they're both acceptable AND understandable. everyone is prejudiced, and everyone has personal biases. it's human nature. the only person who needs to understand or accept is the person who is doing the voting. from what i'm reading, he's chastising those who voted for obama based on the color of his skin. while i think that it's a limited reason to vote for a candidate, there's really nothing wrong with it.

Well, of the small % of black Repubs there are, some of them voted for Obama and SOME (read: some) of them said it was because of the opportunity to vote for a black man. But whether that would've happened regardless of who the candidate is, is something we can't assume.

Example: Jesse Jackson did better in 1984 and 1988 than people expected and got a lot of primary votes. But he still didn't win over black voters and have the longstanding support that people expected him to. Part of that has to do with the time period of racial politics (1984, 1988) and some has to do with the fact that many blacks weren't fond of a Jackson presidency, including his inability to censor himself. Blacks, in general, liked him as an activist and loved the idea of a black president, sometime---but NOT Jackson. He still wouldn't have won because he lacked the backing from whites, which is what Obama had and ALL candidates need to win.

But the fact remains that Obama was deemed highly qualified, even if folks weren't as knowledgeable about him and his platform as they should've been. His views were not in constrast with how many of these blacks viewed social, political and economic policy--he's a Dem and many found only small differences between Hillary and Barack's platforms. If it was a black candidate that these black voters were nervous about or a black candidate that was a conservative Republican, such as Armstrong Williams, the average black voter may not have even LIKED HIM, let alone voted for him. (I like Armstrong, though :)) Now, Colin Powell is different because some people view him as more of a reluctant Repub and less conservative than he lets on.

True - there's no excuse for some of those comments; it just goes to show that racism is out there, whether people want to admit it or not.

;) On the surface level it looks like I'm a newbie!

But getting beyond the surface, there are some things going on that makes my new username different than the other new usernames.:eek: However, Kevin would have me go to the newbie thread just like everyone else because it's all the same based on the join date and post count.

I did not see a single racist comment from my conservative friends when Obama won. There was disappointment. There was even a "what are you thinking?" one. But not a single one talked about Obama's skin color or ancestry.

Everyone has the right to their opinion as long as they have the same opinion as you and if they don't then they are racists.


PS. Why did you support Obama? I am sure it had nothing to do with the color of his skin.

I see what you are saying....but be aware that it does seem like racism to people when someone claims that the only reason they voted for someone is for their race. I totally understand where anyone like this is coming from and am playing devil's advocate, but a statement like that really upsets many people, not just racists. My husband was really offended by that, and I can tell you that he is the most open minded person I've ever met. We all have our prejudices, but sometimes we should all be careful to not stir up unnecessary emotions. I have a feeling that despite what these people say, race is NOT the reason why they chose to vote for Obama, though it was a huge factor.

To people who don't know what racism is. I avoid discourse with such people.

(Why do people always announce that they are playing devil's advocate? Does the devil need one? :p)

I understand your overall point and agree with your last sentence.

A great deal depends on how you define "racism". There's a lot of begging the question that goes on with it, and it's best to define your terms to avoid misunderstanding. I don't argue with anyone who can't define "begging the question" as a rhetorical fallacy. :rolleyes:

I must hang with a good facebook crowd - I have friends on both sides of the fence, and while some Republicans were taking comfort in their faith in God and the country, my more liberal friends were, for the most part, gracious in victory. My daughter did post a status asking for "good sportsmanship, darlings!" which I thought was spot-on for both sides.

Interesting aside - at his first grade mock election, my son voted for Obama. He was one of only three children in his class who did so. I asked him why he chose Obama, and he said "Because he is the donkey party!". There are many adults who probably voted for him for the same reason.

I did almost lose it listening to the NPR pundit who said that the fact that the deep South went for McCain proved that racism was alive and well. HUH? Last time I looked, those states went for Bush in 2004, so could we please at least entertain the idea that perhaps they voted for McCain because they tend to vote Republican, regardless of the skin colour of the candidate? I didn't vote for Obama, and it wasn't because he is a particular colour. I'm tired of the talking heads trying to ascribe motives to groups of voters. Did a small minority vote for or against Obama because of his race? Yep. But I resent the idea that any expert can look into the minds of millions of voters and authoritatively say why I, or my fellow voters, voted the way we did. I feel the same way about those who try to ascribe motives to followers of Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin. There are some who may support them because of their sex, but it's insulting to state that the only reason women might support one or the other is because they are women. I think most women are intelligent enough to look at the issues rather than the gender of the candidate. At the very least, I think you need to base your argument on something other than just your gut feeling or your particular axe to grind.

The most racist place I've ever lived is Bridgewater, N.J. Not only did I hear the "n word" more than I ever have in the south, they talked about Jews, Catholics, Hispanics and homosexuals in terms I have never personally heard since. (Thank God!)

I am hoping that now that the election is over we can ALL truly concentrate on those issues that affect us and let Obama work on assembling the best possible team to take over in January. I have my reservations, but want to give the man the benefit of the doubt. I'm hoping the whole issue of his race can take a backseat to his performance - that is the next step we need to try and achieve.

I don't think it's about the right time, I think it's about the right MAN and Obama is the right man to break through this barrier. The road to defeating racism IS long and bumpy no matter what. This was HUGE though. Enough people in this country have come far enough that the majority of voters agreed that this African American man was the ONE to take on this challenge. Anybody who thinks that means there is no longer racism, they are awfully naive. Those who are racist will probably become more vocal about it because their worst fears have been triggered.

Folks are putting a lot of words into my mouth these days.

Welcome back, btw. You were missed.

My current facebook status: Kevin is thinking that it could be worse...it could be Hillary.

I understand and agree with people who would get offended at blatantly racist updates.

However, being upset about people expressing their partisan disappointment in the outcome of the election is counterproductive. Freedom of expression is one of the things that makes this country great. Personally I believe that the freedom to express ones opinions is what allows us to have a non-violent transfer of power.

Been to West Virginia lately?

I think there is (or can be) a moral difference.

If we start from the assumption that both candidates are on the balance reasonably-equally qualified, I think there is a moral/ethical difference between

1) A white voter whose vote for the white candidate is prompted by the belief that a white will always make a better president than a black, or that he doesn't want to see a black president; and

2) A black voter whose vote for the black candidate is prompted not by the belief that a black will always make a better president than a white, but by the belief that the time is right to bring a perspective into the Oval Office that hasn't been there before and to move America a little further down the road.

It seems to me that the former is a refutation of the promise inherent in the Declaration of Independence ("that all men are created equal"), while the latter is an attempt to claim that promise.

Not having read the rest of the replies, I'm gonna be silly for a second...

"NAFTA!"

"Ooooh, say it again."

"NAFTA!"

"Ooooh, that tickles, say it again."

"NAFTA NAFTA NAFTA"

"Oooh, that's scary!"