interesting article, ST. Truthfully, I don't think many AfAms, like many white people, have really focused in yet on the race and its participants. I think most of the reaction or "buzz" is based on the free media wave Obama's been riding to this point.

There will be those who --rightfully so -- don't give Obama a pass because he's AfAm. I think it reaffirms the political sophistication that's always been in our community, regardless of popular media convention.

Obama's policy positions vis-a-vie health care, education, housing, economic policy will make Black America (an ever expanding and diverse collection) take notice of whether he truly has AfAm interests at heart. American politics being what it is, I think he'll probably grade out somewhere slightly left of moderate, which will likely garner him huge AfAm support.

...does that make him "palatable enough" to other minority communities and the majority community? who knows? I think it'll take a few more election cycles before the coalition politics you always hear about actually become a force sufficient enough to tip an election.

....now if you've read all of this thread so far PLEASE REGISTER SO YOU CAN VOTE. :D

Correction . . . The Federal authorities have dealt with a major catastrophic event like Katrina, i.e. Hurricane Andrew. THousands of people displaced and homeless and the response was immediate. With Katrina we are almost two years after the event, and you still have displaced people. The issue with Katrina was beyond one of race- it was a socioeconomic issue as well. It is easy to pass the buck re: the issues with who dropped the ball . .the mayor, the govenor, the fed. government. The bottom line is the reason the destruction occurred in NO had NOTHING to do with the Mayor's late mandatory evacuation. The destrucion in NO was because the levy's broke . .the levy's broke because the FEDERAL government refused to supply the Army Corp of Engineers the necessary resources to adequately build the levy's to withstand Cat. 3 storms, no less Cat 5! Moreover, Bush's seemingly SLOW response to the devestation in that area reeks of classism and racism - regardless of whether folks want to believe that. As the Chief Executive Officer of this country Bush had the authority to speed FEMA reaction time up - he had the authority to take necessary measure to ensure that AMERICA people weren't dying on the street and were treated with the dignity and respect they deserved. Bottom line he failed at doing his job - executing the laws to protect the citizens he is supposed to respresent. . . .any attempts to justify his behavior regarding Katrina or any other decision he has made in the 7 years he has ruined this country are incredulous.

At this point, any platform in '08 is better than the crap we've been dealing with since January '01!!

I disagree completely. First response is always local, and it should be. Of course federal response plays a role, but its up to the local and state governments to provide initial relief. You're right that Nagin had nothing to do with destruction, but it probably did have something to do with the loss of life. I think you had a good thing going for a minute, it was an absolute disaster. By disaster, I mean one caused by nature, not one that should be blamed on the President. It didn't reek of classism and racism. You know why it was different than Andrew? Because people in Andrew got out. They didn't stay in the area. They also had insurance. They didn't depend on the government to save them, and that idea served them well.

Could FEMA have done better in Katrina? I sure would like to think so. I'd like to think we could always do better. My problem is when people like yourself blame the federal government for the results of a national disaster. The government is not everyone's problem solver. At some point people have to take responsibility for themselves and for their families. You mentioned people dying on the streets, WHY WERE THEY STILL THERE? I absolutely agree that the federal government should help Americans, but it sickens me when people demand assistance instead of helping themselves.

I doubt you want to discuss the policy of the current administration with me, but if you do I'd be glad to. However, seeing as this isn't a forum for that, we should probably take it elsewhere.

Sorry for the hijack--had to weigh in on this discussion
 

LitAKAtor and Shinerbock, you both make very good points on this issue, and I would be remiss if I didn't put my 2 cents in before we jump back to the '08 elections.

The way I see it, the federal government was without a doubt negligent by constructing poorly designed levees, especially considering Holland has far superior levees to withstand storms of that magnitude. Because of this, at least IMO, the government should've had a backup plan already in place in case circumstances such as Katrina ever occured. It was clearly evident that they did not, hence all the post-storm footage that bombarded our TV screens and streaming video files. As for the point that this negligence reeks of classism and racism, that matter debateable.

Shinerbock, I do agree with you in the sense that the lower classes and minorities need to stop relying on the government to save them every time they are in a jam (obviously my Libertarian beliefs talking here), I have to side with LitAKAtor in the sense that because the government contributed to this disaster by not taking pre-emptive measures with the levees, they should have proactive moved much more quickly by taking action and at least making an honest effort on saving lives.

By the same token(s), Nagin should have issued a mandatory evacuation much much sooner than he did, and the citizens should have at least made an effort to evacuate when the word first got out that a Level 5 hurricane was approaching.

So AFAIC, the blame can be evenly distributed among Bush, FEMA, the City of New Orleans government, and its citizens alike. I don't feel that Bush and FEMA are solely responsible for this disaster and the City of New Orleans is absolved from any sense of responsibility.

Sorry for the hijack--had to weigh in on this discussion
 

LitAKAtor and Shinerbock, you both make very good points on this issue, and I would be remiss if I didn't put my 2 cents in before we jump back to the '08 elections.

The way I see it, the federal government was without a doubt negligent by constructing poorly designed levees, especially considering Holland has far superior levees to withstand storms of that magnitude. Because of this, at least IMO, the government should've had a backup plan already in place in case circumstances such as Katrina ever occured. It was clearly evident that they did not, hence all the post-storm footage that bombarded our TV screens and streaming video files. As for the point that this negligence reeks of classism and racism, that matter is highly debateable.

Shinerbock, I do agree with you in the sense that the lower classes and minorities need to stop relying on the government to save them every time they are in a jam (obviously my Libertarian beliefs talking here), I have to side with LitAKAtor in the sense that because the government contributed to this disaster by not taking pre-emptive measures with the levees, they should have proactively moved much more quickly by taking action and at least making an honest effort on saving lives.

By the same token(s), Nagin should have issued a mandatory evacuation much much sooner than he did, and more citizens should have at least made a diligent effort to evacuate when the word first got out that a Level 5 hurricane was approaching.

So AFAIC, the blame can be evenly distributed among Bush, FEMA, the City of New Orleans government, and its citizens alike. I don't feel that Bush and FEMA are solely responsible for this disaster and the City and citizens of New Orleans should be absolved from any sense of responsibility or accountability.

I agree. I don't at all mind the idea of using this disaster to better prepare for the next. I do have a problem when people think the government should shoulder much of the blame. I absolutely agree the government should have taken care of the levees and been better prepared for this type of situation. On the other hand, people living in NO should have known the risk posed by living in a city with such vulnerabilities. I think a lot more would get accomplished if people would begin to take more responsibility for their own lives and families. Rather than using problems with Katrina as a campaign issue and accusing the government of being run by bigots, working together to ensure that we're better prepared for the next one would be of much more value.

Shinerbock, while some of us may not see eye to eye with you, FWIW, I like the way you think and your reasoning behind it.

Please keep posting, and I'll keep reading ;)

(now back to our regularly scheduled thread)

Why would you doubt that? While I do not agree with 99% of Bush's policies because I believe they adversely affect "minorities" and poor people and favor those of the "majority" and the have's, I am always open to a healthy debate about issues . . and I totally disagree with you and KAP's perspective on Katrina (and for the record I am not absolving Nagin of total responsibilty - but local government relies on Fed agencies, particularly in the case of hurricanes - to predict the path of those storms. and Trust - I was in Andrew - I KNOW that everyone did not leave, I know that people were homeless and without food and electricty, however the economic situations of the people affected in Katrina and Andrew were different - but irrespective of that - the response from the Government SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME!) - but that is the topic for another forum . . .

Sorry Mods.

Democratic Presidential Forum: June 28, 2007
Howard University
Televised: PBS


http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site....americandebate

Oh wow, I may have to make a trip down to the Alma Mater for that!

Uhhh, I forgot. 3o minutes to go, on PBS.


If I wasn't on vacation, I could have reminded those interested. I'm SURE Tavis discussed this on TJMS. I haven't listened to AM talk in nearly a month. :o

I was there for the Obama rally, which was great. He stopped by and talked with the supporters. I saw Marc Morial while I was walking back to my car. He is so sexy in person.;)

ttt

thoughts, opinions on the race so far?

i am very hopeful about next year. the Democratic slate is a good one. as an aside, it's nice to be in a really Blue state in a Blue region;)
regarding the other side, it's interesting to see how the Repubs are (not) embracing their candidates. talk of a 3rd party of Christian-Right GOP defectors is interesting to watch. as someone who loves politics, this will be a great year-plus to watch.
the downside, these debates are a bit much...there've been a ton of them and it's only October, 2007:eek:

The "Queen City" weeps at your loss/departure :)

It is an interesting race to hanidcap... HRC seems increasingly solid, yet there is a deep reservoir for what B. Obama seems to represent (their fundraising totals are very close). Not exactly sure why John Edwards, vetted in '04, hasn't caught on more in the primaries.

On the Republican side, given the lukewarmed-ness of the given slate, I expected Fred Thompson's candidacy to reenergize that scenario. Doesn't appear to have happened.

3rd party, independent movements, I think, have affected races (Perot, Nader) so we'll see on this one. I think there may be a lot of disaffected, sit-this-one-out types among Republican voters.

funny, i feel like some of the Queen City came w/me...but that's another story;)
John Edwards like John McCain, to me, didn't catch b/c folks feel like they had their shot now they must move on. Dems want a winner and and they see him as the past. a rather unfortunate past.
Fred Thompson, he seemed more interesting when he was a ?. now i think folks see him as a candidate and their ardor has cooled(ex. a lazy campaigner, not good as far as a public speaker, etc.). i don't think he'll catch up and surpass Romney and Guiliani. could be wrong but i don't think so.
as for HRC and Obama (a cousin of cheney, poor Obama:(), her fundraising numbers are going up and i'm a bit concerned. i want him in this until the bitter end. not as a distant 2nd but as a real contender.
but, we'll just have to see...

Predictions for the Dems?
Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are running closely.

The news channels are reporting the MH from Arkansas has won this caucus.

I'm so happy and proud that Obama won last night. And his speech afterwards was on point.

I wonder how Hilary's campaign will react since she came in a close third behind Edwards?

This is only my thrid Presidental election, and I'm hyped. I can't wait for our primary.

I am too:D

Maybe its just me, but I'm not really feeling Obama.

Not just you.
 

I am not feeling it yet either.

It is feels almost "cult of personality", and I hope I am mistaken.

He is charming, he is charismatic, he is definitely easy on the eyes. He definitely energizes the under 30 crowd.

AND He has only been in the Senate for 2 years (elected 2005) and he has been campaigning for President for the last 9 months. He is an excellent community, grassroots organizer and he has some influential supporters (*cough*Oprah*cough*)

BUT, he is unproven on the international stage at this point.

...only time will tell...

Regardless I will support the democratic nominee over any of what the republican party has to offer...

That's exactly how I feel. I feel like he would be a better candidate in 2012. But I will support whoever the Democratic nominee is as well.

Absolutely!!! Absolutely!!!

I don't feel this should disqualify him or anyone else for that matter. After all, George W. didn't have international experience either. This is the perfect time for him to run because it is a wide open field.

From the debates and speeches I've seen he more than holds his own against the other candidates. Not to mention his good fundraising and organizational efforts. That is what usually kills campaigns.

Uh...WAY didn't feel for "W". Oh no no no no....not at all. So not a good analogy.

Didn't say that Obama wouldn't be great EVENTUALLY...just not feeling it yet. 2012 after a bit more national governmental experience, yes.

I don't have a "candidate" yet. However, ^^^ sounds like the thinking when Jindal (Gov-Elect, LA) ran against Blanco. I didn't think he would win even after his "experience". It's a new day and he won. Maybe his "lack" of experience is what the White House/ politics in general needs. :confused: We are/ will be coming off of George W. Bush, so anyone should serve the country better than him. :smirk:

I feel that this is a strong point for Obama - his lack of political baggage (favors, alliances, scandal, etc.).

Any thoughts on a potential running mate for him ?
<< Being optimistic and hope I'm not jumping the gun :D

/hijack
It's funny you mention Jindal. He looked like a deer caught in the headlights for all his commericials.
/end hijack

Some people I've talked haven't decided between Obama and Clinton, but said they're more likely to vote for Obama because they didn't want another Clinton administration.

How electable is Obama? If he wins the democratic nomination, will he be able to win the election? Regardless of how he has done or does in the caucuses or primaries, can he realistically win the electorate votes to become the next President of the US?

I don't have a candidate; just something I thought about while hearing a discussion on the radio this morning.

Your thoughts?

You know I was like no way until Iowa, simply because the record voter turnout. The fact that he carried that state really surpirsed me, and even though it is a small state I truly believe the big ticket states like California, New York and Florida could possibly carry him over. Its all the other smaller states and Texas that could possibly keep him back.

Whatever the case lets pause to enjoy the history. :) A Black man or a woman may possibly be our next president, I would have gone to the grave never expecting that in my lifetime.

Was it TJMS? Tom Joyner & Cheryl Underwood did a really funny commentary this morning. Cheryl was saying we should "play dumb" when it came to Obama to make sure he wins.

But, to answer your question I think him winning the Iowa caucus justified some of the media hype. I'm just thinking back to Howard Dean who had young adult support and media hype, but the campaign faultered. (On a side note...Dean did teach the Dems how to use new media to raise money). New Hampshire is the next test to see if Obama can continue the momentum and pull in the independant voters. He has to at least come in second.

His fundraising strength will keep him in the race, and if he is the Democratic nominee that will give him a fighting chance from a media buying standpoint. It shouldn't be about money, but that's now a big part of it. On the issues I think he'll stand his ground against the Republican nominee.

No. It was our local "home team" morning show.

Is anyone else listening to NPR right now? One of the topics was why blacks have been relunctant to support him (siting how major mainstream black orgs such as the NAACP, etc. have not came out publicly to support him).

One reason (I believe it was Clarence Paige that stated this) given was that blacks were waiting to see if he was truly "a black leader" (Jesse Jackson-esque) or that we were still enamored
with the Clinton administration (hoping that Hilary will bring the same type of admin).

What do you guys think?

I think that's lazy thinking on Clarence Page's part. Iowal and N.H. are two of the whitest states in the nation, so there hasn't been much chance yet for Af-Am voters to actually "show support."

Also, Af-Ams are pragmatic voters, who, if anything, may be waiting to see how white voters wrestle with themselves in determining whether they are truly ready to support a Black man for president in what may be a close election in November. (I say close becuase if a true social/moderate emergeson the Republican side (Huckabee? maybe McCain) they'll draw the attention of a good number of Af-Am voters.)

Basically, it's worth observing whether Obama will have true crossover appeal. Have Iowa and New Hampshire shown Black voters that Obama is "palatable" enough :rolleyes: to white voters? Who knows?

As far as the NAACP, I think they're shown themselves to be politically irrelevant for several years now, and think fewer and fewer people take their "cues" from them. I don't.

I hear you on that. Even if he is not elected president but wins the Democratic nomination, that is history in itself. Maybe when my baby son (now 10 years old) becomes president, he won't be the first Black to do so ;)

On CNN they were discussing how many Blacks have been reluctatnt to support Obama because they feared he was not electable, and decided to support Hillary Clinton instead. I agree with this to be hnest I felt the same way, and I hate to believe I was part of this group but partially I was. :confused:

I think he proved back at the 2004 convention that he doesn't have to be limited to being "a black leader." Tavis Smiley always mentions about Obama that Hilary wouldn't even be a contender if Obama had similar polling numbers of black voters that Jesse had in '88. Honestly, I feel Obama is more electable because he appeals to a wide range of voters, which is needed when it comes to being president. No black candidate is going to be elected just by having the black vote (i.e. Al Sharpton).

Even though Hillary won the NH primary, statistically, it was a dead heat. They both received the same number of delegates (9). The popular vote was won by a margin of less than 3 percentage points; less than 8,000 votes out of almost 280,000 cast. Unlike the Republican race where there was a clear winner by over 5 percentage points. (Source: CNN.com with 96% of precincts reporting)

Bob Johnson criticizes Obama
 

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer

COLUMBIA, S.C. - One of Hillary Rodham Clinton's most prominent black supporters said Sunday he was insulted by the characterization by rival Barack Obama's presidential campaign of her remarks about the civil rights movement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080114/...linton_johnson

While Bob Johnson is a brilliant businessman, I have little respect for him as a leader of Black America because he is responsible for that travesty called BET.