For all the defensiveness about perceived racism, I have not heard one person suggest that “if you don’t vote for Obama, you must be racist.” Sure, I’ve seen people wringing their hands that some people might not vote for Obama because they are racist, but that’s not quite the same thing as insisting ANYBODY who doesn’t vote for Obama is racist. The chances are that most people who don’t vote for Obama are merely stupid.
There was a disturbing amount of that in this very forum during the primaries. I do recall you being there too, and just a few short months ago.
Now there’s a good way to go about convincing them. :rolleyes:
Get the reasons straight, people. Electing Obama on the basis of a judgment that he’d be a superior President, without regard for his race, would send all the right messages, sure. Voting for the black guy to show we’re *past *having race matter, well, not so much. The world will notice which it is.
Yeah, that’s what she tells you. 
I wonder how many people are voting white? I think the world will notice more if we DON’T elect Obama, than if we do. I’m quite sure of it from reports around the world. I wonder what *that *means?
Race has been a very interesting part of this race. Democrats and concern trolls have expressed fears that it will have a major impact and Republicans have reacted defensively to that but then have played into that larger narrative with things like the recent comments by Michelle Bachmann who is claiming that the Wall St. crisis is the fault of black people, a claim by a conservative pundit the other day that maybe WaMu failed because it was diverse, the uppity and boy and alligator bait and Obama waffle and Curious George images, etc.
It’s almost as if a segment (not all by any means) of the Republican party is simply unable to help themselves when it comes to race. As if being told not to think about an elephant causes them to think about an elephant.
I think that would continue throughout an Obama presidency in the same sort of small ways that often have an element of deniability but that still force others to denounce and reject and pinky-swear their utmost contempt for the sentiments expressed, forcing the public face into a rejection of racism instead of hand-waving it away.
Interesting developments.
The disparity between the Nov. 4 actuals and exit polls might be the best indicator, 2000/2004-style fraud notwithstanding. Or are you wondering which is likely to be larger, the pro-Obama or the anti-Obama race-based vote?
The point was that they’ll notice the *reasons *, either way it goes, even more so. As they should.
And by “notice the reasons,” of course you mean, “think we’re stupid.” Which, of course, we’ve already proven by voting for Bush twice.
Now to be fair, Elvis, no, I am not of the mind that I will persuade anyone by telling them they are stupid. That’s not really my point. I just believe that intelligence plays out in elections in ways it is politically incorrect to talk about. Both candidates go for the stupid vote in different ways, but recently the GOP has had little else in the way of strategy. They have certainly encouraged voters to distrust the “exotic” guy, and some people – ahem – bought it early on and are now crossing party lines because they hate Obama more than they care about their future. My belief is that anyone so caught up in hating Obama that they’d betray their political values may or may not be racist, but is definitely, in any case, kinda dumb.
Yes, the the pro-Obama vs anti-Obama race based vote. Will the group voting Anti-Black vote McCain, or not vote?
Yes, I agree. If the world will look at the reasons, but will the reasons be readily available. I tend towards an Obama victory so I see it as a bit of a moot point. But the Obama victory I hope is based on the fact more people see him as capable of bringing the US out of the saga of the last 8 years.
(by CP, earlier 
“We are not a nation of equals. We do strive to be a nation of equal opportunity.
There is no evidence that either individuals or various cohorts are equally capable…”
In our OP you say, …“we say we are a nation of equals…”
Although some do say that, it’s not correct unless you mean that we are nation where every person is of equal worth in some abstract sense.
But as a practical matter, we are not equal in capability as individuals, nor are various cohorts equally capable. A couple simple non-controversial examples:
I am not as capable as Tiger Woods at golf, and no amount of training or effort on my part will get me there. I could get better, but I couldn’t get that good.
The cohort of women in this country are not as capable, on average, as the cohort of all men are at playing basketball.
I am of the opinion that we will not achieve a just society with fairness toward all until we recognize that we are differently enabled as both individuals and as cohorts. We won’t get to fairness in sports opportunity for women, for example, by pretending they are equal to men. We have to recognize they are less capable and make special provisions in order that their opportunity to succeed is protected. If we didn’t, we’d select college sports teams, say, based entirely on proven performance (with perhaps some additional consideration for those who had less opportunity to prove themselves) and end up with all-male teams. Instead we either have male and female teams, or else mandate a minimum number of females for mixed teams. We do not “look beyond” sex when determining how to make sports participation fair. We accept the difference inherent in the male/female cohorts and make provision to equalize the playing field.
My apologies for straying OT, but you asked.
No apology is needed. I understand what you meant now. I agree with what youve said. My Original statement was flawed in that way, but i hope you knew what I meant. Thank you for the clarification.
Here in the Caribbean we seem to be all rooting for Obama - we’d want to back him anyway because of his dad being black, although lots of people prefered Hilary Clinton in the run up - those people are Obama boys now of course. There’s a sense of relief in that he actually is a good politican with solid ideas because we need something new. I like the fact that he is a different kind of African American to the normal meaning in the US, but I think less people would back him if he was a republican. US politics can affect us foreigners greatly. I’d like to see the US getting its own house in order instead of throwing its weight around on the world stage which I’m hoping Obama will try that
I want that too, Bam Boo Gut. We need to clean up our act and mend fences.
What’s so wrong with the “Who cares what them foriegners think?” attitude.
Countries compete against each other in much the same way that businesses do. So why is it such a great thing that our competitors like Obama more as our president than they’d like McCain (assuming this is true for the sake of argument)?
It’s like Pepsi saying “Yeah, sure would be great if Coke hires ol’ Bob as their CEO (HAW HAW HAW)” and in walks Bob drunk as hell (or whatever).
Sometimes you need other people’s help. Fact of life. More a fact all the time, too.
Even McCain recognizes that implicitly, in his call for a League of Extraordinary Democracies.
We have very recent history to indicate just why the “Who cares what foreigners think?” is a stupid approach to governing the country.
Following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, President G.H.W. Bush formed a coalition of over a hundred nations to provide an international “rescue” operation to get Iraq out of Kuwait.
Following the WTC/Pentagon attacks and the intransigence of the Taliban, President G.W. Bush was able to organize a similar coalition to help force the Taliban out of power.
Then President G.W. Bush and his administration decided to go haring off after Saddam Hussein, ignoring (and occasionally disparaging) all the protests from other nations. He was able to invade Iraq, (like that was a surprise), but he had to bribe or coerce nearly all the nations who reluctantly joined the “coalition,” he lost any leverage to encourage the various Gulf and Arab states to forgive or reduce Iraq’s existing debt (making it more difficult than it had to be to rebuild the country), he caused several nations to withdraw from supporting common anti-terrorism activities, and on and on.
While no one should run a country just based on what other people think, taking a “who cares?” approach is a guarantee for serious problems, if not outright disaster.
I just wanted to call to your attention that integration problems were not limited to the South. For example, some of the worst of it was in Boston.
And as much as I dislike Wikipedia as a reference, I think this list will be an eye-opener for anyone who thinks that the South is where all of the racial problems were:
List of Incidents of Civil Unrest in the United States in the 1960s
Jolly Roger, Americans have had a bad reputation for several decades now. Western Europeans at least seem to want to like us, but have seen an awful lot of our arrogance. The bullies and flag-wavers always seem to be a little louder than those who would like to try to find peaceful solutions instead of treating human beings like toy soldiers. Now we have become the “bad guys” that I used to associate with enemy countries when I was a child. We hold political prisoners without charging them and we use torture to interrogate. Our leaders are war criminals.
I think there is a good chance of changing that with Obama and I think other people in other countries sense that too. I certainly hope it’s true. I just don’t think he’s devious and mean-spirited the way that Bush has been.
Not so much that they* like *him, but that they feel that they can respect him. Respect for the U.S. and our president has evaporated.