To this:
Perhaps one step closer to what MLK said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Today I'm a proud Canadian living in America...
13 comments:
I agree. I am interested to see how it will affect some of the racism in the dirty south (aka Texas)
I agree. It's nice to see that the right person won the job, regardless of colour.
Ohhhhh Canada! I was able to vote for him too! Woot!
Unfortunately he was elected because of his race and not because of his politics. He would not have been elected in the same margin if he were white. Unfortunately we still live in a world where people ARE judged by the color of their skin and not the content of their character. Reverse racism does not equal the absence of it. I'm all for a black president, an Asian president, or even an Austrian president, if his policies are sound, and he takes the proper stance on abortion, gay marriage, etc. It shouldn't be about race. Obama's victory was based on race, and an economic collapse, that is more connected to the American culture of living beyond your means than it was to the Bush administration.
so i'm confused mr/ms. anonymous. your comment never outlined why his race was the major factor in his victory. can you prove he would not have had the same margin if he were white? more white people voted for him than for kerry in 2004. so how does this make it about race?
i agree that reverse racism doesn't mean equality. but nowhere does your comment outline how this was reverse racism? had hillary been the dem nomination and won, would you say that she was mostly elected on the principle of gender equality?
or could it be that he actually was elected because of the content of his character? people responded to his message of hope. not everyone shares the same socially conservative ideals on abortion and gay marriage. and yes, the economic collapse did help him because there are a lot of folk that are tired of how the republicans, namely Bush, were running the country. is it any wonder that mccain tried to distance himself from bush?
hiding behind an anonymous label and a weak argument with no causal connections to obama's win doesn't bode well for changing my mind. it just reinforces my own stereotype of the right.
I choose to be anonymous, because I value your friendship, but I disagree with what you're saying, and I don't want a personal fight with you.
First of all, ballotting is anonymous, so we don't know that more white people voted for him than for Kerry. There is no way to prove that the margin would have been different if he were white, because it is over, and we can not rewrite history. It is my opinion, however, that high voter turnout, especially in predominately black communities, had more to do with his skin than his policy. Black Americans have only ever had white men to vote for, and they chose not to vote. They didn't show up for Bill Clinton, who had similar views. Can you prove they would've come out to vote if he were a white man, or even a white woman? The point is, there are a lot of people who voted for him, because of his race, and not for his policy, and many of these people have not voted in previous elections for people with similar policy. Choosing or endorsing someone because of race and not because of qualification is racism. Directing the same behaviour to a member of a minority group is reverse racism.
Folk that were tired of how Republicans, namely Bush, were running the country, are the same ones who failed to take responsibility on their own actions, ie. taking out 40 year mortgages you can't afford, maxing out credit cards to live the American dream. They want the government to bail them out. These folk do not realize having veto power doesn't allow the President to act for congress.
These are my opinions and my feelings, and I respect your right to disagree with them. Thanks for this discussion. I hope you don't mind if I continue to view your blog on a regular basis.
This really isn't about a personal fight. Truthfully, I am more put out that as my anonymous friend you wouldn't publicly speak up for what you believe. All my friends know I am opinionated. My friendships are not based on whether or not I agree politically with you. A difference would not end my friendships.
Secondly, the US does use exit polls which show how the votes breakdown. If you want to click on this link to the New York Times it breaks down the '08 election and you can even drag the finder on the left to see the '04 election. For readers that don't want to click, I will also quickly break down the points that are being referred to.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html
While I concede that Obama had more black votes this time around (95 to Kerry's 88) he still bode far better than Kerry in other minority votes. He had 67% of the Hispanic vote, compared to 56% for Kerry, 62% for Asian compared to 58 and INDEED he had 43% of the white vote compared to 41% for Kerry. He even had more of the men's vote than Kerry. So in all the races Obama got more of the vote than Kerry did in 2004. Those other races were not voting for a black man because they too were black. Also how many people did not vote for him because he WAS black? You started out saying your "opinion" than shifted to "the point is there are a lot of people who voted for him, because of his race, and not for his policy". Again, where is the factual evidence?
Looking at the education level... all education levels voted MORE for Obama than McCain. In the 2004 election the only group that voted more for Kerry than Bush were those with LESS than a high school education. While these polls show that more people with less than a high school education voted for Obama (than for Kerry) and more first time voters voted for him, it does not prove the theory that he won solely (or in your words "victory based on race") on the black "reverse racism vote." The educated, the hispanics, the whites, the asians ALL voted more in favour in this election for a democrat than in 2004. Perhaps it is less about colour and more about fatigue with Republicans. As to how he will do as President, only time will tell. However, as I posited in my original post, I do think a majority of people voted on his character, not his skin colour.
Lastly, those voting for him were not just those that were in need of a bailout. Dems were not the only ones making poor loans, maxing out their credit cards. McCain also supported a bailout. I'm sure plenty of Republicans are trying to live out this so-called American dream. The mortgage crisis cannot be simplified to American consumerism. Greed is everywhere. Europe? Canada? It's hitting...
I don't mind at all if you continue to read my blog. I also don't mind debates. Whether or not people agree or disagree does not impact my feelings toward them. Some of the people I love the most have extremely different political and social ideals. However, my personal opinion is that anonymity is an easy cloak to hide behind when expressing a difference of opinion.
Way to go sis. Love pixie
I'll be honest. Last minute I voted for McCain, due the prop 8 positions of both candidates (not that they have anything to do with Cali -- it was based on morals). However, I was not sad to see Obama voted in. I do like idea of a black president however I'm also somewhat of a socialist (being a social worker... it's part of our value system) and that's what attracted me to Obama. Also I really like Michelle Obama. But I can't imagine anyone not gaining hope when they heard his acceptance speech. I teared up. If it is true, it's just what we need and I think it's what we all want. And think of McCain's speech too -- he is behind Obama. What we need is a united America - one where everyone feels represented by our representative government. OK, so those are my thoughts. Cool forum.
I agree with hrh and Aisy, it is very linear to think that just because a president has certain views on a one or two specific points that his he is a weaker candidate. Instead I feel it is important to look at the overall potential he has as a leader. I know many people who didn't vote for Obama based on his view on abortion, some even stating that he was a "baby killer" and a "murderer"; however, what those friends fail to realize is that this country is a democracy not a dictatorship.
We elect local governing officials to represent the views, morals, beliefs, and desires of the people in that area. The more people speak up and express their views the more the laws will reflect the true will of the people. Even though Mr. Bush had very specific views on gay marriage, abortion, and drug use many states passed laws that were opposite of his beliefs...even with a Republican Senate. It is linear to think that just because Obama has these beliefs that they will be imposed on America as absolutes.
I voted for Obama because I believe that America is in chaos. What it needs is a leader that will best unite the people of this country and with that unity, will strengthen it economically and morally. I do not agree with every aspect of his campaign or ideals, yet I am hopeful that the process of his election will better alleviate the chaos and begin a nationwide healing. Just my two loonies worth.
The biggest deciding factor in how I voted was not the political platforms. That being said, I do align more with Obama than McCain. No, for me it was a matter of who I felt was speaking to the American public with an eye for unity and for healing.
All I heard from McCain and Palin was how there was a "real" America and that certain people were "real" Americans. Those of us in bigger cities who struggle and work hard to provide for ourselves and our families and communities were deemed repeatedly by Palin as not being "real" Americans merely because we live in a big city along either coast of this great nation. Asserting the "us" vs. "them" mentality doesn't bring unity in this very challenging time of our nation.
What I want to know is where was the McCain of 2000 during the last several months of the election? That McCain, who we saw again when he gave his concession speech, would have made for an interesting and more thoughtful campaign.
well said sara. i thought his concession speech showed more character than we saw for most of the campaign
What I don't get is why so many people place gay marriage at such a higher value than things such as war and torture. If it is legal for gays to marry there is still room for people to choose right or wrong, aren't we all about agency? Then why isn't there more outrage directed at foreign policy that that continually abuses/kills others and takes away agency. Why does the acts of two consenting people behind closed doors require more government regulation than full on human rights abuses?
Post a Comment