Shocked & Disgusted

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by starang21

i find this thought process interesting. what perspective hasn't been there before? i don't think that he would act any differently in certain situations than many other democrats. and considering that much his cabinet could very well be former clinton people, is it accurate to say that this perspective hasn't been there before?

Maybe I was speaking a little too obliquely. By "in the Oval Office" I meant sitting in the chair behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office. I meant that, though recent presidents have certainly had the benefit of African-American Secretaries and advisors, none has had the personal perspective or life-experiences of an African-American. It's the idea that a voter has some sense that "the President, from his own experience, has a clue what life is like for me." That's all.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Maybe I was speaking a little too obliquely. By "in the Oval Office" I meant sitting in the chair behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office. I meant that, though recent presidents have certainly had the benefit of African-American Secretaries and advisors, none has had the personal perspective or life-experiences of an African-American. It's the idea that a voter has some sense that "the President, from his own experience, has a clue what life is like for me." That's all.

ok, so he's black. he's also still a democrat, a politician, and a man. he still has to fix problems for a country that is 2/3 white. and most of the problems aren't race specific, and affect all americans. call me nuts, but him being black is not going to factor into decision and policy making in anyway.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by starang21

ok, so he's black. he's also still a democrat, a politician, and a man. he still has to fix problems for a country that is 2/3 white. and most of the problems aren't race specific, and affect all americans. call me nuts, but him being black is going to factor into decision and policy making in anyway.

Is there a "not" missing in the last sentence?

I agree with pretty much all of what you said here, except that I think everyone's life experiences factor into their decision making.

But please go back to the context in which I made the statement to start with -- a response to Kevin as to why, if other factors are equal, a decision to vote for Obama because he's black might be ethically or morally different from a decision to vote against him because he's black.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Is there a "not" missing in the last sentence?

I agree with pretty much all of what you said here, except that I think everyone's life experiences factor into their decision making.

But please go back to the context in which I made the statement to start with -- a response to Kevin as to why, if other factors are equal, a decision to vote for Obama because he's black might be ethically or morally different from a decision to vote against him because he's black.

whoops, lol. yea. i said something to the same effect (i.e. pride vs. hate) to him.

[OtterXO]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Is there a "not" missing in the last sentence?

I agree with pretty much all of what you said here, except that I think everyone's life experiences factor into their decision making.

But please go back to the context in which I made the statement to start with -- a response to Kevin as to why, if other factors are equal, a decision to vote for Obama because he's black might be ethically or morally different from a decision to vote against him because he's black.

Isn't the person who is voting for Obama because he's black not voting for McCain because he's not black? It's ethically different to vote FOR something but in this particular situation you are inevitably voting against someone else for the same reason, but it's their lack of being black - if I'm following the logic here. So really there's no moral highroad. I think the reason it's different here is rooted more in the history of our country rather than the moral difference. To me no one needs to explain it though, it all makes sense. It wasn't a factor in my vote for him but I get why it would be for others.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by OtterXO

Isn't the person who is voting for Obama because he's black not voting for McCain because he's not black? It's ethically different to vote FOR something but in this particular situation you are inevitably voting against someone else for the same reason, but it's their lack of being black - if I'm following the logic here. So really there's no moral highroad. I think the reason it's different here is rooted more in the history of our country rather than the moral difference. To me no one needs to explain it though, it all makes sense. It wasn't a factor in my vote for him but I get why it would be for others.

This is, more or less, the point I was trying to make earlier, as well.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by OtterXO

Isn't the person who is voting for Obama because he's black not voting for McCain because he's not black? It's ethically different to vote FOR something but in this particular situation you are inevitably voting against someone else for the same reason, but it's their lack of being black - if I'm following the logic here. So really there's no moral highroad. I think the reason it's different here is rooted more in the history of our country rather than the moral difference. To me no one needs to explain it though, it all makes sense. It wasn't a factor in my vote for him but I get why it would be for others.

Bad logic based on a faulty assumption.

That faulty assumption is that the blacks who were already active voters and vote in every election haven't been voting for white candidates for years and wouldn't have voted for a white candidate if Obama wasn't on the ticket.

Which, of course, is untrue. It isn't that these voters would've voted for McCain had he not been white or that they would've sat this election out if the Dem candidate was white. So there is no indication that these black voters are afraid of a white presidency and have distrust or negative feelings towards whites that manifest themselves during election time.

As for the black voters who are new registrees either due to age or due to previous voter apathy, as I said in a previous post, most of these people would've voted for whatever Democratic candidate there was if there was the same enthusiasm and voter outreach. For decades since blacks shifted from being Repubs to being Dems, blacks unfortunately identify with the Democratic party and feel that Dems speak to their social, political, and economic concerns. That has never required a black Dem candidate.

[OtterXO]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Bad logic based on a faulty assumption.

That faulty assumption is that the blacks who were already active voters and vote in every election haven't been voting for white candidates for years and wouldn't have voted for a white candidate if Obama wasn't on the ticket.

Which, of course, is untrue. It isn't that these voters would've voted for McCain had he not been white or that they would've sat this election out if the Dem candidate was white. So there is no indication that these black voters are afraid of a white presidency and have distrust or negative feelings towards whites that manifest themselves during election time.

I don't agree. If the black candidate vs white candidate was never an option before in the general election then the race of a candidate wouldn't have been a factor. If two white guys were running then their "whiteness" (for lack of a better term) would cancel itself out since it was on both sides of the coin. So those who were already voting would vote anyway without considering the race of the candidate as a factor.

Additionally, I wasn't saying anyone was afraid of a white president. I was just saying that it's the same decision to vote for someone because they're white OR to vote for someone because they're black. I don't think one is morally better than the other.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by OtterXO

I don't agree. If the black candidate vs white candidate was never an option before in the general election then the race of a candidate wouldn't have been a factor. If two white guys were running then their "whiteness" (for lack of a better term) would cancel itself out since it was on both sides of the coin. So those who were already voting would vote anyway without considering the race of the candidate as a factor.

Actually, the race of the candidates has been a factor in every election because whiteness, white privilege, and white male privilege were presented as the template. Whiteness isn't invisible just because we are surrounded by it everyday, although whites feel that it is because they are the mainstream and dominant group.

Race was simply a different type of factor in this election than previous elections.

So what are you disagreeing with?

Originally Posted by OtterXO

Additionally, I wasn't saying anyone was afraid of a white president. I was just saying that it's the same decision to vote for someone because they're white OR to vote for someone because they're black. I don't think one is morally better than the other.

I didn't say you said that. I'm saying that.

It still isn't the same decision, generally speaking, regardless of how many times you all type that it is.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by OtterXO

I don't agree. If the black candidate vs white candidate was never an option before in the general election then the race of a candidate wouldn't have been a factor. If two white guys were running then their "whiteness" (for lack of a better term) would cancel itself out since it was on both sides of the coin. So those who were already voting would vote anyway without considering the race of the candidate as a factor.

Additionally, I wasn't saying anyone was afraid of a white president. I was just saying that it's the same decision to vote for someone because they're white OR to vote for someone because they're black. I don't think one is morally better than the other.

If?

Isn't that usually how it is?

In this case race was a factor but moreso, was how seriously he could be taken...obviously he was taken very seriously.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Maybe I was speaking a little too obliquely. By "in the Oval Office" I meant sitting in the chair behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office. I meant that, though recent presidents have certainly had the benefit of African-American Secretaries and advisors, none has had the personal perspective or life-experiences of an African-American. It's the idea that a voter has some sense that "the President, from his own experience, has a clue what life is like for me." That's all.

exactly and that also is in part why McCain didn't get many votes from the Black community...most of us can't relate to him and surely even fewer can relate or agree with Palin and her policies.....


Altho having a teen duaghter pregnant and a drop out son in law (still babydaddy at this point tho) does give her a tiny bit of street cred.....

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

exactly and that also is in part why McCain didn't get many votes from the Black community...most of us can't relate to him and surely even fewer can relate or agree with Palin and her policies.....


Altho having a teen duaghter pregnant and a drop out son in law (still babydaddy at this point tho) does give her a tiny bit of street cred.....

Just like blacks can disproportionately relate to Obama being raised by his mother and not knowing his father. Those are certainly things that I and my immediate circle of friends cannot relate to. I pray for the day that blacks are not disproportionately represented in them.

But that's really about how social class interacts with race. Some blacks of high socioeconomic status found themselves conflicted this election.