News-Record.com

Mr. Johnson: I was disappointed to see in your column today that you seem to be part of the growing group of Obama supporters who think that in order to be for Obama, they have to tear down Clinton. I have always thought that Bush's appointments of Rice and Powell, and other African Americans, suggest one very positive thing about his character: he is apparently not a prejudiced person. It is one of the few unqualified good things I can think to say about him, and it is no small thing that his terms have given us two black secretaries of state and other high-ranking black officials. Surely, though, you do not mean to suggest that the Bush presidency has done more, or tried to do more or cared more about substantive policy issues that disproportionately affect African American people than the Clinton presidency did. I don't think the Obama campaign would take that position. There are many reasons and arguments you could validly offer that Obama would be the better Democratic nominee or the better president, but insinuations that Clinton is a racist or that she doesn't care about issues that affect black people are not among them.

Obama has said a number of times that he thinks the people who have voted for Clinton would vote for him if he were the nominee, but that he is not sure the people who have voted for him would vote for Clinton. It seems to me that a corollary of that argument is that if Obama wins, Clinton's supporters will accept the outcome and support Obama, but if Clinton wins, Obama's supporters will reject the outcome and refuse to support the nominee of their party. Why is that? Is it racially motivated?

I haven't changed my mind -
I will continue to support the wife of Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend -

Just because the guy makes one little mistake we have to blame his wife?

"What exactly does that mean, "not ready"?
The man didn't say.".................

"we were left to assume that the voter wasn't prepared to support a black man for president".

for me it seems like a large leap to get to that conclusion allen. could we not just as easily concluded that he wasn't ready because he had issues with obamas foreigh policy? believe it or not there are many people who have moved on from the black/white issue(s) and take an approach that more reflects their own preferences in the candidate they will vote for.
ever notice if you pick at a scab it will never heal !?

When people usually disagree with a candidate's positions on a key issue, they typically say so ... not that they aren't "ready" to support that candidate.
I could be wrong (I'd like to be wrong) ... but I doubt it.

Anonymous -
Are you serious - the guy made no mistake - whatever he may be, he's not dumb - I mean just take one look at Monica and then take a look at Hillary and then tell me why any man wouldn't rather spend "quality time" with Monica rather than with Hillary. Plus, Monica wore that cute little blue beret so well - don't you think?

I gotta agree with buz: being "not ready" could mean any number of things, including that Hillary has been around forever and Obama not that long. ("I haven't gotten used to the idea of Obama, not Hillary, being the nominee.") Doubtlessly the NPR didn't ask because of the easy racial inference (which could, surely, have been the reason).

The problem with press coverage of Obama (including this column, IMO) is that it defines the central issue of this presidential election to be whether America is "ready" for a black president. (Oh, you're voting for someone else. I see: you're "Not Ready.") Bill Clinton is right: Obama has gotten an easy ride from the press--according to one study, 81% positive stories (whereas Hillary is around 50%; Republicans lower, McCain possible excepted--I can't recall). Shelby Steele is wrong: so far, Obama doesn't need to tell us "who he is" because the press portrays him as a messianic, feelgood figure (never mind about the policies): the rock star with swooning groupies, the New Kennedy, the man who can show America that it's past racism, a uniter, not a divider. Obama is a smart enough politician to ride the wave until (if that point even comes) he's forced to articulate positions that will alienate part of his constituency.

Who is Obama? Right now (like Colin Powell for a while), he's all things to all people. The press's job is to show him for what he is.

I gotta agree with buz: being "not ready" could mean any number of things, including that Hillary has been around forever and Obama not that long. ("I haven't gotten used to the idea of Obama, not Hillary, being the nominee.") Doubtlessly the NPR didn't ask because of the easy racial inference (which could, surely, have been the reason).

The problem with press coverage of Obama (including this column, IMO) is that it defines the central issue of this presidential election to be whether America is "ready" for a black president. (Oh, you're voting for someone else. I see: you're "Not Ready.") Bill Clinton is right: Obama has gotten an easy ride from the press--according to one study, 81% positive stories (whereas Hillary is around 50%; Republicans lower, McCain possible excepted--I can't recall). Shelby Steele is wrong: so far, Obama doesn't need to tell us "who he is" because the press portrays him as a messianic, feelgood figure (never mind about the policies): the rock star with swooning groupies, the New Kennedy, the man who can show America that it's past racism, a uniter, not a divider. Obama is a smart enough politician to ride the wave until (if that point even comes) he's forced to articulate positions that will alienate part of his constituency.

Who is Obama? Right now (like Colin Powell for a while), he's all things to all people. The press's job is to show him for what he is.

It looks to me as if the Obama race card is nothing more than the race card played so often in local Greensboro politics...the belief that a white person is obligated to vote for the black position in order to appear free from racial bigotry. If you don't vote for the black position, then you're a racist, bigot, etc. You're "not ready" in other words.
Baloney.

To Patrick's point, I was not tearing down the Clintons, though I take issue with some of their campaign tactics.
And I still challenge anyone to provide tangible evidence on what they did to better the lives of African Americans while in office.

Forgive me once again Allen for using this thread to discuss your daily editorial but lacking any other venue....

Today's editorial seems a simple paraphrase of the Emporer's edict about "not getting stuck in the mud".

It's seems you guys are missing the point; The Wray affair (other than the fact that with the info we have to date-it smells exceedingly bad), is so compelling because people, either rightly or wrongly, perceive it as a microcosm, a bellwether, a canary-in-the-coal mine that encapsulates who has and controls power in the county and how business is conducted here and how race is used and abused by both white and black politicians for maintainence of an increasingly unacceptable status quo.

This issue affects almost every other issue we have here, even many of the other issues listed in your editorial.

Are we EVER going to quit? At what point, do we actually look at who will do the "job well done" instead of who we can say were not personally comfortable with-for WHATEVER reason. I dont care that hes black-(half black or anything else.) In my opinion, HE will do the better job of running the affairs of this country in this vital time. END of discussion.

I would like to point out a key point for all to consider. This point is not rooted in political rhetoric, but rather in plain truth. As I read this article, and countless others, I hear Obama referred to as "Black." He would make history in becoming the first 'Black" president. That people are not ready for a "Black" president. So on and so one....
But the fact of the matter is that Mr. Obama is the product of a White mother and African father. By my definition that does not make him "Black." If anything it makes him the First Neutral Candidate that both whites and blacks should be able to identify with.
I've been taught to clearly stae the FACTS when I am writing. i am sure most of you have, too. Please refrain from half-truths, in order to appease your opinions, to promote propangda, or to conquer and divide the people in this election.

Anonymity, you fail to understand the incredible power of black blood. It is so powerful that it colonizes all other kinds of blood and makes it "black" (even if it looks red). White southerners enshrined this in law a century or so ago and the identity politicians of today have ensured that the law remains intact. Please refrain from ignoring the power of BLACK BLOOD in your future posts. It is by far the most powerful kind of blood that there is.

If you're interested in exploring this incredible, magical power of black blood, see Walter Benn Michaels, "The Trouble with Diversity."

Brian:
I hope everyone recognizes the satirical tone of your comment, but you're right.
As this society sees it, all it takes isone drop of "black" blood to be considered black.
Historically, some states even have tried to be more specific and decreed by law what constituted being black or white.
Problem is, they weren't consistent.
So, someone classified as black in one state could be considered white in another.

Brian, Allen is correct that your statement drips with the venom of satire. However, it also supports my central idea-- that Obama is the First Neutral Candidate that blacks and whites can identify with. Most people, such as yourself, want to put a label on him in order to divide the people. America is smarter than that. We are tired of the same old, same old in the political spectrum. If you want to label Mr. Obama as something label him as the "instrument of change." And today, whether you be white, hispanic, black, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, atheist, straight or gay--- we need to change the direction that our beloved America is going in. Mr. Obama will move us in that direction.

Brian, Allen is correct that your statement drips with the venom of satire. However, it also supports my central idea-- that Obama is the First Neutral Candidate that blacks and whites can identify with. Most people, such as yourself, want to put a label on him in order to divide the people. America is smarter than that. We are tired of the same old, same old in the political spectrum. If you want to label Mr. Obama as something label him as the "instrument of change." And today, whether you be white, hispanic, black, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, atheist, straight or gay--- we need to change the direction that our beloved America is going in. Mr. Obama will move us in that direction.

Brian, Allen is correct that your statement drips with the venom of satire. However, it also supports my central idea-- that Obama is the First Neutral Candidate that blacks and whites can identify with. Most people, such as yourself, want to put a label on him in order to divide the people. America is smarter than that. We are tired of the same old, same old in the political spectrum. If you want to label Mr. Obama as something label him as the "instrument of change." And today, whether you be white, hispanic, black, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, atheist, straight or gay--- we need to change the direction that our beloved America is going in. Mr. Obama will move us in that direction.