<p>Let's be honest, we all know Obama couldn't ever truthfully speak about the state of race in America cause that would equate to him committing political suicide. We know he could never really advocate for Black people cause he'd never be in the position he's in today. Look at how the media framed Rev. Wright's comments and how overblown and inaccurate the reports were about it, and all the pressure on Obama to distance himself from him. </p>
<p>And puhleeze, anyone asking what Obama's race is because he's half white should just quit. In case one was wondering, he's Black (and not just because I said so, but check your history and check the facts). I also find it funny that Black people who make it to the highest levels of respect and recognizability in America (Obama, MJordan, Tiger Woods) are deemed to have "transcended" race, but for a white person in a similar situation they don't as much as have to say "hello" to a Black person and they'll continue to be supported whole-heartedly by the media and other white's.</p>
<p>Tiger Woods is actually more Asian than Black (50% Thai-Chinese, and only 25% black), as has gone so far on record as to say he DOES NOT idenfity himself as black. Though because of his darker skin complexion, African Americans readily (and immediately) identify with him, and ignore his Asian composition.</p>
<p>You all are really obsessed with Obama's race. I guess I didn't really think of him as a "black man" until everybody started talking about it. </p>
<p>Maybe he's just a good politician. Not the second coming or the savior of all our troubles, but a good politician who knows when to say what needs to be said for setting a decent course to global unification. If you can name a politician who has not had to lie or backtrack to gain or maintain power, then that person was probably running for city council of Mayberry.</p>
<p>I agree about the above McCain comment - I thought his policies and views were far more appealing before he became a presidential nominee. Now he doesn't know what he believes and is just trying to find the position that's going to get him enough votes. He seems to be in over his head. I think Romney would have been a smarter choice, but I'm glad McCain got in because I respect him as a person far more than Romney who just made up a bunch of social conservative values to ring in some voters. I know where that guy comes from in Michigan - it's money Republican, not Bible Republican.</p>
<p>Not to get too off topic, but Tiger only 25% Black huh? Wow, I guess I learn something new every day. I didn't know his father was of mixed ethnicity also, but oh well. </p>
<p>In any case, Blacks don't pine over Tiger Woods and making it sound like we do despite his refusal to identify with us is a rather crude thing to do. Charles Barkley and Michael Jordan, two of Tiger's best friends, confronted him on his fairy-tale notion that he's not Black, and he got the message. Barkley put it aptly, stating something to the effect of, "if you weren't Black you wouldn't be receiving so many death threats." In any case Tiger is Black, as is Obama and that's about the last bit I have to say on the issue.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Obama isn't taking public funding because he now gains a great advantage by not taking it. He wants to become President and create a better America. If to do this he gives up public funding, then so be it.</p></li>
<li><p>Anyone interested in this whole race thing should take classes at Cornell about it, they are very interesting. Also there is a "CNN Presents Being Black in America" running and it's extremely well made. I watched it last night and was blown away by some of the stats. 60% of blacks kids don't have a father in their home. 1/3 of all blacks will be convicted at some point in their life. 2/3 of blacks who dropout of highschool will be in prison at some point (and the rate of graduating from highschool was really low but I can't remember it). In many schools it is also seen as being "uncool" or "white" to be a smart black kid, whereas in many white schools the cool kids are smart. It also talked about a book I have actually read where this Princeton teacher did a huge experiment with blacks in the job market and found out that a black person is as likely to get a job as a white convicted felon...so being black is equivalent to committing a crime. There are just so many factors working against blacks in America and we have to remember the 1960s were not long ago. People are still suffering from the repercussions of the inequality of blacks in America, everywhere from the value of education to the social status and economic class of blacks.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I don't have a problem with the fact that Obama isn't taking public funding. I have an enormous problem with the fact though that he stated:</p>
<p>
[quote]
"If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”
[/quote]
</p>
<p>before he was the nominee. Giving up public funding would have been okay in my opinion if he didn't egregiously contradict himself as he has done here. This shows that he is not as self-righteous or as big as an agent of change as everyone makes him out to be; this is no change because this is something any other politician would do. </p>
<p>Who's to say he will create a better America?? That's pure opinion. I for one think he won't. Pretty words won't do us any good. </p>
<p>Brownman - You seem to have this notion that Barack is just pretty words and put up as this radically different politician.</p>
<p>I've never heard anyone say that. He is a politician playing a game in a system where one has to assess the situation and make the best decision for moving forward. You, more than his supporters, seem to have him on this incredibly unrealistic pedastal.</p>
<p>As for if he will improve the U.S., it seems like he's on the right track - making 5 million green collar jobs, rebuilding overseas relationships, creating a market-based universal health care program.</p>
<p>Um if not taking public funding would mean I would be president then I would do it in a second. Screw what he said a long time ago, things change. For some reason people want a politician who never changes his mind when a situation changes...we've seen what happens when we pick a stupid president like that. He's trying to win president, not win an honesty contest or something. If that's what it takes to put him and his followers in the white house, then good for him for trying as hard as possible. By taking public funding he would be giving up a huge advantage and possibly letting many millions of people down. It's not like his switching his stance on abortion or some major issue. He's going to get more money in a competition...big whoop. McCain also went against his word when he took public financing when he was losing (therefore saying he wouldn't take private money anymore) and then reversed his word when he started winning again. He took $4 million in November from public financing when he was down n out. Then when he started winning again he just went "nevermind" and reversed his agreement and starting to raise money privately. As far as I know the DNC is sueing him for that. But politicians do wat it takes to win. At least Obama didn't "sign" an agreement like McCain had done. McCain is the real one that you should feel owes an explanation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For some reason people want a politician who never changes his mind when a situation changes
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I want a politician who will admit when his mind changes, and give a reasonable justification why his/her mind has changed. See the WSJ article I posted below, later on in this post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Um if not taking public funding would mean I would be president then I would do it in a second. Screw what he said a long time ago, things change.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>He said this less than one year before the election, it's not too long ago . If he flops on thing's like this with no honest justification, who's to say he won't flop when he gets to the White House?</p>
<p>
[quote]
McCain is the real one that you should feel owes an explanation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again, as of yet, I support neither Obama nor McCain, but Mccain is the one giving me the explanation!! Read the WSJ article I posted:</p>
<p>Obama has flip flopped enormously on things like the war with no reasonable justification. Had he provided reasonable justification, then I would have been okay with him. Initially, he claimed he supported an immediate withdrawal of troops. After flip-flopping multiple times without any reasonable justification, he arrived to the conclusion that we should have 70-80 thousand troops "just in case" with no reasonable justification. That is exactly what we have in Iraq right now(or at least planning to have) !!!!!!!!! This is not change. This is just bullcrap. The only way I see this as a change is in its most essential form- a flip flop.</p>
<p>Also did anybody hear about how the Obama campaign prevented two Muslim veiled women from sitting behind Obama during his televised speech (so that the women couldn't be seen behind Obama) because they didn't want to send out the wrong image? That's sure for change!</p>
<p>You're clearly against Obama and looking for reasons to not like him. </p>
<p>If you want to blame anyone for the veiled women issue (which happened ages ago and for which he personally called to apologize), then blame the ignorant in America. Blame the people who see a Muslim and think "terrorist". Blame the people who hate simply because others are Muslims. Blame the people who fear Obama because he has a father who was at one time a Muslim and because Barack has the middle name of Hussein. </p>
<p>This man has every odd stacked against him in this country. Cut him a little slack. Take it to an extreme. If he had nothing but scarved Muslims behind him during every speech he gave, do you think he would be contending for president? </p>
<p>This is smart politics in a world that is full of ignorance and fear. To change that, sometimes you have to appease that fear. </p>
<p>I think if you follow Barack's arguments closely, and not simply what is reported through pundits, you will see that he has not changed his mind very often. I don't understand how you think McCain has explained himself though. He's been all over the map - completely contradicting his entire background.</p>
<p>I've worked in national politics. You may be young and have no idea just how dirty it is - everything that comes out of DC is created out of greed and spun into something righteous by the time it hits middle America. Sometimes to change the game you've got to play the game first.</p>
<p>You're clearly against Obama and looking for reasons to not like him.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't like either Obama or McCain so I am bit in a dilemma here for this upcoming election. Chances are I won't vote. </p>
<p>I just don't see the change that everyone claims to see in him. I feel like all that stuff is a bunch of BS, as evidenced by his gradual yet egregious flip-flop on Iraq policy. If anything is changing, it's his stances on policies. I told you about the "change" in his Iraq policy in the previous post, but you decided to conveniently ignore my claim.</p>
<p>I don't like McCain either but if you want to look for situations where he has explained himself and Obama has not- read the WSJ article I posted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you want to blame anyone for the veiled women issue (which happened ages ago and for which he personally called to apologize), then blame the ignorant in America. Blame the people who see a Muslim and think "terrorist". Blame the people who hate simply because others are Muslims. Blame the people who fear Obama because he has a father who was at one time a Muslim and because Barack has the middle name of Hussein.</p>
<p>This man has every odd stacked against him in this country. Cut him a little slack. Take it to an extreme. If he had nothing but scarved Muslims behind him during every speech he gave, do you think he would be contending for president?</p>
<p>This is smart politics in a world that is full of ignorance and fear. To change that, sometimes you have to appease that fear.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This by no means gives his campaign the right to do what they did to those two women.</p>
<p>Let's all read the op-ed written by a brilliant Republican political strategist and a criminal mastermind. Keep in mind that this op-ed is published in one of the most conservative editorial pages in the country.</p>
<p>And then we can take it at face value. We don't have to put an independent thought into it. We don't have to ask questions or see if there is another side to the argument.</p>
<p>Obama has more than explained himself on all of the situations Rove brings up. Just because Rove denies it doesn't mean there is a worthy explanation.</p>
<p>Yayy!!! Now we can all be well-read and thoughtful college students.</p>
<p>Question: Are all 65 of McCain's changes in position perfectly explainable?</p>
<p>Question: What exactly has been Obama's egregious flip-flop on Iraq policy? Hasn't he always been against the way, arguing that it was a diversion from greater threats, foreign and domestic? And hasn't he always been for a controlled withdraw on the ground, provided conditions warrant? </p>
<p>Question: Are you going to vote based on feeling or based on the candidate who puts forth the most sensible and honest judgment about our country, its direction, and where we might be able to improve on things?</p>
<p>Question: Are you really going to not vote when thousands of young men and women have died in the last five years, fighting for the very democracy that you wish to abstain from?</p>
<p>Let's all read the op-ed written by a brilliant Republican political strategist and a criminal mastermind. Keep in mind that this op-ed is published in one of the most conservative editorial pages in the country.</p>
<p>And then we can take it at face value. We don't have to put an independent thought into it. We don't have to ask questions or see if there is another side to the argument.</p>
<p>Obama has more than explained himself on all of the situations Rove brings up. Just because Rove denies it doesn't mean there is a worthy explanation.</p>
<p>Yayy!!! Now we can all be well-read and thoughtful college students.</p>
<p>Question: Are all 65 of McCain's changes in position perfectly explainable?</p>
<p>Question: What exactly has been Obama's egregious flip-flop on Iraq policy? Hasn't he always been against the way, arguing that it was a diversion from greater threats, foreign and domestic? And hasn't he always been for a controlled withdraw on the ground, provided conditions warrant? </p>
<p>Question: Are you going to vote based on feeling or based on the candidate who puts forth the most sensible and honest judgment about our country, its direction, and where we might be able to improve on things?</p>
<p>Question: Are you really going to not vote when thousands of young men and women have died in the last five years, earnestly fighting for the very democracy that you wish to abstain from?</p>
<p>Everybody here keeps on bringing up how McCain has flip flopped as well. I have said on numerous occasions that I don't like either candidate so you're definitely not going to convince me to vote for Obama by telling me this. </p>
<p>Obama was initially for immediate withdrawal of troops. Now, he is all about keeping quite a few troops there to perform attacks on the Taliban and look after our diplomats. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE PLANNING TO DO NOW. This is not a change, unless you consider his change in stance. Tell me people , what is so glorious about the change in his campaign? After 8 years of George Dubya Bush, any fool would be a change for the better. If you can give me legitimate, hard policies of how this man is really going to change America, then Obama has my vote.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I ignored your statement about Obama's Iraq policy because it made no sense and you didn't explain anything. He's been extremely consistent and has said all along "We will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." He never said he would yank all of our troops out the first day in office. He must have made that statement about 900 times now. It has been refined to 16 months since he began campaigning, but has never fundamentally changed. I'm not sure you follow his positions that well. </p></li>
<li><p>Not making a decision is not an option in adulthood.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>btw - using an op-ed written by Karl Rove, the architect of the most corrupt, illegal, and unethical political power grab in modern history is not a very reliable resource.</p>
<p>Of course he's going to attack Barack at every chance he gets and make him look bad. That's how he got Bush selected.</p>
[quote]
Nobody wants to hear a white-supremacist view on race. We know how they think already.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is exactly why I'm so frustrated at the racial dialog occurring in this country. This is what often amounts to racial discourse from blacks.</p>
<p>So I guess if a white person says the exact same things that Bill Cosby said and prominent black conservatives like former Cornell prof Thomas Sowell say, they hate blacks. I don't understand how being against affirmative action and taking a hard look at black culture and black identity is so outrageous. In fact, I watched a little of that CNN panel discussion a few nights ago and an actor (Hill Harper) was discussing his books about some of things that many conservative commenters criticize black culture about (lack of appropriate father figures, glorification of gang life, degradation of education, etc...). I don't think it makes one a racist to point out these very obvious faults. In fact, I think those that are exasperated with the notion of "black identity" are the opposite of racist. Many of these people, especially conscientious conservatives, wish that "black identity" constituted much less of a person's psyche. In fact, at Cornell, the Cornell American and Review often remark that blacks should cease defining themselves as African-American and simply as American; that way a unified society of individuals (and not people simply belonging to groups defined by birthright) can exist. It's disheartening that people like you want to put everyone (Tiger Woods, Barack Obama) into discrete boxes, black, white, or whatever. </p>
<p>I also don't recall saying white people were superior to blacks. Although, I guess in your mind, name calling is how you win an argument over a subject that white people (especially liberals) are often too afraid of broaching.</p>