Usually I try to avoid making generalizing statements, but I am making one now: based on what I have seen and read in the last month, I am completely convinced that if Barack Obama is not elected president in
November, it will be for one reason, and one reason only.
Because he is black. Yep, I went there.
This is not to say that someone who votes for John McCain is racist. Of course not; millions of Republicans would vote for Bozo the Clown if he were the GOP nominee (in fact, millions did in 2000 and 2004...). The way I see it, no matter the candidates in any election thirty-five percent will always vote republican, and thirty-five percent will always vote democratic. It's the undecided thirty percent that determine every election.
Given the attitude of the country, the mismanagement and neglect that the Bush years have left us in, and the way that the rest of the world now looks at the United States, there is no reason that the majority of Americans could think that another Republican president is what the country needs.
We should be looking at a landslide this November for Obama, along the lines of the Reagan victory over Mondale in 1984. Yet every poll I see has the race very close, and I don't understand why.
Well, yes I do. As I said, I believe it is because that Obama is black. And if I am going to make such an inflammatory statement, I better be prepared to back it up.
First, a lot of people in this country are morons in the sense that they tend to believe the people whoever shout the loudest. So far, the GOP machine has made the most noise, and has been for a while. A good example of that is the whole "Obama is a Muslim" drivel that has been out there for the better part of a year. Don't forget, all Muslims want to kill us and no one shouts "BOO!" louder than the GOP. But that's not particularly racial now is it? And since the Muslim smear did not keep Obama from getting the nomination, the GOP had to come up with another way to scare everyone. In this country, what scares some white folks more than anything? Black people in power.
That's why Jeremiah Wright was plastered all over the media more than Farrah Fawcett posters on the bedroom of horny teenage boys' walls in the late 70s. The overkill was meant to scare people, to say "you see what's going to happen if youelect this black man? His 'people' are going to rise up and get you."
I may be over-reacting, of course, but every report on Wright should have had only one caption: "This black pastor hates America, thus all his black parishioners, including Barack Obama, hate America."
You know, maybe I'm wrong and maybe race doesn't exist on the political sphere anymore. Maybe this button that was worn by many people at the Texas GOP convention recently was something I just made up.
Or consider the plight of Iowa these last two weeks as they deal with record flood waters. I found out during my four years at the University of Iowa that people there are pretty tough and it doesn't surprise me that they've dealt well with the incredible amount of flooding that they have had there. What I didn't know is that, apparently, if you had put the people of Iowa in New Orleans during and after Hurricane Katrina, the city would have bounced back ASAP.
At least that is the point I got after reading the comments at the end of this blog entry. The people of Iowa? Gooood!!! The people of New Orleans? Baaaaad!!! Iowans are white, so they know what to do, how to handle adversity. New Orleanites (I have no idea if that is the right way to describe those that are from the city) are mostly black, and well, you've seen what they've done to that place since Katrina.
Equating the flooding in Iowa (a disaster and tragedy, yes) with Hurricane Katrina is probably the dumbest thing I have ever read this year. To go further and compare the aftermaths to how people of different race handle crisis is patently offensive.
While you may think that one blog does not reflect the thinking of a great deal of people, Michelle Malkin is one of the more "popular" conservative blogs. It scares me to think how many people agree with everything that is posted there, both by her and in reader comments.
But perhaps the thing that confuses me the most are the supporters of Hillary Clinton who say that they will vote for McCain instead of Obama in November. Why? Surely it isn't a gender issue, and it can't be a political party issue. John McCain has declared that as president he will appoint justices to the Supreme Court comparable to John Roberts and Samuel Alito. If he has to replace two justices, there will be six conservative justices on the court, and as soon as possible the controversial Roe vs. Wade decision will be overturned.
Senator Clinton is a steadfast supporter of a woman's right to choose. One would assume that that particular issue means something to those who supported Clinton for the nomination. But now that she will not be the nominee does it suddenly not matter? Obama is pro-choice. McCain is not. Why would anyone who supported a pro-choice candidate now want to vote for one who is not?
Maybe abortion isn't the central issue to those who supported Senator Clinton. Fine. She and McCain differed on almost every issue from health care to tax cuts to energy etc etc etc. So please, someone tell me why all these Clinton supporters are now vowing to vote for McCain?
It's not female vs. male. And I can't help thinking that it is white vs. black. Take a gander at the exit polls from certain states where Mrs. Clinton won the democratic primary. I believe it was in West Virginia where one out of every five people who voted for her admitted that the race of the candidates matter. One in five. And those were the people who had the stones to admit it. I bet at least twice that many thought that but refused to admit it.
I know that there is a long way to go until Election Day, but I picture myself waking up on the morning after either elated that the country has moved into the 21st Century by electing that best available candidate, or shaking my head in absolute shame that the mindset of fifty, one hundred, two hundred years ago still exists and that we will never truly move on and become one in this country.
I feel required to wrap this up with a bad cliche: it will be as plain as black and white. I will now dodge your tomatoes.
Because he is black. Yep, I went there.
This is not to say that someone who votes for John McCain is racist. Of course not; millions of Republicans would vote for Bozo the Clown if he were the GOP nominee (in fact, millions did in 2000 and 2004...). The way I see it, no matter the candidates in any election thirty-five percent will always vote republican, and thirty-five percent will always vote democratic. It's the undecided thirty percent that determine every election.
Given the attitude of the country, the mismanagement and neglect that the Bush years have left us in, and the way that the rest of the world now looks at the United States, there is no reason that the majority of Americans could think that another Republican president is what the country needs.
We should be looking at a landslide this November for Obama, along the lines of the Reagan victory over Mondale in 1984. Yet every poll I see has the race very close, and I don't understand why.
Well, yes I do. As I said, I believe it is because that Obama is black. And if I am going to make such an inflammatory statement, I better be prepared to back it up.
First, a lot of people in this country are morons in the sense that they tend to believe the people whoever shout the loudest. So far, the GOP machine has made the most noise, and has been for a while. A good example of that is the whole "Obama is a Muslim" drivel that has been out there for the better part of a year. Don't forget, all Muslims want to kill us and no one shouts "BOO!" louder than the GOP. But that's not particularly racial now is it? And since the Muslim smear did not keep Obama from getting the nomination, the GOP had to come up with another way to scare everyone. In this country, what scares some white folks more than anything? Black people in power.
That's why Jeremiah Wright was plastered all over the media more than Farrah Fawcett posters on the bedroom of horny teenage boys' walls in the late 70s. The overkill was meant to scare people, to say "you see what's going to happen if youelect this black man? His 'people' are going to rise up and get you."
I may be over-reacting, of course, but every report on Wright should have had only one caption: "This black pastor hates America, thus all his black parishioners, including Barack Obama, hate America."
You know, maybe I'm wrong and maybe race doesn't exist on the political sphere anymore. Maybe this button that was worn by many people at the Texas GOP convention recently was something I just made up.
Or consider the plight of Iowa these last two weeks as they deal with record flood waters. I found out during my four years at the University of Iowa that people there are pretty tough and it doesn't surprise me that they've dealt well with the incredible amount of flooding that they have had there. What I didn't know is that, apparently, if you had put the people of Iowa in New Orleans during and after Hurricane Katrina, the city would have bounced back ASAP.
At least that is the point I got after reading the comments at the end of this blog entry. The people of Iowa? Gooood!!! The people of New Orleans? Baaaaad!!! Iowans are white, so they know what to do, how to handle adversity. New Orleanites (I have no idea if that is the right way to describe those that are from the city) are mostly black, and well, you've seen what they've done to that place since Katrina.
Equating the flooding in Iowa (a disaster and tragedy, yes) with Hurricane Katrina is probably the dumbest thing I have ever read this year. To go further and compare the aftermaths to how people of different race handle crisis is patently offensive.
While you may think that one blog does not reflect the thinking of a great deal of people, Michelle Malkin is one of the more "popular" conservative blogs. It scares me to think how many people agree with everything that is posted there, both by her and in reader comments.
But perhaps the thing that confuses me the most are the supporters of Hillary Clinton who say that they will vote for McCain instead of Obama in November. Why? Surely it isn't a gender issue, and it can't be a political party issue. John McCain has declared that as president he will appoint justices to the Supreme Court comparable to John Roberts and Samuel Alito. If he has to replace two justices, there will be six conservative justices on the court, and as soon as possible the controversial Roe vs. Wade decision will be overturned.
Senator Clinton is a steadfast supporter of a woman's right to choose. One would assume that that particular issue means something to those who supported Clinton for the nomination. But now that she will not be the nominee does it suddenly not matter? Obama is pro-choice. McCain is not. Why would anyone who supported a pro-choice candidate now want to vote for one who is not?
Maybe abortion isn't the central issue to those who supported Senator Clinton. Fine. She and McCain differed on almost every issue from health care to tax cuts to energy etc etc etc. So please, someone tell me why all these Clinton supporters are now vowing to vote for McCain?
It's not female vs. male. And I can't help thinking that it is white vs. black. Take a gander at the exit polls from certain states where Mrs. Clinton won the democratic primary. I believe it was in West Virginia where one out of every five people who voted for her admitted that the race of the candidates matter. One in five. And those were the people who had the stones to admit it. I bet at least twice that many thought that but refused to admit it.
I know that there is a long way to go until Election Day, but I picture myself waking up on the morning after either elated that the country has moved into the 21st Century by electing that best available candidate, or shaking my head in absolute shame that the mindset of fifty, one hundred, two hundred years ago still exists and that we will never truly move on and become one in this country.
I feel required to wrap this up with a bad cliche: it will be as plain as black and white. I will now dodge your tomatoes.
2 comments:
Gee, I thought that I was telling it like it is but you put me to shame. This is great stuff, sadly true, but I do enjoy reading it because you write it well. I love the Farrah Fawcett reference.
I am also thrilled to find someone else who reads the comments out there in Internet land and finds them disturbing.--Sheria
Here's the pair of questions I'd like to see undecideds ask themselves: Would they vote for Obama if he was (all) white? Would they vote for McCain if he was black?
Post a Comment