think" and that's a world where Jesse Jackson and Ted Kennedy are viewed by almost everyone as disgraces, everyone is demanding we end district-investment as the most evil thing since the bubonic plague, Al Gore has never done anything worth admiring, etc etc

So, don't ask us to go by that as a judge for what America thinks is fair/mature/whatever

You had very. serious. people. go on national television and talk about John Edwards (the only male democratic candidate with decent hair) one time got a professional haircut and was charged $300...and this makes him a phony

Now, I don't recall you rushing to his defense saying "Let's listen to his policies, and not attack him for these utterly ridiculous reasons"

Now again, if a black politician is making a living selling out ideas that will help white citizens while hurting his own black community, why is it immature to point that out? Why can't african americans use short hand to describe the situation, rather than write/say a long run-on paragraph everytime they have to discuss a specific problem they have with the politician

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I have a basic memory, we both know you were talking about the label "Uncle Tom"

And we already know where "you think" and that's a world where Jesse Jackson and Ted Kennedy are viewed by almost everyone as disgraces, everyone is demanding we end district-investment as the most evil thing since the bubonic plague, Al Gore has never done anything worth admiring, etc etc

So, don't ask us to go by that as a judge for what America thinks is fair/mature/whatever

You had very. serious. people. go on national television and talk about John Edwards (the only male democratic candidate with decent hair) one time got a professional haircut and was charged $300...and this makes him a phony

Now, I don't recall you rushing to his defense saying "Let's listen to his policies, and not attack him for these utterly ridiculous reasons"

Now again, if a black politician is making a living selling out ideas that will help white citizens while hurting his own black community, why is it immature to point that out? Why can't african americans use short hand to describe the situation, rather than write/say a long run-on paragraph everytime they have to discuss a specific problem they have with the politician

Criticizing someone for spending hundreds of his campaign contributor's dollars on a haircut isn't the same as using racial epithets against a man, nor does it have anything to do with race. You're really making my case for me by trying to play it off as if it's acceptable behavior.

If your candidate of choice were a minority, how would you respond to people calling him or her racial epithets? Would you chalk it up as due criticism? I highly doubt it.

These would get a lot of attention:

It would be one thing to criticize Obama for spending absurd amounts of his campaign money for his lavish grooming habits, but I think it's something entirely different to attack him solely based on his race and nothing more. I don't think it's appropriate for any politician in America today to be attacked because of the color of their skin. I would have hoped as a society we would be better than that. And this isn't just a Democratic thing. I'm sure if Obama wins the nomination the GOP would slip into the same mindset and I'd disagree with it then as well. There's no place in American politics for blatant and open racism.

[Thorgrim]

black politicians i'm talking about

1) aren't barack obama
2) USE their race as an issue, they pull the race card

You're use of the term "racial epithets is so broad it's silly...you could call Bill Cosby someone who "uses racial epithets" two times...first, you'd defend him from that charge when people said he used racial epithets when stereotyping the black community, then you'd probably agree when he made a back handed remark (that he's stuck to) that Clarence Thomas is a "brother lite...who doesn't want to help [black people/his own community]"

Now I'm the one standing outside as a white person saying that it's silly to say Bill Cosby is using racial epithets...its semantics to make him out to be a self-hating black or black-hating black...

However, using your logic, we'd have to conclude such

[JaJae]

CBS Early Show:

HARRY SMITH: These words are fraught. These words are rated. These words, as you suggest, are not accidental. By invoking Jesse Jackson, what is Bill Clinton saying?

JOE WATSON: Well it's imagery, it's any time that we do these things, Nadia Comaneci, Michael Jordan. As soon as we say those words, images pop into your mind. The hope of course is that things will link together. And when you do that, Jesse Jackson causes a visceral reaction in many portions of our population. Many folks within the campaign I imagine would hope that it would be negative. And by creating that linkage, somehow you would derail the efforts of Senator Obama.

SMITH: Through all of this talk, I mean [holding up the front page of today's NY Post with its blaring headline "Wild Bill] look at this, there's all this talk within the Clinton campaign of trying to rein in the former president. Does Bill Clinton send a message to African-Americans that he may not be who they thought he was?

WATSON: Here's what's really telling, when you think about this. The African-American talk radio, all the conversations have been ablaze with thoughts and commentary around this issue. And when you come out and make a comment about Jesse Jackson, you essentially pour gasoline onto a fire. Now think about that. If you send that kind of signal, what you're really saying is, "we got sub-20% [of the black vote], maybe we can't compete for this demographic anymore, and we've got to compete for a different set of demographics."

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

black politicians i'm talking about

1) aren't barack obama
2) USE their race as an issue, they pull the race card

You're use of the term "racial epithets is so broad it's silly...you could call Bill Cosby someone who "uses racial epithets" two times...first, you'd defend him from that charge when people said he used racial epithets when stereotyping the black community, then you'd probably agree when he made a back handed remark (that he's stuck to) that Clarence Thomas is a "brother lite...who doesn't want to help [black people/his own community]"

Now I'm the one standing outside as a white person saying that it's silly to say Bill Cosby is using racial epithets...its semantics to make him out to be a self-hating black or black-hating black...

However, using your logic, we'd have to conclude such

You are not Bill Cosby, you are not sending the same message as him. When you ATTACK a person based solely on their race simply because you disagree with their political views, you're advocating racism. Plain and simple. All the double-speak around other people doing it therefore it's acceptable is just that, double-speak to defend an outrageous claim that it is acceptable to use racial epithets to attack people you dislike or disagree with.

I don't know what Bill Cosby has said, nor is it relevant to my point.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

You are not Bill Cosby, you are not sending the same message as him. When you ATTACK a person based solely on their race simply because you disagree with their political views, you're advocating racism. Plain and simple. All the double-speak around other people doing it therefore it's acceptable is just that, double-speak to defend an outrageous claim that it is acceptable to use racial epithets to attack people you dislike or disagree with.

I don't know what Bill Cosby has said, nor is it relevant to my point.

You don't know what he said but your positive it has nothing to do with your point?

When a black person attacks another black person because of ISSUES, not just race, and I don't condem it...I'm advocating racism? And I can never say the first black person sounded sane and reasonable, that'd be racism as well?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You don't know what he said but your positive it has nothing to do with your point?

Yes, because if he attacks people he dislikes based solely on their race you'd be making my point for me. If he doesn't you're using a straw man argument to defend your own issues. Either way it's pointless to discuss.

When a black person attacks another black person because of ISSUES, not just race, and I don't condem it...I'm advocating racism? And I can never say the first black person sounded sane and reasonable, that'd be racism as well?

I never said "issues" or any of this other crap. You're the one bringing up all this irrelevant BS to justify racism against politicians you disagree with. Stay on target please.

Using certain words doesn't make you a racist. It's how you use them and the intent behind them that matters. Using racial epithets against people you disagree with and who you wish to harm or bring down is racist. End of story. Just because someone else may have used the word doesn't change that. The defense being used here is no different than racists have always used to defend their racism...

To be clear, I don't think you're racist. I just think some people take their political views too far and their arguments turn irrationally racist rather than political. There is absolutely no rational justification for engaging in such behavior, regardless of what you may have heard Bill Cosby say.

[motivez]

J, please define racial epithet and give specific examples where someone is discussing something similar involving race and not using one

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

J, please define racial epithet and give specific examples where someone is discussing something similar involving race and not using one

It's possible to racial epithets such as nigger, uncle tom, etc without condoning or promoting racism. See I just did it.

But an example of using it in a derogatory way would be to smear a person or candidate such as what we saw with Michael Steele. With all the race baiting and racial connections being brought about in this campaign I see it as only a matter of time before Obama is treated like Steele was treated.

We've seen elections degrade to that level recently and we've even seen members of our forum reduce themselves to such nonsense.

[motivez]

I dunno, I just don't see it in the Jesse Jackson remark for example, maybe there's an ulterior motive there.. There's only one other candidate in recent history who's won the South Carolina primary but went on to lose the nomination (in either party) besides Jackson, that's Edwards over Kerry in 2004..

So why is the assumption that he was trying to race bait instead of not wanting to use Edwards as an example since he's still running?

Like Thorgrim said, Jackson isn't disliked by the Democratic primary voters, it's really Republicans (and avid Fox watchers) who dislike him because of how much time they spend talking about him..

It's like Kennedy, he's pretty much revered by Democrats despite the shit he's been involved in, so why would invoking Jackson's name be some ploy to denigrate Obama to primary-goers when his name doesn't have the negative stigma attached to it for them?