News Flash: Cold War’s over, bud.

Not 92% support in a Dem primary. And did you happen to catch any of the clips from the BET awards show. That goes far beyond his message.

Any reliable measurement of how much of that 92 percent actually is racial loyalty is of course impossible, because even if the question were polled there is no guarantee of honesty. One might suggest that the poll could include questions regarding specific policy positions or accomplishments, but this too would be flawed – loads of voters (probably the majority of the people with whom I’ve spoken on the subject) know they generally support the Republican or the Democratic platform without having the time or inclination to get into specific nuts-and-bolts stuff.

Even in a primary, where policy positions might be pretty close, loyalty can turn on one or two issues – I spoke with an African-American man at my school, for instance, who said he supported Obama over Clinton because he intended to end the nonsensical policy of not talking to dictators who aren’t our allies, and he opposed the war from the beginning. Believe that if you wish – I did.

About all that can be said with relative certainty is that SOME voters will support Sen. Obama because of his race, but almost certainly those voters would have supported his policy positions over Sen. McCain’s (and possibly Sen. Clinton’s, though I’m not as certain about that one) anyway – since African-Americans, as somebody else already noted, overwhelmingly vote Democratic anyway, as is probably true of any non-black that would tend to support Obama for reasons of race.

To Sean’s earlier point, I would add – thinking it’s a nice change for your country that the guy you support is black is not the same thing as supporting him because he’s black.

I’m voting for him because Obama is the closest thing this country has ever seen to a Marxist running for president.

Well no, he’s certainly not. But do you have some evidence that Sen. Obama exhibits Marxist tendencies in his program, a link to something concrete?

And I’m not voting for McCain because he’s white, I’m voting for him because Obama is the closest thing this country has ever seen to a Marxist running for president.

conversation. over.

Why couldn’t it? Can you point to a recent politician who had a similar message that we can compare to to see if Obama is actually getting different results? That is, can you offer any actual proof (other than an awards show) to support what you flat out state to be true? (Oh, god. I’m starting to sound like CSS.)

j mccann: It’s flat out racial loyalty.

Some of it is racial loyalty, sure. No doubt. But all of it? “Flat out” with nothing else allowed to account for a black person’s Obama-preference at all?

Being in favor of one thing is not that same as being opposed to another. Voting for the black guy because you like being able to vote for a black guy is NOT THE SAME as voting for the white guy because you won’t vote for the black guy.

If you can’t see that then, yeah, there is no reason to go any further.

“Couldn’t possibly be the message, right?”

No. It couldn’t. Not 92% support in a Dem primary. And did you happen to catch any of the clips from the BET awards show. That goes far beyond his message.

It’s flat out racial loyalty.

If you can’t see that then there is no reason to go any further. Just end it.

Couldn’t possibly be the message, right?

Bill Clinton carried 84 percent of the black vote in 1996, John Kerry won 88 percent in 2004, and Al Gore had 90 percent in 2000.
http://www.kentucky.com/147/story/389658.html

j mccann: Come on now. 90%. That goes beyond “some.” That’s all out racial loyalty.

So when 90% of the blacks voted for Gore 8 years ago, they were doing it because he’s a black man?

Come on now. 90%. That goes beyond “some.” That’s all out racial loyalty.

Don’t ignore this blatent racism.

Could it possibly be that some black people are going to vote for Barack because he’s black? Sure, in the same way that a lot of women of all races voted for Clinton because she’s a woman.

So what? I think by and large, the majority of Obama’s support from all races is due to his intelligence and his message. Personally, I’d vote for a German Shepard if it could get the job done.

You’re just pissed off because you know McNovocain can’t “git r done” and you don’t wanna vote for the black dude.

“Many whites that usually could care less about politics will vote for McCain simply because he’s not black.”

When white candidates support another white candidate over a black candidate in a primary at over a 90% clip, come talk to me. Until then, accept the fact that racial loyalty (bigotry) is being committed and even encouraged by blacks.

2) this is bigoted.

Goddamn, you are dense.

1) Many whites that usually could care less about politics will vote for McCain simply because he’s not black.
2)This is bigoted.

Happy now?

I’m not knocking it, it’s not the 1st time it’s happened,
O RLY. When was the last time a a black person was the nominee for President?

Please stop talking now. the guys from Stormfront are looking for you, you’re missing the meeting.

1) many blacks that usually could care less about politics will vote for Obama simply because he’s black.

2) this is bigoted.

I’m not knocking it, it’s not the 1st time it’s happened, I’m just saying it’s not right. Never was. But it’s reality and I accept that.

But if ethnic/racial loyalty is acceptable for one, it’s acceptable for all. Or at least it should be.

Wonderful. Thanks for admitting that there’s a double-standard.

No, not because of the conditions and policies of 150 years ago. But because of the conditions that exist NOW. One follows directly from the other, but since you steadfastly just refuse to consider anything from a larger historical context lets put history aside for the moment.

So let’s pretend all racial profiling, redlining and similar practices truly, TRULY disappeared in a puff of smoke and everyone was treated strictly on the content of their characters. From here on out everyone rises or falls based soley on their merits and not their skin tone (or religion or …). Everybody ready? OK. Get set, go!

And they’re off.

But there is a large segment of the population that is starting the race from 100 yards back. Why? Who cares? We said we’re ignoring history. But they aren’t at the same starting blocks as everyone else.

j mcann, should something be done about that? To at least get them to the place where they can compete.

Maybe.

“A reasonable argument on it’s face. But you keep missing the fact that the world didn’t start today and everyone isn’t starting at the same place but choosing to do in different directions. BECAUSE OF HISTORY there is a difference between a black person voting for the first black major party nominee because of their race and a white person voting for yet another white nominee because of theirs.”

Translation: Because blacks were slaves a hundred and fifty years ago, today they are not to be held to the same standards that those that look like the people that had slaves are.

Wonderful. Thanks for admitting that there’s a double-standard.