Comments for Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause »
Posted By Aidenag 1 year, 6 months ago in NewsFor all the hope and excitement Obama's candidacy is generating, some of his field workers, phone-bank volunteers and campaign surrogates are encountering a raw racism and hostility that have gone largely unnoticed -- and unreported -- this election season.
Read Full Story at washingtonpost.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 82
-
Neutral
scott42611 year, 6 months ago
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
Neutral
Candida1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
scott4261: "This is no surprise to me."
To me neither. Two days ago some friends were guessing who the next president of the US would be. When they asked me, I said: McCain. "You are hoping for McCain?" they asked, shocked. "No, I'm afraid he will be the president," I said. In spite of all indications to the contrary, I don't think the US is ready to elect either a woman or a (half) black man. People claim that they are not prejudiced, but on election day the real feelings will come out.
I still hope though that I'm wrong.
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
...bloody Propeller. Not only did it lose my comment, it also decided to sign me out...
Anyway, in a nutshell I stated that you are wrong and be happy because of it. Either Democratic candidate will win this race. At this point the polls are unreliable and, due to the advent of the internet, corporate media is becoming less and less influential. If Obama DOES lose it won't be due to race. It will be because of a culture that believes experience trumps ability. Obama is winning the idealistic vote, who believes things can be better and must be better. Different philosophies, but, at the end of the day most of the experience voters who are Dems will back Obama. The "whites" that have voted Clinton due so because experience is important to them... economics actually is determining the vote more then race. Also the young vote will trump the racist vote if it comes to that, IMO. Frankly either Hillary or Barack can win this thing hands down in November.
Reply -
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Candida, the thing that makes me really sad about this is that the people who won't vote for Obama are many of the people who were apparently traumatized by the moral failings of our previous President. Yet, when George Bush got into office and alienated most of our allies, suddenly what the rest of the world thought of us was totally irrelevant to them. Neocons aren't ashamed of having voted for Bush twice (or they would never admit it) and they don't have any idea how much lower the international community's opinion of us will sink if we elect McCain (especially after the last 8 years) over either Hillary or Obama. ;-(
Reply
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For us Christian Conservatives, wed be Okay with Obama if he repeated often that God is his co-pilot ... or that 'Jesus is the philosopher who most changed his life' ... liek GW.
See, we are okay givin a chance to a Master of Mediocrity, a Draft Dodger, a Cocaine Consumer, an Admitted Alcoholic ... those are all things we can forgive. After all, dont all them weaknesses prove that the love of Jesus can cure all?
Course, we dint know at the tiem that GW was fakin it.
Nevertheless, unless Obama convinces us hes a Born Again Christian ... and advertises it liek GW ... I doubt we will look past the color of his skin.
You got to think about he roots of this Political Party we invented knowed as the Christian Conservative Party. Only then will you understand.
Only then will the scales be lifted off your eyes.
Reply -
Neutral
koranagirl1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I really didn't get the story very much. Was the point that a European woman gets votes cuz she's not an African American man? Or was it that the dems should have a European man run so we can see if Obama is really discriminated against.
Maybe the WP also has to do a story on how a lot of guys in the locker room say she's just a c-word, w-word, b-word, I could go on and on with those. OMGss--there's more derrogatory terms for a woman than an African American you can't say.
My favorite is someone calling out to Hill "wash my shirt" and no one said boo, but you know if someone called out to Obama "shine my sh___", you'd have a mass inquiry.
Hill apparently gets comments like these all the time, and she deals with it.
But then again, women have to be tough, very tough, to survive in the world and not make a fuss about gender.
I bet Hill's had to make the coffee and do laundry many more times than Obama was called to do something lowly.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Maybe the WP also has to do a story on how a lot of guys in the locker room say she's just a c-word, w-word, b-word, I could go on and on with those."
--I'm all for that...As long as they do a similar story centered on the soul-searing hatred many women feel towards her and mention some of the vile things I've heard women call her over the years too. Prejudice, bigotry, and hatred is not just between blacks and whites. Nor are these the only groups about which their are perceived double standards where the issue of prejudice is concerned.
Personally, I've long wondered why people who feel perfectly comfortable saying things like "blacks should just get over it" or "I never owned slaves" or that they could never vote for a black person wouldn't in a million years make such statements about someone who was Jewish.
Reply-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spadecaller
I didn't mean to single out or disparage Jewish people in any way. Nor was I suggesting that bigotry toward any group was acceptable. I was essentially agreeing with what i thought koranagirl's point was--that certain prejudices and bigotry seem to garner more outrage and are more likely to be publicly censured than others. I think it's interesting to consider how we as individuals and as a society take certain isms more seriously than others and I think it's worth exploring why that is. For instance, why *haven't* we been more outraged over some of the blatant sexist and misogynist remarks made by the media (frequently by women)made about Hillary Clinton throughout this campaign? (more)
Reply -
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From a scholarly perspective, I'm always curious to see the different lenses through which people see the world. I recently heard or read a complaint that the media seems to refer to other candidates by their first and last names while Barack Obama is usually called just "Obama." This, according to the complaint was a sign that the media was being "racist" and disrespectful. I had never even noticed this (I usually refer to Hillary as...well, Hillary) but what I thought was interesting was that instead of being viewed as a sign of celebrity (Oprah, Madonna, Cher, and...um, Hillary), someone would perceive this as being racist. Just made me think of the baggage we carry around and how this colors our perception.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
koranagirl1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I mean, if you want to talk discrimination, it's a better bet we can all envision Hillary being responsible for groceries, laundry, doing dishes. Now maybe she has others do most of this for her lately, but no one would say boo if they saw it.
On the otherhand, I bet Obama either rarely changed a diaper or he balked at it.
Is this discrimination?
Just asking. If we can all envision Hillary doing more housework than Obama, and it's not an issue, then why is what's going on in this article any different?
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're making a good point in light of the sexism turned against Hillary not getting nearly as much coverage as Obama and racism. Then again McLame isn't getting as much coverage about his connections to that nutjob Hagee in comparison to Obama's coverage about Wright.
Sen. Clinton's gotten the crappy end of the media stick in comparison to Sen. Obama. They've been hyper-critical of her and let a *lot* pass for him. Especially when it comes down to specifics versus pie-in-the-sky idealism.
Now what's the solution? What's it say about the media (which we have to remember is a slightly right-of-center operation)?
Reply -
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
AND when Hillary mentioned that she is getting more support from white blue collar workers according to an AP story, everyone condemned her
It wasn't something that should be mentioned
As one pundit said "It's not something she should say"
Now we see the Washington Post reporting on something similar
Does everyone want to brush what is going on under the rug and pretend it doesn't happen?
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As I've said elsewhere, IMO some are quick to label as "racist" any event they perceive as a double standard. Personally, I don't think that just because I'm p!ssed off that someone else's racist behavior (real OR imagined) isn't being sufficiently censured that I have the right to claim that *I've* been victimized by racism. All of us have been discriminated against in to one degree or another in one form or another. But when people start claiming to know someone else's pain, I'm concerned.
Take the Martha Stewart verdict a few years back. Many men (myself included) thought she got a raw deal because she's a woman. True or not, no men were up in arms claiming that the anger and disappointment they felt over the double standard was a setback for the "men's suffrage movement" or that their victimhood made them empathize with Holocaust survivors. Why? Because that would be stupid and insulting to *real* victims of hatred and discrimination.
Reply -
Neutral
Candida1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dionys: "What's it say about the media (which we have to remember is a slightly right-of-center operation)?"
Perhaps that they operate on the basis of "divide and conquer." When Obama was the underdog, they let all kinds of things pass on his side and attacked Clinton relentlessly. Now that he seems to be winning, they attack him, hoping that McCain will quietly pass under the radar in the meantime and win the election.
Both sexism and racism are alive and well, and will rear their ugly heads more and more as November approaches.
Reply -
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dionys, have you looked at the numbers? Really looked at them? Obama wins the male vote by razor thin margins alot of the time. I think he won it by about 4% in Pennsylvania and I'd bet the African-American male put him over the top there. The female vote favors Hillary by a larger margin then the male vote is against her. In essence, sexism is working in her favor. Also you can go to Obama's site any time you wish and find specifics.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hah, yup! You beat me to it gama... beat me to it. Oh well, I'll just point out again that the "sexism" in the campaign is actually favoring Clinton numerically. As a percent and in raw numbers. Not to mention that the statement by KoranaGirl shows sexism as well as people who believe that Hillary should be doing house-work.
Reply
-
-
-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This stuff sounds pretty trivial. Shouting racial slurs at teenagers who are setting themselves up as targets (that is, they are CAMPAIGNING) seems to be the worst of it. As for the headquarters vandalism, there is no indication in the article or picture that it is any more racist than political, and unless there were unreported remarks in the bomb threats, well, Hill had bomb threats too. I'll bet everyone doing door-to-door in anyone's campaign has had the door slammed in his face. Seems to me that we have come a long way from lynchings and cross-burnings.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"As for the headquarters vandalism, there is no indication in the article or picture that it is any more racist than political, and unless there were unreported remarks in the bomb threats, well, Hill had bomb threats too."
--Hmm...That's a tough one. The spray painted message on the window references the Wright incident.
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'll give you a positive for that meso, but the thing is something may be cultural and not be racial. I believe the Rev. Wright incident to, by and large, to be a cultural incident as opposed to a racial one. In a below post you seemed to show a similar ignorance of Ron Paul's philosophy when stating he had no conscience, do you expect me to say that you dislike whatever ethnicity Dr. Paul comes from? Or do you expect me to simply explain to you his philosophy the best I can and you can decide for yourself whether you agree with it or disagree with it or if he still lacks a conscience.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks. That's why I said it wasn't exactly a slam dunk. I personally didn't hear Wright's remarks as slamming white people per se but rather criticizing the actions of those in power (which, as it happens in this country, is made up mostly of white people). That some people viewed or claimed his remarks to be racist was the reason I said the spray painted message qualified as racism.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
cowboygrandpa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Racism exists no doubt.
Obamas going to face it. The question is.
Is the reason Obama is receiving these racist remarks and threats because some people sense he could really win. Do a good job and thereby disprove their unfounded racism?
That is how I see it. Now I don't know if he has enough experience. That has always been my one big doubt about him.
He is showing some strength and wisdom in what he is doing lately. Talking about McCain instead of Hillary so much.
I'm starting to like the way he is handling himself. If he continues and shows his maturity and wisdom I'll be more than glad to support the man.
Reply-
AbuAmirahComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
-
Neutral
donald511 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
...bet the Bush DoJ isn't keeping any record on such... probably just stonewalling same like all the reported contractor fraud and abuse out of both Iraq and Afghanistan! Under the Bushies, the VA didn't want to admit to veteran suicide increases either!
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have encountered the same line, though.
"He'll hand the country over to the blacks."
Some entity is disseminating this line en masse. I have run across it in passing just overhearing it in public places three or four times now. I honestly think that this is organized Klan activity. You guys on the coasts probably don't realize it much, but... they're still here. Unfortunately. And the more likely it becomes that he is the nominee, the more brazen they will become.
Watch for flyers. Report them. To Feds, not local authorities. Catch anybody disseminating, get their plates and descriptions. FIGHT BACK! Stop it as soon as you see signs of it in your community.
Reply -
-
Neutral
raza91 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wouldn't care if the damn president was purple, so long as he/she is a GOOD pres. McHilama, all voted FOR the 'war', all voted FOR the 'patriot act' and all voted FOR Nafta. They are all affiliated with the CFR. *shudders* If you don't know much about the council on foreign relations do some research. They all rub elbows with corporate lobbyists and all take money from Big Business. These are facts but don't take my word for it. As they say, money talks and BS walks. Research the top campaign contributors of all the candidates, all four. That's right Ron Paul is still in the race, much to the dismay of the establishment. Anyways research the top campaign donors, do it now. Do you see? See who Big Business supports? See who the regular men/women in the military support? Who will you support and most importantly, ask yourself why?
Reply-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user4 Replies
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But Ron Paul supported every single one of Bush's outrageously irresponsible tax cuts and he voted against SCHIP while he and his family get taxpayer subsidized health insurance. Even though McCain flipflopped on tax cuts, at least he was against them before he was for them. ;-( Not that I'm defending McCain-god no. I just meant that he at least had a conscience (once) where tax cuts are concerned.
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hmmmm? Do you understand Ron Paul's philosophy at all? He's more of a libertarian and libertarians favor tax cuts and a smaller government in general. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a conscience. In fact he opposed Iraq from the beginning and does to this day. Alot of his donors were in the military. Paul was a good candidate and would have been good for the GOP as a whole. To put it in these terms, perhaps:
Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Girl. That's fact, look it up. Ron Paul is alot like Barry Goldwater in his philosophy.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Candida1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
raza9: "Who will you support and most importantly, ask yourself why?"
I gave you a positive for this line. You are right, every person should do a bit of independent research and decide for him/herself who deserves his or her support and why.
Reply-
Neutral
raza91 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thank you for the positive! With the environment I work in, the topic of politics arises more than I would like, lol. My favorite question to ask people is...
What is your favorite policy of his/hers, and why?
Rarely do I get a satisfactory answer. It saddens me even more so that a lot of younger people have no idea how our three branched system works. It equally astounds me when people don't realize we are actually a *Republic* working within a democracy governed by the Constitution. Sigh, public ignorance is the governments best-friend.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This will help you to get Obama's perspective on the Patriot Act, show the changes initiated in its renewal, and the fight in Congress to give it some oversight. You have to scroll down to find it.
http://www.nwotruth.com/obama-on-the-reauthoriz...
And it's worth repeating that Obama wasn't in Congress to vote for this 'war', but is on record for being against it before the vote.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL, it must suck that you can't find anything Obama has said or done that would cast him in a bad light. This Rev Wright thing is soooo boring any more. Run along and see how Obama has conducted HIS life. THAT is his measure, not what he heard.
Reply -
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
Neutral
taciturnman1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This stuff sounds pretty trivial. Shouting racial slurs at teenagers who are setting themselves up as targets (that is, they are CAMPAIGNING) seems to be the worst of it. http://www.youtube.com/user/BuyBedroomFurniture As for the headquarters vandalism, there is no indication in the article or picture that it is any more racist than political, and unless there were unreported remarks in the bomb threats, well, Hill had bomb threats too. I'll bet everyone doing door-to-door in anyone's campaign has had the door slammed in his face. Seems to me that we have come a long way from lynchings and cross-burnings.
Reply -
DeLeMaComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user3 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't believe the race is as racially charged as other side would like to spin it. The whites who don't vote Obama, by and large, are doing so because they believe experience trumps ideas. Look at it like this:
You work hard all day in a factory. A new guy comes in and has a bunch of good ideas that sound good. You consider him intelligent and able. The first day on the job, while he's thinking about something, he cuts off his hand in an accident. That is how they see Obama. Not in racial terms, by and large. They see Clinton as the 20 year veteran of the job, who learned and learned the hard way.
I tend to agree that a few extremists out there will refuse to vote Obama due to race and even vandalize his headquarters and may make an attempt on his life. However, for actually winning the election, it won't be a major factor. In the end the experience voters will decide the new, smart guy who learned his lesson on the job is better then the one who never has learned his lesson.
Reply
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.