I guess you missed the part where the White House AND the Congress were controlled by the GOP over the last 6 years. Hopefully there is more of a check and balance now. :rolleyes:

As far as the kind of person I am, you will never know. I don't put myself out on Front St like some people....


BTW, I guess my insight into the fact that WMD never existed in Iraq the minute the words left GWB's mouth makes me out of tune with the world. Considering I was right on the money....

Mccoy, the GOP did control, but that has zero relevance when talking about how democrats also supported the war.

WMD existed in Iraq. Fact. Ask the Kurds.

I personally cannot wait until Barak announces what he is going to do. I may have to make a trip to Springfield to see that for myself!

I am pleased to see Obama running and already the onslaughts and naysayers have come to the forefront, if not him to win the Presidency then at least a DEMOCRAT.We have had enough of the Republican agenda with its uncaring economic and international policies, and the atrocities of soldiers being killed in Iraq.

Obama mentioned in Time article
 

Thursday, Feb. 08, 2007
The New Black Nativism
By Orlando Patterson

To the surprise of many whites and dismay of his supporters, Barack Obama trailed Hillary Clinton among black Americans by a 40-point margin in a recent Washington Post-ABC poll. It is possible to read this as a positive development: black Americans have transcended racial politics and may now vote for the person they consider the better candidate, regardless of race. The sad truth, however, is that Obama is being rejected because many black Americans don't consider him one of their own and may even feel threatened by what he embodies.

So just what is the nature of black American identity today? Historically, the defining characteristic has been any person born in America who is of African ancestry, however remote. This is the infamous one-drop rule, invented and imposed by white racists until the middle of the 20th century. As with so many other areas of ethno-racial relations, African Americans turned this racist doctrine to their own ends. What to racist whites was a stain of impurity became a badge of pride. More significantly, what for whites was a means of exclusion was transformed by blacks into a glorious principle of inclusion. The absurdity of defining someone as black who to all appearances was white was turned on its head by blacks who used the one-drop rule to enlarge both the black group and its leadership with light-skinned persons who, elsewhere in the Americas, would never dream of identifying with blacks.

Black identity was historically progressive in another important respect: from very early in the 19th century through the civil rights movement, it was strikingly cosmopolitan. Black leaders took a deep interest in oppressed peoples throughout the world. The Pan-African movement and early black nationalism were part of emerging notions of black solidarity. Blacks took deep pride in the Haitian revolution, and black American missionaries played an important role in the Christianization of Jamaican and other West Indian blacks. Black Americans were also open to the inspiration of black immigrants: W.E.B. DuBois's father was Haitian; James Weldon Johnson's mother, Bahamian. One of the first mass movements of African Americans was led by a Jamaican, Marcus Garvey, in the '20s. An impressive number of black leaders and civil rights icons--Stokely Carmichael, Malcolm X, Shirley Chisholm, Louis Farrakhan, Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier, to list a few--were all first- or second-generation immigrants. Before them, West Indian leaders paved the way toward involvement with city politics, especially in New York. And this cosmopolitanism extended also to non-African peoples; Martin Luther King's engagement with Mahatma Gandhi is the most famous example. Like so many other West Indians, I have personally experienced this remarkable inclusiveness in the traditional practice of black identity. Becoming a black American meant simply declaring oneself to be one and engaging in their public and private life, into which I was always welcomed.

In recent years, however, this tradition has been eroded by a thickened form of black identity that, sadly, mirrors some of the worst aspects of American white identity and racism. A streak of nativism rears its ugly head. To be black American, in this view, one's ancestors must have been not simply slaves but American slaves. Furthermore, directly mirroring the traditional definition of whiteness as not being black is the growing tendency to define blackness in negative terms--it is to be not white in upbringing, kinship or manner, to be too not at ease in the intimate ways of white Americans.

Barack is married to a black woman, has spent years doing community work in the ghettos and is by lineage certainly more African than most African Americans. But black America's view of him is clouded by the facts that he is the son of an immigrant and that he was brought up mainly by middle-class whites whose culture is second nature to him. Although the Congressional Black Caucus, still strongly influenced by the civil rights generation, remains surprisingly liberal on immigration issues, the black middle class appears to harbor a hardening anti-immigrant sentiment--a Pew poll last year found that 54% of blacks see immigrants as a burden. More disturbing, however, is what that sentiment reveals about a growing pattern of self-segregation among the black middle class, many of whom, like the residents of Prince George's County, Md., seem to have largely given up on school and social integration.

This is tragic, for like all other once excluded groups before them, black Americans are in need of the social and cultural capital that comes from living with and in the white majority, the value of which is nowhere more powerfully demonstrated than in the enormous achievement and potential of Barack Obama.

Click to Print

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!