I can think of a quarter ton of reasons why I won’t vote for Obama, none of which involve the color of his skin.  If the GOP put up a Powell/Rice ticket, I’d vote that over a Clinton/any white guy ticket.

Brace yourselves for the shrill cries of “racist!” if and when Obama loses, folks.

Also interesting to read/hear the cry “racist!!”............funny we don’t hear that about J. Wright, Farakhan, etc.  I guess it’s ok for blacks to be racist and demean whites, but politically incorrect to be the other way around.
Chris, above, is absolutely correct.  I, too, think that Obama is very, very dangerous for many, many reasons; I too, would vote for Powell in a heartbeat; Rice, not so sure, due to her stance on the middle East.

This can’t be a true story—it happened in Indiana, when we all know that such incidents only happen in the backward, primitive, Deep South.

Gee is this anything like Coulter, Horawitz, or the founder of the minuet men trying to speak on a college campus?  One of the most hopeful things I heard was that Obama and McCain may travel together and give debates about ideas free from the journalist similar to Lincoln Douglas.

This is going to be the mantra of the Obama campaign, particularly though his cheerleaders at the MSM. Any criticism, of whatever nature, will be ascribed as “racist” and therefore off limits. The Obamassiah is not to be criticized on any thing, under any circumstances.

I don’t think anyone is saying that everyone who votes against Obama is racist.  On the other hand, 1/5 of the voters in West Virginia yesterday said in exit polls that race was an important factor in their vote, 85% of them voting for Clinton and 15% for Obama.  So clearly it should not be dismissed.  (Pointing to the reverse racism of Farrakhan, etc. is irrelevent - as Christians we should be denouncing racism on all sides).
Personally, there are some things about Obama I very much like, and some things about McCain I don’t - and vice-versa.  It’s going to take a few months to make up my mind.

I have great hopes for the future.  My wife relates this story from my son’s elementary school.  He and a group of boys were playing in the playground.  Joseph came up to my wife and mentioned something about how “the black kid” was not nice.  My wife looked at the group and there were no African-Americans there.  She asked “What black kid?” He pointed out a boy who was wearing a black shirt. 

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Indiana had one of the most well organized KKK movements in the US. 

GDB - let me help you on some legitimate criticism of Obama.  But perhaps you should read the recent Newsweek article on how he runs his campaign and the NYTimes article that described his history in the South Side.  His main inspiration was Harold Washington, who was one of the most talented politicians in the country. 

Obama is a centrist candidate.  Progressives should be aware that he’s more of a libertarian than and statist.  I, for one, don’t think he will solve all the problems, and I worry that he’ll now have to find a way to foot the bill for our war.  Bush never figured out how to do that.

not sure how Obama is “very, very Dangerous.” To whom? What is the evidence?  Guilt by association?  Can Christians afford to accuse people of being guilty by associating them with sinners?

Ruth Ann [2]—you write “funny we don’t hear that about J. Wright, Farakhan, etc.” Have you been consuming any media in the last two months?

Sarah [3]—to whom are you directing that comment?

Dave B [4]—I don’t think calling black supporters of Barack Obama in Indiana the N-word is the same thing as speaking out against liberalism on college campuses. Judgments of Obama on the basis of his race does not enter into the “political correctness” debate—in fact, it is the detractors of political correctness (e.g., Horowitz) who have long argued that race should be irrelevant at all levels of political and social decision making. Or did I miss something?

gdb [5]—the Obama campaign has assiduously avoided banking on “race” the way Jackson or Sharpton regularly do. In fact, quite the opposite, Obama appears to be trying to keep a coalition together that is explicitly post-racial. The extent to which he succeeds or has succeeded in doing so (your comment being a case in point) is another question. It is also worth pointing out that Obama has received round criticism from Clinton supporters on a number of issues that has nothing whatsoever to do with his race (universal health care, “light on ideas, heavy on speeches,” etc.). Finally, scrutiny of Obama regarding his relationship to Jeremiah Wright was entirely within bounds, if overblown. Thankfully, Obama took that scrutiny head on, and did not try to divert attention away from the very real issues raised by his relationship to his now-former pastor. Regardless of what you might think of him as a candidate, I think he has been rightly praised for this effort.

What I am curious to hear is if there are those reading this thread who would, in fact, like to criticize Obama directly solely on the basis of his race (perhaps as some kind of misplaced, if innocent, fit of anti-political correctness). It kind of sounds like there are, but I could be mistaken.

John, (#8) and Matt (#9),
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
The Obama campaign has had a racist bent since day one and the Newsweek article is the biggest kiss-up since Madonna and Britney.

gdb [10]—evidence? Also, for my edification, to which Newsweek article do you refer?

What I am curious to hear is if there are those reading this thread who would, in fact, like to criticize Obama directly solely on the basis of his race (perhaps as some kind of misplaced, if innocent, fit of anti-political correctness). It kind of sounds like there are, but I could be mistaken.

With reference to the people reported to have made these comments, note that this was a Democratic primary, and so was West Virginia, where an actual former KKK leader is the senior (Democratic) senator.  The commenter who first threw that stone should check the condition of his glass walls.

And let me now jump to Matt’s defense.  To Obama’s credit and their discredit, the campaign which first injected Obama’s race as a factor to be considered was the Clinton team.

Katherine, you miss my point.

Previous commenters were making the point that a PC double standard was preventing criticism of Obama on the basis of his race. Please re-read those comments. I sought only clarification, and I made no accusation. Regardless of how the candidates are running their respective campaigns, race has proven to be an important issue to many voters. What I see, in response to the WaPo story, are some very defensive responses by commenters that imply—not prove—that voters should be allowed to be prejudiced toward his candidacy on the basis of his race and without criticism from those of us who are hopeful that his candidacy (and the candidacy of the others, as well) can transcend some of the racial boundaries that have plagued our nation since its inception.

I don’t think that anyone should base support for Obama on his race (I certainly don’t, though I recognize some it’s advantages). Don’t get me wrong. I am simply saying that slinging racial epithets against Obama and his supporters in Indiana should not be ennobled as anti-PC righteousness. That’s it. Period.

[14] referred to [12]. And thanks for the support Katherine, in [13].

#8, the Salty Vicar is correct about the effectiveness of the Klan in Indiana.  It was also surprisingly strong in both Detroit and Chicago. 

There is a good new book out about the Klan in Indiana - Notre Dame Vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan. 

Nevertheless, this news article seems to be a little too anecdotal and relies on hearsay evidence for me to give it much credence. 

Last, I would ask Matt T and gbd to please “self-elf” - this could become way too much heat and not enough light.

WPS [16]—will do.

9. Matt Thompson : I was speaking in general terms of tolorance. John, Obama a centrist? Obama has one of the most liberal voting records there is.  The other problem is when something is “discovered” like a position paper on banning hand guns, his staffer meeting with official from hamas etc it is always some one else’s fault.  He has blamed staffers for every screw up in his campaign.

Sorry to misunderstand you, Matt.  I think the reactions of the admittedly racist Indiana voter and of those who have taken flack for criticizing Obama’s radical connections are unrelated.  I have read and have personally heard people who can be expected to know say that the Trinity Church environment is NOT typical of black churches.  The criticism, as far as I am concerned, is about the radicalism and the anti-white hatred of Farrakhan, James Cone, et al., and not about Obama’s ancestry in any way.

I have a personal theory about Obama which is not based on any political opinions I have read but is purely my own.  I think this year was to be the year that he would get his name out there by running a respectable second to the “inevitable” Clinton.  I don’t think he expected to be leading this thing this year.  If he had, wouldn’t he or his advisers have “vetted” his background more carefully?  Wouldn’t he have left this church and broken ties with some of his other radical Chicago connections BEFORE making a serious run at the presidency?  Or perhaps this is all a curious naivete.  He was reported to be genuinely puzzled by the uproar when it first broke; he didn’t think there was anything very controversial about the Rev. Wright’s views.

RE: “Sarah [3]—to whom are you directing that comment?”

No one at all, Matt—merely expressing myself on this blog.

Matt,
Briefly, the Newsweek reference was for John, not you, but it is the most current issue. Second, the thought about new rules for Obama is not mine. Here is but one article - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/the_obama_rules.html - that states the premise. And later this evening or tomorrow I’ll try to expand on the “who injected race” thought. (work gets in the way of too many projects, doesn’t it?)
BTW, two years ago Obama said himself that he wouldn’t be ready to run for higher office until well after 2008. Too bad he didn’t keep his own counsel.

Gdb - I guess I don’t understand what “racist bent” is.  Perhaps I’m just not that sensitive. 

Well - I agree that the Newsweek article “Get Ready to rumble"(if it is the same one) about how he would handle the election was an interesting “puff piece” but it would help me if you could discern what you thought was wrong about it.  Again, the best article to date on Obama is the recent New York Times on him.  They endorsed Hilary. 

Katherine might be right - I don’t think Obama expected, in the beginning, to win.  But he is the anti-Bush.  Obama wouldn’t win if Bush were a competent president.

John, The NYTImes endorsed Clinton a half year ago - in January, to be exact - well before Obama became the media darling. Ever since “Super Tuesday” the Times has been in the tank for BHO.
Attribution: - NYTimes, June 14, 2007
“Shortly after the Clinton campaign released the financial information, the campaign of Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, circulated to news organizations — on what it demanded be a not-for-attribution-basis — a scathing analysis. It called Mrs. Clinton “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)” in its headline. The document referred to the investment in India and Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raising efforts among Indian-Americans. The analysis also highlighted the acceptance by Mr. Clinton of $300,000 in speech fees from Cisco, a company the Obama campaign said has moved American jobs to India.

A copy of the document was obtained by Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, which provided it to The New York Times. The Clinton campaign has long been frustrated by the effort by Mr. Obama to present his campaign as above the kind of attack politics that Mr. Obama and his aides say has led to widespread disillusionment with politics by many Americans.

Asked about the document, Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, said: “We did give reporters a series of comments she made on the record and other things that are publicly available to anyone who has access to the Internet. I don’t see why anyone would take umbrage with that.”

Asked why the Obama campaign had initially insisted that it not be connected to the document, Mr. Burton replied, “I’m going to leave my comment at that.”

UNQUOTE. So as early as June 2007 the Obama campaign has been involved in name calling. When asked about it, Obama, as has become his custom, blamed it on a staffer, a tactic subsequently used for pronouncements on Israel, gun control, face-to-face meetings with Iran, and a host of others. The campaign, as well as the man, is just not ready for prime time.

Gdb. What’s your point?  Was it the slur (yes- rude, but was it directed by Obama?  Did he write that?  He doesn’t micromanage like that - or does he?) Or was it the donations from India?  Or was it the not-attributable basis?  Hm - looks like they learned something from Karl Rove.  I’m not sure if its just politics I’m looking at.  Because if this is your one example, I’m guessing you probably don’t vote at all.

It’s also just one example that you had to find from one year ago. 

But what do you mean about pronouncements on Israel?  Are you thinking of Boehner’s lies about what Obama actually said on Israel?  Those were willful misrepresntations of what Obama actually said. 
As far as Gun Control, his beliefs are a bit more nuanced.  His views about Iran are no different than Brent Scowcroft’s. 

However, you seem to hold Obama to higher standards to any of the other candidates.  It’s nice to know you expect more from him than either HR Clinton or McCain. 

I think its amusing you think Obama’s campaign isn’t ready for prime time.  A guy who has spent just two years in the Senate just defeated the Clinton Machine, a machine hardened by 8 years of hardball politics.  One year ago, nobody thought anything of this campaign.  And chances are, he’s our next president.  And he made it look easy.  More people have voted in democratic primaries than voted for the democrats in 2004.  If anything, Obama IS prime time.  He’s all that’s made this election exciting.

John,
1. The question was about which campaign began racial slurs. Any talk of whether or not Mr. Obama approved it is moot.
2. Karl Rove did not come up. That is a cheap straw man argument. Please cite references that prove something.
3.I have voted in all presidential elections beginning in 1972 and in most state and local elections since I turned 18, missing, inadvertently, a few local bond elections. What my voting has to do with anything about the argument - well, you’ll just have to explain.
4. Saying “just one example that you had to find from one year ago” is because the question was which campaign began using slurs and a year ago proves that the Obama campaign pretty early in the game/
5. Boehner’s exaggeration - it goes a bit far to call it a lie unless you are an uncritical supporter of Obama - was not what I had in mind.

(to be continued after supper)

5.(continued) The concern about Obama and Israel has to do with the advisors he has, his long term support of a pastor whose anti-Semitic views have only recently come into widespread view, his extremely naïve willingness to talk to regimes and organizations that promote the destruction of the Israeli nation (Chamberlain without the umbrella as one writer put it) and the well documented switch in statements made since the beginning of 2008 as he became serious as a candidate. I can also repeat Ahmed Yousef, a Hamas political adviser: who said “We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the election.” Or is repeating that beyond the pale as Richard Cohen of the Washington Post wrote as a willful apologist for Obama.
6.The Huffington post may think that Obama’s gun control views are nuanced (BTW that is n article trying to dismiss his “bitter rural voters” comments) but what I see there is an effete, elitist view that tries to finesse gun control and condemns inner city residents as second class citizens. There is no such thing as a sensible gun law that denies affordable firearms to law abiding citizens no matter where they live. (To others: by all means, read the article).
7.What does Brent Scowcroft’s viewpoint have to do with anything. We are talking about Obama’s approach to Iran. When first asked he said he would talk to any county. It was only when he realized the criticism that statement had brought him did he have an aide go out and try to deny what he had said. Twenty years ago the MSM might have made that work. Today we have YouTube and can listen to his exact word.
8.I hold Obama to no standards whatsoever. He, along with his relationships – Wright, Ayers, Farrakan, Rezko – speak to his standards.
9.I am no fan of HRC or JMcC. Quit trying to change the discussion (although that’s what you so often do). The topic is racism and how the Obama campaign will try to treat any criticism as a racial attack. Apparently the non-record of BHO cannot stand any scrutiny whatsoever.
10.What is amusing is your attempt to change the dynamic of a statement. I said Obama is not ready for prime time. You try to change that to “Obama’s campaign.” The man has an undistinguished career in the Illinios statehouse and two years in the US Senate. What is amusing is that someone with no record, someone who can deliver a vaporous, bumper sticker speech can be considered a serious candidate – the “American Idol” candidate.
Should we be so accursed to end up with BHO as president this country will be pining for a return of adult leadership within 90 days. You say it has made this election exciting. I agree, its just as exciting as watching a car accident in slow motion.

1) your example does not indicate which campaign began racial slurs.  Unless you can indicate that this was the MO of Obama, its irrelevant.  The article you mention was about sending jobs overseas.  That’s legit. 

2) Why do you avoid Karl Rove?  Was he perfect? 
3) If you think politicians are perfect, I imagine you vote infrequently.  That’s the joke. 
4) what is clear is that Obama changes his game.  That’s interesting to me, given that our current administration refuses to change.  Look - its politics.  if you can’t take the heat....
5) Is Wright running for president?  Prominent Jews seem to trust Obama.  I’ll go with that.  Further, why should I trust what Hamas has to say?  They might just be trying to manipulate the electorate to vote against Obama.  In my opinion, they benefit from a hardline American response.  They can say to their constituents that America is firmly in the Israeli camp and can’t be trusted.  it’s simply guilt by association.  On the other hand, perhaps they recognize that Obama isn’t influenced by lobbyists.
6) hm - I’m guessing you don’t live in the inner city.  I suspect he wouldn’t be happy if terrorists find guns easy to find in the inner city.  You don’t seem to care.  That’s fine.  I’m glad he sees that the issue is complicated.  You still don’t refute his view.  You don’t even acknowledge that he recognizes that rural gun culture is different.  Do you think Gangs should have guns?  Simple question.
7) His view is like the view of several Republicans who have been involved in foreign policy for 30 years.  You indicate he’s immature.  He’s no different than the first Bush in his view.  that’s why it matters.  You seem to think he’s not ready to negotiate.  He’s not advocating anything different than what Nixon, himself, did with China.
8) his relationships with them… well… are pretty meaningless.  I don’t think you know Hyde Park.  Let me tell you - I lived there for 3 years.  Did you?  I think you’re pretty influenced by big media.  As a priest:  I’ve been in the same place for 7 years and nobody knows my political views.  I’m in a church where I’ve got two former chairs of the local Republican party.  Further, people openly disagree with me and say so.  Ayers - what was their relationship?  they were on a board together?  This is just guilt by association.  Jesus hung with worse.  And- um - Farrakhan is in your imagination - get a quote of him supporting Farrakhan and I will vote for Bob Barr.  Rezko - what was the problem?  Could you even explain it to me? 
10) as far as being undistinguished, Lincoln probably had an equivalent record when he was elected. “Vaporous, bumper sticker speech” - well: it says something if the other candidate’s don’t have the talent to match it.  Words matter, GDB. 

You still did not address his style or organizational ability.  You can’t.  You don’t have it in you to recognize that the man has done a pretty remarkable job in this campaign.  As far as a car accident in slow motion - I felt the same way about 8 years ago. 

and I was right.

Anyone claiming that significant numbers of whites won’t vote for Obama because of his race had better be prepared with actual numbers.  I will wager that a higher percentage of whites voted for Obama in the primaries than blacks who voted for Hillary, even though the two are very close ideologically.  Is race a factor?  Maybe, but probably more in favor of Obama than against him.

1) The burden of proof is on you. Find an earlier example of racism from the Hillary camp.
2) No one is perfect and bringing Rove into this disucussion is indicative of your logic or lack thereof.
3) ??????
4) Obama is just like every other politician – is that it. And coming from Chicago he just happens to have learned his corruption from the masters.
5) When someone runs without a record all we can judge him (or her) by is their record. Obama is known by the company he keeps. What prominet Jews – name them. The rest of your response under #5 is gibberish.
6) Straw man again, John. Answer the question. Do poor inner city residents have the right of self-defense. Gangs are not a part of the question or of the discussion. You again raise straw man arguments. 7) Name them. Yes, he is very immature. No different from the first Bush? Defend that statement. Every time he opens his mouth the naivete comes out. I don’t have the space or the time to give you every example, but it is the reason that his handlers don’t let him off the teleprompter. If you think what he is doing is no different than Nixon, you’re delusional. Nixon opened China after showing that he was tough. Obama’s statements that said he would talk with our enemies was just like Roosevelt and Truman showed a shocking ignorance of history.
8) I know Hyde Park quite well, thank you. Again, if someone is running without a record his relationships are all we have for evaluation. I have no use for big media and again, WTH, does that have to do with a logical argument. Ayers - what was their relationship? You don’t read very much do you, John? Resko is a crook and a neighbor and a financier and a home lender to the Obamas and his trial has been remanded to the jury. Again, you donj’t read very much, do you, John?
10) Yes, words do matter and his are empty.
You didn’t ask me to address his organizational ability. I did address his style – vacous and empty. You try to redirect the discussion by claiming something that wasn’t a part of the original discussion or by misrepresenting what was said. For an additional comment on his organizational style – we really don’t know. He has no record. His record in the campaign is one of picking up where Hillary failed.
Bush will be a top 25% president – just give it 20 years for the historians to get it right.
You said : “and I was right” I think you have no idea of what your talking about.
PS This is my last posting to T19. Watching the level of debate here, particularly with John, is like teaching a goat to dance. The goat will never be an Astaire and its a waste of my time.

Two other points about Obama that others havn’t mentioned are: (1) He has said that he will not militarize space, and (2) his remark about People in Pennsylvania turning to religion because of frustration with their material well-being evidences a Marxist background of belief in how human social behavior works.

RE: “As a priest:  I’ve been in the same place for 7 years and nobody knows my political views.”

Wow—nobody in his parish reads either Gawain’s church blog or T19 apparently.  I’d know just from reading the first page of the parish blog, personally, so I can only assume—zero traffic from parishioners.

To No. 8 and No. 9:
Very, very dangerous?  Take a look at this, which says it better than I:

The Audacity

Maybe Obama is for “peace” but at what expense?  He is a Marxist at heart, a fact which MSM neglects to push.  You would probably call Che Guevera, J. Wright, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-il, etc., all peaceful as well?

Not admitting that he is very, very dangerous is like saying there is no War on Terror.  Read the following, if you dare.  Long, but very very informative:

CAN THE WEST BE SAVED?by Serge Trifkovic

GDB - I think we’ll just have to disagree.  After reading the Newsweek and NYtimes articles, I hear you dismiss the source, but I don’t get the sense that you believe them.  I’d like to know why. They paint the portrait of a style of leadership that is sorely lacking in the current administration. 

A side:  That “gangs do not matter” in a discussion of gun policy in the inner city is something that would strike most inner city residents as odd.  Gangs have the guns.  Of course people have a “right” to defend themselves.  Sometimes they do it through the legislature to make it harder for criminals to get Guns.  Perfectly justifiable in a democracy.  Obama has nuanced that view, as he did in San Francisco, when he talked about how guns are a way people bond.  It shoes that he’s a bit more open to various points of view. 

Look - if all you are saying is that he’s a politician, well, you’re right.  That’s my point as well.  And - well - given his success, I think he’s pretty good.  In itself, it speaks volumes.  I don’t think I’ll convince you that - for someone with no accomplishments - running a successful campaign for the presidency means something, especially in this day and age.  He’s pretty much reconfigured the Democratic party.

Martin Peretz supports Obama. 

As far as his record goes - did you even examine what he DID do in the state senate?  It might be helpful. 

GDB - I’ve clearly made you angry.  I’m sorry.  “You don’t read very much.” Clearly you read much more than I do.  I’m not interested in Ayers or Reszko because I distrust who’s publicizing them.  I think these are manufactured attacks. 

#30 - well - I think Obama clarified his statement later.  And I’m not sure how having a libertarian as his chief economic adviser makes him a Marxist.

Hi Sarah, always a delight.

No. 3 - I didn’t see how he clarified his “bitterness” statement.  Can you do it for me?  Libertarians usually have no philosophic underpinning, and compartmentalize religion/politics/social behavior.  Yes, your point about Obama being a politician, and acting like one, is well taken.  It is so many of his followers who are indignant at the very suggestion that he is one who I do not wish to have access to power through his election.  Thus, I never held it against him when he first claimed to be ignorant of Pastor Wright’s various sermons when the subject first arose.  When it wouldn’t go away, he finally had to distance himself from them, once again acting like a politician, which I did not hold against him.  But I do hold it against many of his followers, including some members of my own family, who are so willing to lick the floor and explain everything away.

Excuse me, my post above directed to no. 33, not no. 3.  Thx.