Comments on: Color vs. Content

By: Phillymac

Phillymac — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:39:43 +0000

Yes, I know, I’ve risked that label (racist) but asked the question anyway. And especially when I see people that would normally vote to the contrary because of their belief, their ethics and morality – suddenly vote for the Big O… it makes me wonder. You know?

By: Benjamin P. Glaser

Benjamin P. Glaser — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:55:09 +0000

Greg,

While Obama may be a “gifted orator” he better become more able to think from his feet at the debates. Especially if there are more Town Hall-style debates.

By: weekly roundup: 5.31-6.6 « mission:contend

weekly roundup: 5.31-6.6 « mission:contend — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:40:51 +0000

[...] color vs. content [...]

By: Geof F. Morris

Geof F. Morris — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:11:14 +0000

Rae, the thought that I had on Wednesday morning is this: yes, I’m proud that, a scant 40 years after King’s assassination, we have a major American political party running a man of African descent for President. However, I’ll be prouder still when the color of his skin will not be a novelty, but rather just a matter of fact.

By: Abas

Abas — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:16:36 +0000

Hi, Rae

I reckon it is just a matter of when that the most advanced, powerful, influential, & not to mention every large country like America have a leader that is not a Caucasian. The open ended super world power leadership spot shows that America is not a particular race supremo nation. Obama just happens to be of African American decent. I want to be the leader of some Scandinavian country but don’t know how the folks would accept a South East Asian leader. Lol. Somebody sponsor me $10 billion dollars for a Vote Me campaign!

Abas/aieditor
Twitterland

By: Rae

Rae — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:36:12 +0000

Yeah, I don’t disagree with you there, Greg. I’m speaking more of the mindsets of my fellow African-Americans (particularly those of a more “old-school”, modernist way of thinking) who voted in order to “make history” or because it’s “about time”. The same could be said of those who voted for Senator Clinton for the same reason, and there’s an entirely DIFFERENT rant I could make about those who voted for any of the other candidates because (at least in part) they were afraid of having a woman or a Negro running the country.

November will be interesting time.

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:28:23 +0000

Regardless of how one feels about Obama’s stance on policies, he is clearly the most gifted orator we’ve seen on the political stage in quite some time.

In my opinion, and without giving away what I think about Obama’s political stances- I will say that I think Obama is a big deal not primarily because he is the first black nominee from a major party (although that is a really big deal)- but because I think he is the first truly after-modernism presidential candidate.

From his both/and views, to his communicative skills, to his ability to appeal to voters in a way which transcends the two party system, to his ethnic background- I mean the guy is almost tiger woods for petesake. He’s from chicago, but with a nontraditional american name. He’s got an islamic heritage, but now considers himself a Christian…

In nearly every sense, Obama IS what our nation is becoming. Ethnically Diverse, Multi-cultural, Liberal, Post Establishmentarian, Post Binary Reasoning, Religiously Pluralistic, more Global than National, etc etc…

By: Travis Seitler

Travis Seitler — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:59:23 +0000

Not only that, but how many white-guilt–ridden “Caucasians” likewise voted for Obama because of the color of his skin?

I caught Rush Limbaugh talking about this very thing yesterday. Not that I’m making a habit of listening to his program, mind you.