Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Race Matters (Or Does It)?

Regular Fix readers know that we have spent quite a bit of time trying to understand the degree to which Barack Obama's race is a factor in the general election campaign to come.

As we noted in a recent post, it's difficult via polling to get an honest gauge on how people feel about race relations broadly in the country or to test whether Obama's race could be the main factor in a significant number of people not voting for him in the fall.

That's why new data out of the latest Washington Post/ABC poll -- including several detailed questions on race -- intrigued us. It's the best data we've seen of late in getting to the core of race issues in the country.

Let's explore a few of the more compelling questions (and answers) but also make sure to read the story penned by Post polling duo Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta for more detailed information on the data.

As expected, when voters are asked whether race will play an important role in their decision about a candidate in the fall, large majorities say it will not. Just 23 percent said the "race of the candidate" is either very or somewhat important in their choice and, remember, that those who are voting FOR Obama because of his race could also be included in that group. A whopping 77 percent of the sample said that race was either "not so" important (13 percent) or "not at all" important (64 percent) in their decision-making. (By contrast, 40 percent said a candidate's age was an important issue in their choice this fall while 60 percent said it was not an important criteria.)

Those numbers are in keeping with a slew of other polling we have seen on race and its impact on the election. By and large voters insist that race is a non-factor, although past historical evidence -- aka the "Bradley effect" (per Mystery Pollster Mark Blumenthal) -- suggest otherwise.

Delve deeper into the Post/ABC questionnaire, however, and racial fissures begin to become more apparent.

Overall, just 51 percent of Americans said race relations were either excellent or good while 47 percent called them fair or poor. Whites and blacks were badly divided about the question. Seventeen percent more white voters than black voters described race relations as excellent or good (53 percent among whites/36 percent among blacks) with just four percent (!) of African Americans describing race relations as excellent.

The racial divide was also strikingly apparent when the sample was asked whether Obama's candidacy would do more to help or hurt race relations. Six in ten black voters said Obama's candidacy would help race relations while just eight percent said it would hurt and 31 percent said it would make no difference. Compare that to the reaction of white voters in which 38 percent said Obama's run would help relations between the race while 17 percent said it would hurt them and 43 percent chose the "no difference" option.

When voters were asked to "honestly assess" whether they had ever experienced "at least some feelings of racial prejudice," things got really interesting.

Three in ten people said they had experienced some of those feelings while 69 percent said they had not. Interestingly, the white voter subsample was a mirror (30 yes/69 no) of the overall sample while black voters were slightly more willing to admit a feeling of racial prejudice -- 34 percent said "yes" as compared to 65 percent who said "no".

It's not much of a logical leap -- based on the "Bradley Effect" -- to assume that if three in 10 voters were willing to tell a random caller that they had experienced feelings of racial prejudice that that number could well be far higher if people were given truth serum.

What all of these numbers tell us is that although people tend not to admit that race plays a factor in their vote, there is clear evidence that the blacks and white view the current state of race relations in the country as well as the potential impact Obama might have on them in VERY different lights.

It also points to the challenge before Obama who has largely -- Revs. Wright and Pfleger not withstanding -- run a post-racial campaign to date. He rarely talks about being a black candidate for president noting that instead he is a candidate who happens to be black. It's a difference in emphasis but an important one. Will it be enough to bridge the clear chasm on race that exists in this country (as evidence by the polling numbers cited above?) Or will Obama have to be more overt in addressing the differences in how black and whites view race relations and propose specific solutions to deal with those gaps?

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 23, 2008; 4:00 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain's Crucial 73 Days
Next: Charlie Black and the 'Terror' Card

Comments

It was John McCain trying to explain why he voted against MLK holiday to African Americans. Too late McCain, there is no excuse for you.

Posted by: Honesty | June 26, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Race matters only if one allows it too. I stand for the best elect, with no respecter of person, creed or nationality.

Posted by: Nisey01 | June 25, 2008 12:40 AM | Report abuse

Seems to me that white voters self reported much more honestly, 34% of african americans said they took into account race in this poll, and then Obama got what 70-90% of the african american vote!

Thats the real story of this election, African Americans vote almost soley on the basis of race, and white americans do not.

In the end though, thank god for Obama, we can drop race related affirmative action for good.

Posted by: DCDave | June 24, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

if something called the LaRouchePAC is calling on diehards and bitter-enders for Clinton to go to Denver we might want to look into cornering the tinfoil supply there. Coloradans could see a brief run on the stuff at the local King Soopers.

Posted by: FlownOver | June 24, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

I understand why WP tries to raise this issue over-and-over-again, but "race" or "a black guy" does not matter in this election...speechless stupidity. The price of gasoline matters to voters: the Issues.

Again the "race" card and the "fear-and-terror" card are the worst combination to get defeated big in the fall.

Posted by: peace4world | June 24, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

My wife and I are Lilly White. I grew up in a rural/redneck community. We both went to segregated schools through the 8th grade.

A few weeks ago we attended a family wedding in which the groom was marrying a Mexican-American bride. In attendance was the half-black child of the groom's cousin. Our daughter is dating an African-American man and they are likely to marry. Our son and daughter-in-law recently adopted a child who was born to Mexican-American parents.

Our family's experience in diversity is the rule rather than the exception nowadays. My point is that demographics are changing even more rapidly than the pundits and pontificators acknowledge. My wife and I will vote for Obama because we think we need a change in political direction. But we will also vote for him knowing that his election will open wide the doors of opportunity for our grandchildren, some of whom may not be ethnically identical to their grandparents. I suspect there are a lot of grandparents who might not have felt the way we do fifteen years ago, but share our views now.

Posted by: Groundgoat | June 24, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

I think the Post should limit posts to a reasonable length. It is too bad to add this restriction, because sometimes the occasional long comment is useful, but the Comments section here today is absurd. Ridiculous, page upon page single posts are not read by anyone at all and are annoying to the rest of us. You could post the cure for cancer or how to solve the energy crisis in one of these ultralong posts and nobody would ever know because nobody reads them.

This goes double for the idiots who cut and paste articles from other sources, often on unrelated topics, and just dump those in here. This is the equivalent of junk mail and is unwanted clutter that, again, nobody reads.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 24, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

As long as outlets like the Post continue to wring their hands about the racial question, it will continue to be a preoccupation with people. Yes, there unquestionably is a portion of the American electorate who are too prejudiced to get by race, and who won't vote for Obama because he's black. There's no help for those folks - or for the country's racial problem at large - until, frankly, such folks "pass away". (I just hope enough of the racially prejudiced are "gone" for this election. I understand Strom Thurmond will not be voting.)

But the human nature aspect underpinning the whole racial question is another ball of wax. If individuals are accustomed to being around folks of different races, race isn't something to fear. If, on the other hand, there's been a criminal encounter with someone from another race, victims are likely to carry their hurt forward from that point as a prejudice.

Part of the reason the mainstream media, however, is continuing its focus (fascination?) with race is that it's controversy and controversy sells papers. If race weren't a controversial issue it would be a boring issue like what kind of suits Obama wears. The media should be doing more to elevate the national consciousness on the race issue; instead all it does is throw out more questions, again, to create more controversy.

I think there will be a time in the U.S. when the national consciousness has grown up, but it won't be in my lifetime. Another 20 to 30 generations may have to pass before race is a blase issue. And, sadly, the nation may well have moved on to other things about which to discriminate.

Posted by: wpreader2007 | June 24, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Oh God How Funny! So once again WAPO Obama
Shill Chris the Fizzzle is bringing up the
Barack Hussein Obama Race Card,in order to
try to shame over one third of the voters
who refuse to vote for the MSM Candidate
and DNC Axis Of Weasels Stooge,Loser &
Lying Cocaine Addict,Drug Dealer,Chicago
Political Machine Hug,Gutter Politics Thug
phony, secret Muslim,Religious Hypocrit,
Marxist Liberal Elitist,Inexperience,
Scumbag Barack Hussein Obama now then,
And so,why would we even have to bring up
Barack Hussein Obama and your Obamafools
Use of the Race Card,or even mention Obama
is a mixture of African,Arab and White
Blood,since there is therefore no reason
or way anyone can call Barack Obama Black
now then? Just Vote NO Barack Obama! NOBAMA
Posted by: Sherry Kay | June 24, 2008 6:10 AM

Yeah, no racial issues there.

Posted by: aleks | June 24, 2008 6:16 AM | Report abuse

Oh God How Funny! So once again WAPO Obama
Shill Chris the Fizzzle is bringing up the
Barack Hussein Obama Race Card,in order to
try to shame over one third of the voters
who refuse to vote for the MSM Candidate
and DNC Axis Of Weasels Stooge,Loser &
Lying Cocaine Addict,Drug Dealer,Chicago
Political Machine Hug,Gutter Politics Thug
phony, secret Muslim,Religious Hypocrit,
Marxist Liberal Elitist,Inexperience,
Scumbag Barack Hussein Obama now then,
And so,why would we even have to bring up
Barack Hussein Obama and your Obamafools
Use of the Race Card,or even mention Obama
is a mixture of African,Arab and White
Blood,since there is therefore no reason
or way anyone can call Barack Obama Black
now then? Just Vote NO Barack Obama! NOBAMA

Posted by: Sherry Kay | June 24, 2008 6:10 AM | Report abuse

From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/06/three-in-ten.html

Sunday, June 22, 2008
Three in Ten

According to today's Post, three in 10 people, in an ABC News/Post Center survey, admit to race bias.

What this means:

All surveys are subject to what is called a "social desirability" bias. Therefore, if someone approaches you with a clipboard and asks you if you believe that exercise and a healthy diet are part of your daily routine, you are likely to answer "Yes"--even if you have been stopped on your way to fulfill at daily urge at the nearby Ben and Jerry's--because you want to be viewed in terms that you believe are socially desirable, rather than the more ugly and human truth.

Therefore, when three in 10 people admit to a race bias, we can be sure that the actual rate is higher.

This is especially true when we are dealing with a particularly repulsive characteristic like racism (more powerfully loaded for social desirability than, for example, age bias). Few will admit to holding the view--often, even to themselves.

As a result, the bias takes many different forms, beyond the blatant bigotry that one may think of when first asked the question.

One may think, for example, that they are not biased against race--just against a perceived "arrogance" that they have never stopped to consider that they allow for more easily in some people than others.

They may intellectualize their bias by creating a stereotype or straw man of the holder of unbiased attitudes--rather than of the target of their bias. This, I'm sure, was akin to focusing on the supposed intellectual naivety of the abolitionist 150 years ago, as a screen for their more essential perspective. We see the equivalent of this today--scan the blogs.

They might also want to believe that they are beyond such fearful, impulsive and banal reactions--congratulating themselves for the simulacrum of a reaction, in an act of self-deceptive and illusory personal consistency, likely to crack at the first powerful test, in a cloud of inarticulate (or unarticulated) and unexamined scattered doubts.

Cracking the crust of deep and hardened attitudes and taking a core sample has its own difficulties. Having the focus, persistence and courage to evaluate those attitudes in yourself, to an extent that you will allow them to change your behavior, rather than fading into the easy familiarity of the past, is a far greater challenge.

However, in the face of the all-too-familiar difficulties of the past 8 years, it is an imperative.

Just as the unexamined life is not worth living, the unexamined vote is not worth casting.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/06/three-in-ten.html

Posted by: Robert Hewson | June 24, 2008 4:35 AM | Report abuse

People will vote for McCain because he is the "Better" choice.

Once all the votes are counted we will see if race did play a part in the election.

VJ Machiavelli
ps If you want to see what life is all about visit http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com and take the time to play and watch the video of our lives vs the lives of our solders.
It will be the best 5 minutes of your life.

Posted by: VJ Machiavelli | June 24, 2008 1:53 AM | Report abuse

How To Shape History


by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

June 9, 2008

- Hillary might still become President! -

---------------------------------------------------

Since Friday, June 6, I have been occupied in, as it is often said, "picking people up off the floor." This on both sides of the Atlantic. Whereas, people, including relatively many among my own associates, were reacting to the leading vote-swindle of Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's forced retirement from her candidacy, I have been warning folk that their view was mistaken. What actually happened in the U.S.A. election-campaigning during the close of last week, was not the end, but the beginning of what will prove to have been the real contest yet to be fought. The error which many people, from various camps, made, was a result of their failure to understand the way in which real history works. So, my very short piece entitled, "For the Moment, Now There Are Two Candidates,"[1] was written in anticipation of the need that I act, personally, to head off what I feared would be the expected pathetic, widespread, alternating rage and depression among some leading figures, as much as some ordinary folk.

--------------------------------------------------

One of the typically malignant effects of the influence of Anglo-Dutch Liberalism on the mental condition of most people throughout today's world, is the way the victims of such influence think of notable events in history, mechanistically: of both those events experienced by society generally, or only by the individual person seen as being essentially what each presumes to be virtually the effect of receiving a sudden kick-in-the-rear-end. I mean: "mechanistic" in the sense of what are the intrinsically incompetent, but customary, "Cartesian-like" methods of economic and related modes of economic and other forecasting by people, and by their usual choices of mass media, today.

Elections of some Presidents, for example.

Contrary to most opinion today, history is not something which has been experienced. History is, among other things, what you yourself are about to do, or which you will have failed to expect until after it has happened. Take such a case as the trajectory of a planet in the Solar System. How do we know where that planet is going? The orbit is predetermined by a universal physical principle, a principle commonly identified as universal gravitation. This is a principle, which, as Albert Einstein emphasized the deeper implications of Kepler's uniquely original discovery, encloses the universe; it is, therefore, a choice of a universal principle whose efficient action, by some one, God or man, has always pre-determined our future, not our past.[2]

Human upward progress, such as economic progress in physical science, were inevitable, unless you chose the pathway down, instead.

Take the fact that, without fear of exaggeration in this, the evidence at hand so far implies, that, during recent decades, I have often been the only known case of a competent long-term economic forecaster in the U.S.A. and some other places. An important part of the reason for this widespread effect to be observed on two continents or more, is that virtually all prominent economic forecasters have failed because they have usually adhered to an academically certifiable, statistical method, such as that of Galileo or Descartes, an error caused by the statistician's implied working assumption that our society were a cage full of monkeys, not people.

Since about 1987, the world, including our U.S., for example, has entered into what has now become a plunging down-phase in the economy and culture of our planet taken as a whole. This is a plunge, which, if continued, would mean an accelerating collapse of physical conditions of life and of population, down to a level of misery of a world population which would, itself, shrink rapidly from a present level of about six-and-a-half billions human beings, to such goals as the reduced level of about two billions maximum demanded by Britain's Prince Philip of the World Wildlife Fund, or to the one billion or less demanded by even more radical, present-day neo-Malthusians looking back fondly to the so-called "Middle Ages."

This collapse is presently accelerating at what now threatens to become, like the rising price of "spot market" petroleum, awesome rates. It is being caused by nothing as much as the policies radiated from past and present Malthusians, as from the time of the satanic H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, through those present co-thinkers of former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore, circles which share the pro-"environmentalist" world-outlook of the neo-Malthusian Prince Philip. So far, admittedly, the relative rate of collapse toward a condition of virtual world famine, is apparently more acute in rate among the relatively poor strata of so-called developed nations, such as North America and western and central Europe; but this is temporary, and that because of the more immediate effects of long-term Malthusian strategy, also called "globalization," which is fairly named "a New Tower of Babel" policy. That policy is premised on the assumption, that the presently ongoing collapse and depopulation of the previously more developed regions of the world, as in western and central Europe and North America, like that done to the former Soviet Union after 1990, would soon ensure the general collapse of all civilization, world-wide, a general collapse which is presently under way, unless some leading nations decide, soon, to change their present ways.

The effects of the explicitly pro-genocidal, current, neo-Malthusian cultural and economic policies of Prince Philip's World Wildlife Fund, confront us with relevant evidence of the reason that my principles of successful long-range economic and related forecasting have succeeded where my so-called competition was wrong.
Economic Forecasting Generally

For example, for precisely the reason of that kind of implicit error of assumption to which I have already pointed here, the typically incompetent, but widely admired forecaster of economic trends, or similar public events, is identified by the popularity of demanding a relatively simple "Yes, or no" answer from anyone making a forecast. The same error is made by those who suggest, "take a number from one to ten," concerning a debate over the likelihood of a future development.

The commonplace error among sundry varieties of forecasters, is their attempt to derive what they see as the future from real or unreal, past events. Competent forecasting depends, partly, upon knowledge of universal principles; sometimes, that requires knowledge of what may be about to be introduced to practice as a newly adopted principle or policy, as I have done sometimes.

Thus, where other notable forecasters have failed, it was sometimes relatively easy for me to foresee the long-term pattern of probable developments, that over an interval from 1956 to what actually happened on July 31, 1971, as no other forecaster known to me had matched my success in this. True, I had not forecast that exact date of that forecast event, but, from 1965 onward, only as something likely, under then persisting policy-shaping conditions, for a time-frame somewhere between the close of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s. My forecasting recognized, and also stipulated the kinds of changes in policy which would determine the future trends, policies which I identified as the trend which will either be allowed to continue, or must be overturned. Thus, my forecasts have always included consideration of the existence of one or more alternate choice of policy: chiefly, either the policy underlying current trends, or the suitable replacement, as I have done during the course of the recent ten months.[3]

A more important factor in my success, was my insight into the minds of those various social strata which were, collectively, most influential in shaping policies, and, therefore, thus generating the results which I have forecast as the likely outcome of their continuing such forms of their currently ongoing behavior.

One of the chief reasons I have succeeded, where most leading economic forecasters have failed, is that most professional economists and their patrons forecast the wrong kind of event. They make the serious mistake of forecasting markets not as I do, but as ruling policy-shaping circles do. To be competent, it is essential to forecast the behavior of those, in government, finance, press, and universities, who are shaping the policies which pre-shape current history, and select attention to the more influential policy-shapers who will steer developments in such a direction.

For example: if President Herbert Hoover had been re-elected in 1932, Adolf Hitler would almost surely have won World War II. The danger lay in the influence and policies of those who, like the grandfather of President George W. Bush, Jr., were backing Hitler during the early 1930s, and were in the opposition to Franklin Roosevelt's 1932 nomination and election.[4] So, the assassination of U.S. President McKinley, which was an event produced by an assassin, imported from Europe, and steered through the premises of New York City's Henry Street Settlement House; this caused an abrupt and profound change in the circles controlling the U.S. government from the inauguration of Vice-President Theodore Roosevelt as President, until the 1932 election of his distant cousin, Franklin Roosevelt.

Think about those examples I have just referenced. The particular problem to be emphasized in treating the subject of forecasting here, is the fact that many people, are much less intelligent than they imagine themselves to be, often, such as George H.W. Bush and his son, a lot less intelligent than their acquired university degrees might suggest that some of them had become.

Such people might prefer to imagine themselves able not only to change things, but imagine that they are changing them for the better, not for the worse; but, they often deceive themselves in the same way as an hypothetical President of the United States who might report that he has decided to change the orbit of the planet Earth by means of a mere majority of assenting votes in today's U.S. Senate. "Things could not possibly be as bad as you say," they argue, or, "You must agree with us, to see that the present problems are only temporary; soon, everything will return to normal."[5]

Recently the number saying such silly things as that, is becoming fewer, and fewer, but there are still many still saying the same kinds of silly things they were saying, inside relevant places such as the U.S. Congress, and elsewhere, as recently as the middle of Summer 2007.

For example, since President Nixon announced that he was adopting Adam Smith and Milton Friedman as his administration's economic saints and gurus, the U.S. economy has actually been in a continuing, long-ranging decline in physical output and per-capita real consumption, a collapse in net useful consumption and production per capita and per square kilometer of territory. However, since Nixon and others had insisted that the continuation of their policies defined the "good," they read the fact of the continued toleration and growing influence of their ruinous policy-changes of the 1970s, as sufficient evidence that progress was still on the way up, when, in fact, the net physical output and consumption of the U.S.A. has been declining over the entire interval 1969-2008 to the present instant, when it is falling faster than ever before. "Things are getting better?" Not, certainly, since March 1, 1968, and absolutely not since August 15, 1971.

The success of the manned Moon landing, was purely an intentional, not a statistical event; but, when we take into account the changes in U.S. policy since 1967, it was, after all, speaking historically, a temporarily glorious fluke, an achievement created by policies which, in large degree, had ceased to exist. The development of technologies which made the specific achievement of the Moon-landing possible, was already in the process of being pulled back since U.S. fiscal year 1967-68, and at an accelerating rate in our U.S.A., in particular, more or less continuously, since that time, especially since the Trilateral Commission's influence expressed in the takedown of essential safety measures, during the early 1980s.

Today, whatever a dwindling number of some scientists do, in fact, know, the economic fact of the matter is, that the U.S. economy could no longer accomplish the quality of things we did so proudly before the late 1960s after-effects of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy kicked in. Yes, there were particular improvements during the late 1960s and some parts of the 1970s, as, for example, in new plant, some new technologies, and so forth; but, through the net effect of decadence overall, progress has been in a downward direction, in net effect, since that time. How is your pension and your health-care package doing, for example?

Your choice of Presidential candidate today, could put your grandchildren in Hell in their time. What you choose to consume, because you like it, or what you refuse because you don't, could be the choice which kills you.
For Example: How Economies Work

A competent sort of systemic understanding of how a modern economy actually works, or does not, requires the adoption of the kind of view which I have adopted toward the physical-scientific methods associated with the refined conception of dynamics introduced by Bernhard Riemann from 1854 onward. Take a relatively simple example of this.

For example, even to maintain a constant standard of living for the general human population, requires a degree of net technological and related progress sufficient to overcome the effect of society's drawing down the best quality of the stock of those physical and related cultural resources on which a certain level of existence for the entire society had depended. To compensate for the unavoidable, and also necessary increase of the population of any nation with a viable future, a still greater rate of realized scientific-technological and cultural advances is necessary: to more than overcome the relative marginalization of stocks of previously standard resources.

This is true for physical science and its role in the economy. It is also true for the case of Classical forms of art, as we are able to trace progress in musical polyphony from such ancient roots as the most significant case, the track of the development of the use of Lydian modalities by all great musicians, through the work of J.S. Bach, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven's late string quartets. Or, the revolution in the concept of perspective in painting which was introduced by an important predecessor of the astrophysicist Johannes Kepler, Leonardo da Vinci. Or, as the great Classical English poet Percy Bysshe Shelley emphasized in the course of his In Defence of Poetry, the role of development of language and the arts, combined, in bringing on periods of splendid "increase in the power of imparting profound and impassioned conceptions of man and nature."

Progress is not optional; it is an endless imperative of all civilized mankind.

In all of these essential elements of the progress required to maintain a society, and prevent it from sinking into decay through attrition, we must act upon society as a whole in a literally dynamic way, as the ancient Classical Greeks, and as Gottfried Leibniz, Bernhard Riemann, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein fought for scientific progress, against the decadence of those modern empiricists and positivists, who are the present-day followers of the medieval irrationalist William of Ockham.
The Effect of the Denial of "Progress"

The rise of the scientist and statesman Benjamin Franklin, the follower of the Massachusetts Winthrops and Mathers, and of Pennsylvania's James Logan, coincided with a post-1750, to 1789 period of Renaissance of science and Classical culture throughout much of globally extended European civilization. This was a period of the resurgence of scientific and Classical artistic achievement coinciding with the spreading influence of the sons of Johann Sebastian Bach and such figures of both physical science and Classical art as the Leipzig-born, great mathematician Abraham Kästner. This phase lasted, essentially, until the British Foreign Office's deploying its agent, the Duke of Orleans ("Philippe Egalité"), in support of that Duke's colleague, Lord Shelburne asset, and Swiss banker Jacques Necker, for the siege of the Bastille. This was a siege of the Bastille, conducted for no different purpose, than the purpose of compelling Louis XVI to appoint Necker Prime Minister of France.[6] The period of the Jacobin Terror and the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, defined a relative dark age which persisted through the notorious 1815 Congress of Vienna.

The poet, dramatist and historian Friedrich Schiller said of the French Revolution, "a great moment had found a little people." In the main, during the period following the French "Reign of Terror" and the Napoleonic wars, art and politics, and to a significant degree, science, too, declined into what the poet Heinrich Heine would denounce as "The Romantic School." These were hard times for the newly constituted U.S. Federal Republic, but times out of which came patriots such as Mathew Carey and his son Henry C. Carey, in concert with U.S. figures who combined the heroic role of being simultaneously statesmen, diplomats, and spies, such as John Quincy Adams and James Fenimore Cooper. It was to these figures, who stayed the course in perilous times for our republic, to which we all owe the frequently betrayed, but still precious legacy of both the founders of our republic, and of those who stayed the course through the death of figures such as John Quincy Adams and Cooper.

The great struggle against British imperial oppression of the North American English colonies actually began in the immediate aftermath of the February 1763 Peace of Paris, from which the London which had orchestrated the mutual ruin of the nations of continental Europe through the so-called "Seven Years War," thus emerged triumphant under its own domination by an Anglo-Dutch Liberal, imperial form of financier interest known as Lord Shelburne's British East India Company, a Company which, with its bastard, or other financial offspring, has been the core of the permanent party of treason within our U.S.A., to the present date.

I refer, although briefly, to that piece of our history here, not only because that history of London-steered agents and treason among us, is of singular relevance, again, at this immediate time. I reference it for the even far more significant reason, that it is only to the degree that we are led as a nation by figures among us who locate their personal identity as patriots in the legacy of many preceding generations before us, and in their deep commitment to service of intentions for at least several generations after we have lived out our own personal time.

The progress of mankind, as also our republic in particular, depends upon a continuity of passing of the proverbial torch, a passing which spans such a lapse of past, into future times. The most essential of all patriotic values on this account, is the idea of progress which gripped the work of the mature lifetime of the founders of our republic, especially the span of developments during the contested years 1763-1789. Our sense of such spans of time is the strongest when we trace the history of physical science from such ancients as the Pythagoreans and Plato through to the most recent accomplishments respecting the discovery and realization of discoveries of physical principle. This sense of scientific progress, where it prevails, is a model of reference for the idea of human individual immortality, a sense of immortality which could not exist unless it were expressed as an impassioned concern for relevant future accomplishments by those creative powers of the individual mind which are to be identified with the discovery of true universal physical and comparable principles.

For the same reason, that denial of the progress which is the characteristic lack of true morality in the "Malthusians" of past and present times, such as the World Wildlife Fund's Prince Philip and his lackey and former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore, is the greatest threat to our republic's continued existence today, precisely because it denies the existence of the principle of morality which can not truly exist without an efficient sense of an immortal purpose for a mortal human existence.

It is the sense of scientific and technological progress in the functioning of economies across successive generations which is the characteristic expression of a moral basis for patriotic commitments. It is the extension of that sense of the role of scientific-technological progress, which ties the goals of physical progress in the productive powers of labor, to the Classical spirit of artistry which links the inner living person to a sense of a personal participation in the existence of those who either lived in our time with us, or who preceded our birth, or follow us when we are gone.
Creativity as Morality

For as far back in history as we know, the prevalent curse upon mankind has been the doctrine typified as that of the Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, the ban on allowing the lower social classes of mankind the right to know the principle of "fire." In practice, the term "fire," so employed, signifies the innate, potential creative powers of the individual person, the powers which distinguish the human species absolutely from all lower forms of life. "Fire" signifies, as controlled nuclear fission illustrates the point for today, the discovery of usable universal physical, or comparable principles, through which mankind is enabled to increase both the potential relative population-density of mankind, and also to raise the standard of living and life-expectancy of the population generally.

Throughout the history of empires, as known best to us through study of the history of the principle of empire since ancient Babylon, or earlier, the characteristic of most cultures and societies has been the encultured degradation of the intellectual life of the greatest portion of the subject population to a policy tantamount to the ideology called "Malthusianism" today.

In earlier forms of imperialism, as in ancient Rome, the suppression of scientific-technological conceptions of progress was enforced with the gibbet and knout. In modern Europe, this was changed in form, but not much in effect. The change was made by Paolo Sarpi, the founder of modern European philosophical-political Liberalism.

Sarpi proceeded as follows.

The 1439 A.D. great ecumenical Council of Florence and the related founding of modern European science by later Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, led to the establishment of the first modern nation-states under, first, France's Louis XI and, then, England's Henry VII. The old Venetian faction which had been set back temporarily by the mid-Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, struck back through the Habsburgs with such methods as the rise of the Inquisition under Spain's Tomas de Torquemada. Torquemada's mass-murderous actions, prefiguring those of Adolf Hitler later, as typified by the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, launched a period of religious warfare throughout Europe, which continued from 1492 until the 1648 Peace of Westphalia.

In the midst of the Sixteenth Century's epidemic religious wars, Venice's Paolo Sarpi recognized that the Habsburgs' policy of pro-Aristotelean Inquisitional methods was doomed to fail, because of the factor of urban development unleashed by such expressions of the 1439 Council and Cusa's launching of modern science as the role of technology developed in cities and their countryside, as this strategic effect was described in the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli.

Sarpi had no love for science, as his promotion of a revival of the medieval irrationalist William of Ockham attests to this fact. However, he recognized that the Venetian type of financier interest and power could not succeed unless it adapted itself to a certain amount of technological and related innovations. Sarpi's love for Ockham was rooted entirely in his hatred of science as such. On this account, Sarpi's influence produced a policy of practice known today as the type of irrationalism respecting science as such, which is called today Anglo-Dutch Liberalism.

Under Liberalism, mathematical recipes, used as substitutes for notions of scientific principle, are often allowed (except by today's post-1968, hardened neo-Malthusian fanatics), but the principles of science of Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, Pierre de Fermat, and Gottfried Leibniz, are either banned or rendered harmless to the Liberal ideological cause through sophistical "explanations."

This is not a narrowly scientific concern. This is the issue of the human freedom to be truly human. That is to say, fostering the development of those creative mental powers which are the essential distinction of the human being from the beasts. It is the same expression of creative mental powers associated with truly Classical art-forms and political institutions. True freedom to be truly human, is not a matter of money, nor can freedom descend like manna (or, money) from Heaven upon a waiting, slavishly minded people below; freedom, in the sense of a Classical practice and knowledge of art and science, must spring like a bright young plant, from within the mind and the practiced social relations of the people.

Although the expression of such human freedom is the moral right and obligation of practice by the individual member of society, like all good things in life, this, too, must be earned, not handed out as a passer-by's guilty conscience utters token gifts to poor beggars.

The source of the gift of culture is historical. The accumulation of discoveries of truthful forms of expression of scientific and Classical artistic principles, from generation to generation, both within cultures and across their boundaries, works as the practice of fundamental progress in discovery of universal physical principles. This is the immortal font of goodness which one generation must pass to the next, and to the persons of other nations and peoples as freely as to our own.

The essential point of principle here, is the need to love humanity and its individual person, the strangers as much as the children and youth of one's own tribe, for what society might be able to become. It was this quality of optimism which was shared, not only among the American freedom-fighters opposed to British oppression during 1763-1789, but also the English, American, and French peers of the German Classic of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Kästner, Lessing, Mendelssohn, and Friedrich Schiller. This, as echoed in the 1776 Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the U.S. Federal Constitution: such are, and remain the emblems of the Idea of Progress of peoples throughout the planet today.

The Classical conception of European culture in general, as opposed to the Romantics and other popularized perversions, is the generalization of, a fuller expression of, the principle of freedom expressed by the ancient Pythagoreans and Plato, by the great ecumenical Council of Florence, by Kepler, Fermat, and Leibniz, and those who follow them still today.

The physical benefits of science and technological progress are indispensable, but it is the moral quality of the broader cultural development of the peoples who benefit from science, which must be combined with true science as a true, united cause of human science and Classical art.
There Are No Limits to Growth

The great conception on which all those desirable qualities of true human freedom depend, is the conception of one's self, and of other persons, as implicitly immortal in respect to the permanent intention of their mission in mortal existence. Although, much of the task which each generation and nation must adopt as its own, in its own time, is bounded by pressing necessity of improvements in that time, as now, the essential motive for the work of each of many successive generations, is the grand conception of the immortality of the individual human mind, as the soul which inhabits the mortal human body. It is, therefore, the immortality of what is passed on in the form of the essential ideas of the human species' and individual sovereign nation's contribution to the furthest conceivable reach into a future consequence which is ever better, which must be recognized as the most essential self-interest of the human individual's personality as an implicitly immortal personality.

It is the devotion to that immortal cause which is the only true scientific test for what should be considered to be morality. It is that conviction which makes some leaders good, as also strong, and the lack of which weakens the will to do good, the will to do whatever is required to contribute to that end in the limited time allotted to each to live.

The same principle, is the required standard of leadership of our republic. It is urgent that we recapture that notion of leadership for the grave crisis which grips the world today. Such must be the selection of the composition of our republic's Presidency under the grave peril threatening all humanity now.

[1] See last week's EIR, June 13.

[2] The relevant necessary corrective for the fallacies implicit in ordinary mathematics is identified by the concept of analysis situs, as introduced to modern science by Gottfried Leibniz, and as treated by Bernhard Riemann.

[3] Since just prior to my July 25, 2007 webcast.

[4] Back in those times, this included persons such as Prescott Bush and Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, who professed a certain discomfort with the character of Adolf Hitler, but stated, as Joe Kennedy did, their real preference was Hermann Göring.

[5] The decision made may be arbitrary, but the effects of enforcing it are not.

[6] The mob, hired and armed by Philippe Egalité, accepted the surrender of the guards, and then killed and butchered them, putting the butchered guards' heads on pike-staffs, and carrying the gibbering idiots, who had been the only remaining inmates of the Bastille, off to the famous insane asylum where they were released to the custody of the latter institution.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 24, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse

Clinton Supporters Want To Take Nomination Fight to Denver
Increase Decrease

Clinton Supporters Want To Take Nomination Fight to Denver

June 10, 2008 (LPAC)--Political action committees are organizing to urge Hillary Clinton to take her nomination fight on to the Democratic National Convention in Denver in late August.

People United Means Action, which describes itself as "completely grassroots," is taking a multipronged approach: urging people to write protest letters to Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean, withdrawing membership in the Democratic Party and re-registering as Independents in states where there are no upcoming Democratic primaries, requesting refunds for contributions made to the DNC, and reaching "Unfaithful Superdelegates" whose constituents voted for Clinton, but nonetheless have, for now, committed to Barack Obama.

PUMApac's website says that it expects to have 100,000 members by the end of today.

Another committee, Hillary Rapid Responders, is reportedly circulating petitions to encourage Clinton to continue the nomination fight, as well as petitions to have Obama select her as his running mate. The Rapid Responders' site features Hillary's eight-page campaign Economic Blueprint. (A recent Pew Research Center poll showed that 88% of Americans consider the economy to be the top 2008 election priority.)
This Article
Email this page
Download PDF
Printer friendly version

Posted by: Anonymous | June 24, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Moveon.org, Built on Soros Money, Campaigns for Pelosi Against Clinton
Increase Decrease

June 1, 2008 (LPAC)--The Web-based organization moveon.org is running a pressure campaign against "millionaire donors" who support Hillary Clinton. The initiative is the more shameless in that it was notoriously one particular billionaire who pumped up moveon: George Soros.

The current moveon pitch is as follows:

"Stand up for Democracy in the Democratic Party.

"A group of millionaire Democratic donors are threatening to stop supporting Democrats in Congress because Nancy Pelosi said that the people, not the superdelegates, should decide the Presidential nomination.

"They're Clinton supporters and they're trying to use their high-roller status to strong arm the Democratic leaders.

"So let's tell Nancy Pelosi that if she keeps standing up for regular Americans, thousands of us will have her back.

"A compiled petition with your individual comment will be presented to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leadership.

"Full petition text:

"The Democratic nomination should be decided by the voters--not by superdelegates or party high-rollers. We've given money--and time--to progressive candidates and causes, and we'll support Speaker Pelosi and others who stand up for Democracy in the Democratic Party."

Embarrassingly, since Hillary Clinton has been moving ahead of Barack Obama in popular votes in the primaries, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reversed herself and said only delegates, and not popular vote totals, are significant.

George Soros is acknowledged as the leading contributor to moveon.org. The group was formed in 1998, but Soros' big public arrangement with them was five years later.

In 2003, George Soros met with Moveon.org founder Wesley Blade at Soros's New York home, and arranged that Soros and his associates would lavishly fund Moveon. In the next few months, George Soros contributed $2.5 million, his son Jonathan Soros contributed $101,000, and these contributions came from the arrangement: Peter B. Lewis, $2.5 million; $971,000 from Peter Bing; and $100,000 from Lewis Cullman.

Thus the total put together by Soros in this one deal in 2003-2004 was just short of $6.2 million - one of the all-time largest "soft-money" packages ever. In 2004, just after this arrangement was made, George Soros began his personal sponsorship of Barack Obama's political career.
This Article
Email this page
Download PDF
Printer friendly version

Posted by: Anonymous | June 24, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

Your Enemy, George Soros
Increase Decrease

The Soros Dossier is now available in PDF. Final, corrected, with full-color cover, now uploaded and available, as of 06/19/08 02:57pm EDT.

Your Enemy, George Soros

This is the introduction to the above cited Soros Dossier.

Back during Presidential campaign year 2004, my associates and I were calling attention to an important book on the subject of "The Confessions of an Economic Hit-Man." That man had a conscience. In the following report, LPAC is featuring a much bigger story, on the subject of George Soros as a political-economic hit-man. The George Soros we present in this report, has no conscience about what he has done, or what he does. This a report written, in large part, by Soros' own mouth.

George Soros is not a top-ranking financier, he is like the mafia thug, without a real conscience, like a thug sent to kill a friend of yours, by only a hit-man for the really big financial interests, hired out to rob your friends, and you, of about everything, including their nation, and your personal freedom.

George Soros does not actually own Senator Barack Obama; some other people do; but, Soros is a key controller, and seemingly the virtual owner of both Democratic Party Chairman Howard "Scream" Dean, that Party, perhaps your political party, and, in fact, your nation, which are both what political-economic hit-man George Soros is aiming to destroy.

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/06/16/your-enemy-george-soros.html

Posted by: Anonymous | June 24, 2008 12:49 AM | Report abuse

How Soros Financed Obama's Campaign
Increase Decrease

May 30, 2008 (LPAC)--In late 2006, George Soros, the British empire/Wall Street gatekeeper of the Left, vetted Senator Barack Obama's potential Presidential candidacy on behalf of financier oligarchs. Soros then introduced Obama to a selected financier group, and Obama soon afterwards announced he would seek the White House.

Soros's involvement with Obama's brief national political career had begun two years earlier with Soros fundraising for Obama's campaign for U.S. senate, and continued through the 2007 Presidential campaign launch with huge fundraising operations by Soros and his circle.

SOROS AND OBAMA - A Preliminary chronology

2004: The London-Wall Street axis singled out Obama, then an Illinois state senator, as their "Rising Star" in U.S. politics. The Rockefellers' family political agency known as the League of Conservation Voters endorsed Obama in the Democratic U.S. senate primary, ran TV ads on the Rising Star theme, and directly funded Obama's national career manager, consultant David Axelrod.

Obama's opponent in the Democratic primary, Blair Hull, was a self-financed millionaire, so Obama used the "millionaires' exception" to the campaign finance law to take $12,000 each from donor, six times the ordinary limit at that time. Thus nearly half of his $5 million primary funding came from 300 donors.

George Soros raised $60,000 of this Obama funding, with his own donations and those he procured from his family. Soros reportedly met with Obama first in March -- a mere state senator, Obama was the only candidate in the country with whom Soros met personally during the 2004 election cycle, according to Soros spokesman Michael Vachon (quoted by CNS News, July 27, 2004). On June 7, 2004, Obama was in Soros' New York home for an Obama campaign fundraising event.

December 4, 2006: Obama met with George Soros in Soros' mid-town Manhattan office. After an hour interview, Soros took Obama into a conference room where a dozen plutocrats waited to talk with Obama. Key among them were UBS (Union Bank of Switzerland/Swiss Bank) U.S. chief Robert Wolf, and hedge fund manager Orin Kramer.

December, 2006, a week later, Robert Wolf had dinner in Washington D.C. with Barack Obama to map out campaign strategy.

Early January, 2007: Obama announced his Presidential candidacy. The New York Times announced that candidate Obama had nailed the support of two highest-level Democratic fundraisers: George Soros and Robert Wolf. By mid-April, 2007, Wolf had raised $500,000 for Obama.

Mid-January, 2007: Wolf ran a dinner for Obama in Washington, with potential bundlers Jim Torrey, Brian Mathis, Jamie Rubin, and (again, from the original Soros meeting) Orin Kramer.

Early March, 2007: There were two fundraisers by Wolf and one by Edgar Bronfman, Jr.

Mid-March, 2007: George Soros began a staged dance with Obama. Writing in the New York Review of Books, Soros denounced the rightist Israeli lobby, AIPAC.

March 21, 2007: Continuing the dance, the Obama campaign rebutted Soros (as in, "Obama distances himself from Soros"), and denounced the Hamas movement.

April 9, 2007: An Obama fundraising party for the New York elite was held at the home of financier Steven Gluckstern, the former chairman of George Soros' Democracy Alliance. A photograph of the event, published (April 16, 2007) in New York magazine, showed George Soros seated immediately next to the standing, speaking Obama. Soros was enthroned as the only one in the room seated, stationed between host Gluckstern and Obama. Two months earlier Soros's Mr. Gluckstern had been quoted in the New York Observer saying he MIGHT be raising "well over a million dollars" for Obama.

May 18, 2007: George Soros hosted an Obama party at the Greenwich, Connecticut palatial mansion of Paul Tudor Jones, who runs the giant hedge fund Tudor Investment Corporation. They collected $2,300 from each of the approximately 300 attendees, the local newspaper Greenwich Time reported.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 24, 2008 12:48 AM | Report abuse

It appears billionaire NYC Mayor is vying to be Dem VP. Wonder if it is true that he would install corporate fascism agenda - the privatization of US government? That is the current agenda of the Anglo-Dutch oligarghy because of worldwide economic downturn, recession, depression and the currency value is diminishing as we speak. The oligarcghy wants to loot from where ever they can and is targeting the US. It is reported that billionaire NYC Mayor Bloomberg is one of their many lap dog politicians that support their agenda. The other is Al Gore. Sources say he may try to pull a fast one in August and be the Dem nominee afterall...

Posted by: uvliuhn | June 24, 2008 12:47 AM | Report abuse

How many of the white, "I won't vote for a Black" voters are Bush Republicans? Kool-aid drinking bigots aren't voting for Obama. That's a fact!

Posted by: thebobbob | June 24, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse


OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
WILL HE LIVE UP TO HIS RHETORIC?

WHERE DO THE CANDIDATES STAND ON THE
RESURGENCE OF KKK-STYLE VIGILANTISM
ALL ACROSS AMERICA?


Obama now says he'll work to eliminate the telecom immunity provision when the FISA bill passed last week by the House reaches the Senate... but he also says he may end up voting for the bill anyway if his effort fails.

Obama can be forgiven for flip-flopping on public financing of presidential elections. He correctly argues that his private fund-raising is even more democratic, since it's built upon millions of small contributions from (mostly) average citizens.

But Obama can't be given a pass on his apparent equivocation on issues involving warrantless surveillance and other as yet unknown government programs that jeopardize constitutionally guaranteed rights. Obama used to tout his constitutional bona fides in his stump speech. Now, as the nomination appears to be his, he's doing the old soft shoe.


OBAMA BACKTRACKS AS THE NATION LEARNS OF
THE EVILS OF "GANG/COMMUNITY STALKING"

Obama's transformation into the great equivocator comes just as word has begun to surface of widespread, organized vigilantism in American cities, towns and counties coast to coast -- a veritable resurrection of Ku Klux Klan- like harassment, intimidation and even physical and psychological abuse of American citizens they deem undesirable, or whose political or social views do not comport with their twisted world view.

It's called "GANG STALKING" or "COMMUNITY STALKING" ... organized bands of self-righteous extremists, the evil twins of the "town watch" brigades, who are taking the law into their own hands while public officials appear to be ignorant of their law-breaking, or choose to look the other way.

These are nothing less than organized terrorists who spread false rumors, ruin reputations and careers, stalk and intimidate, commit unlawful burglaries and acts of vandalism, sabotage and worse, in a twisted, ongoing campaign to bypass the judicial system and enforce their view of what might be called a new world order.

Dozens of internet sites detail the plight of individuals and families who have been falsely and maliciously targeted by these community stalkers, whose fascist credo is summarized in four frightening words:

"Indentify, Vilify, Nullify, Destroy."

Read more here:

http://www.usenet-replayer.com/faq/alt.abuse.recovery.html

The mainstream media has yet to expose the resurrection of vigilantism in America, and to explore why authorities on all levels have failed to take action -- allowing this creeping fascism to fester and spread.

Will someone please ask mainstream journalists why they have not pursued this story? Why they have not questioned public officials about the increasing number of reports of gang/community stalking, and the extreme measures being they are employing against their "targets"?

Have John McCain and Barack Obama heard reports about gang/community stalking -- and what are they doing to ensure that the rule of law prevails over extra-legal, neo-fascist vigilantism?

Chris Cillizza and Washington Post staffers, I entreat you to research this subject and inquire of the candidates. Because gang/community stalking is nullifying the rule of law as well as the electoral process in America. And people are being destroyed.

Do it now, while there's still a chance that principled public officials and well-meaning but oblivious civil libertarians can take action to stem the abuses and restore civility and the rule of law.

Posted by: scrivener | June 23, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

I've just taken my Tegretol and I'm feeling much better.

I apologize to everyone on this board for my incoherent and repetitive comments.

I will talk to my good friend, the kingofzouk, about his own hostile and intellectually dishonest posts.

Thank you all for having had the patience to put up with me for as long as you have.

In the future, if I ever use an excessive amount of capital letters, you may take that as a sure sign that I am entering a stage of hypomania--on the way to a full-blown manic episode--and you may disregard everything I have to say (and please call my doctor if you see this happening).

Thank you!

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 23, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

I just finished listening to Obama's book, "Dreams of My Father" - narrated by the author. I can say without a doubt this is a man I would gladly accept as a friend and I whole-heartedly want him to be our next President.

We may be different in a lot of ways, but we are so much the same, too. I really like this guy!

Posted by: Steve Lee, Sr. | June 23, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Race is not important ... who cares if John McCain is white?

Nice to see WoW and his deranged alter ego 37th&Obama are back in the house, ditto the brilliant Translator. Keep it up fellas -- show 'em what you got!

Posted by: bondjedi | June 23, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Ok, Blarg! I'll take a Black Russian...


HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

Posted by: Susan | June 23, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe how much money Barack Obama pays me to call Words of Wisdom a racist!


This is the easiest job I've ever had!


Now if you'll excuse me, Axelrod and I are going to get drunk! Come on, Susan and Translator! Our racist campaign is PAYING FOR THE DRINKS!!!

Posted by: Blarg | June 23, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

My last post was prior to 6:59, and you are ill. I have harrassed no one this evening, although it has been very inviting to do so.

Thanks for going SO off subject and killing this thread for those of us who like to debate the news, not your insanity.

I'm out.

Posted by: Susan | June 23, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom/37th and O street


Yes freedom of speech is precious, BUT not all freedom of speech is allowed. I.E. You can't yell fire in a movie theater. We are on to you. Be carful. WE may even be outside your location right NOW!!!! Beware, Beware, BEWARE!!!

Posted by: Secret Service | June 23, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Susan

The truth is called for right now


Tell Blarg


bonjedi

DDAWD


Translator


AND everyone else that the game is OVER.

STOP HARASSING THE OTHER POSTERS AT THE WASHINGTON POST.

Freedom of Speech is precious.


A Presidential Campaign should not be engaging in HARASSMENT OF BLOGGERS.

Reference the post at 6 59


Posted by: Anonymous | June 23, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse


Genetically speaking, Barack Obama is as "white" as he is "black."

So why does the media portray him as "black," or "African-American," when he is as much a "Caucasian" as he is a "Negro" (to employ archaic nomenclature)? Why the need to categorize, to pidgeon-hole, to engage in the politics of race and division?

As Obama explains in his first book, society forced him to make a choice -- black or white -- and he chose to identify himself as an African-American.

We should respect his decision. But that does not give us license to identify Obama as either black or white. He, like many Americans, is neither. Tiger Woods chose another path. He defines his ancestry as "multiracial," and thus refuses to buy into either set of stereotypes.

So why must we insist on labeling Obama as one or the other? If Obama sees himself as "African-American," that's fine with me. But I secretly wish he would have adopted the Tiger Woods model, because it seems more genuine, more in tune with Obama's postracial politics.

Obama is working to reclaim the title of the first "postracial" candidate for president, and he deserves to be judged by voters on the basis of his policies and, as King said, "the content of his character," and not on his skin tone.

To insist upon labeling Obama as either black or white is to perpetuate the subtle racism that still infects American society.

What bothers me about Obama lately is his tendency lately to act like a typical finger-up-to-the-wind politician -- and that's got nothing to do with genetics or skin tone. Race doesn't matter; adherence to a firm set of principles does.

Posted by: scrivener | June 23, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom/37th and O street

We are watching you. We know where you live. We have tapped you phone and we know where you are posting from. We are coming for you.

Posted by: Secrect Service | June 23, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

It is illegal to discriminate based on race, for obvious reasons. RACE IS NOT ALLOWED AS A FACTOR!

A Presidential Candidate should be running on his or her ability to offer proven leadership to uphold the duties of President as defined in our Constitution, which is framed to shape a public interest democracy, NOT cater to private corporate corrupt monied interests instead of proper policies and directions to uphold a government for the people at a majority plus level (everyone) for BENEFIT not damage. We do not need anyone who will clearly harm the Constitional duties of President or the interests of this country as a DEMOCRACY for people (all races, creeds, national origins, ancestries, physical disabilities, sexes (male or female), age, marital status, or prior criminal records--as a former publicist for a state human rights agency, the interests of the individual are upheld and the freedoms that go with that, when the merits are the proper qualifications, normally called "bfoq's" - bona fide occupational qualifications.

Start with the bfoq's and get out of the discrimination illegal category and get back on track.

Posted by: Elizabeth | June 23, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Does race matter?

Does wind matter? Say you are bicycling into a wind. A 2mph wind is no big deal. A 20mph wind is noticeable. Now add ten inches of snow on the ground to the equation. How much does the wind matter in comparison to the snow?

My belief is that with every passing year the headwind of race grows weaker. In an election year like 2000, the racial headwind probably matters more than an election year like 2008 where the blizzard, hurricane, earthquake, mudslide and wild fire that are the Republican economy and foreign policy are probably more important than the stiff breeze of OMG he's black.

In my home I remember the 1980 election as being a time to step lightly around my parents. They didn't want to vote for Reagan but with mortgage rates approaching 20% and a recession to boot, I think they did it anyway. I just remember it as a time to be on your best behavior or watch out. Times aren't as bad now as they were then, but they are bad enough that they will probably trump race. Add those votes in with what should be record high black turnout and a better than average youth vote and you'll see Democratic numbers good enough to beat Bush in many of the states Bush won. And I don't see McCain getting Bush's vote totals. This fall could be a lesson on why The Fix should have paid more attention to math in school.

Posted by: muD | June 23, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Well, isn't this fun.

Again, I would like nothing more than to be sitting in Chicago at the Obama headquarters arguing with you fools. But I am not. Send me a plane ticket and I'll go tomorrow.

Talk about crazies....check yourself.

Posted by: Susan | June 23, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Susan:

Who else is there with you - what are the names of the other posters ?


DDAWD,


Blarg

Bonjedi


Translator


Are they all sitting there with you ???

Posted by: Anonymous | June 23, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

We have our first ADMISSION THAT THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN IS POSTING AND HARASSING OTHER POSTERS ON YOUR BOARD.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 23, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Dude, as a former Chicagoan, there is no place I would rather be.

Unfortunately for us both, I am not.

Ding, ding, ding! I think it's time for your next round of meds.

Posted by: Susan | June 23, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Susan and all the crazies who refuse to admit that they are at Obama headquarters:


People who believe in a MERIT BASED SOCIETY AND BELEIVE THAT "PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE JUDGED ON THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN BUT ON THE CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER"


THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT RACISTS.


I know the Obama Campaign is seeking to DEFINE THOSE PEOPLE AS RACISTS - AND MAKE THEIR MAJOR TACTIC CALLING THOSE PEOPLE RACISTS HOWEVER IT IS NOT TRUE.


You are a sick group of people. Thank God you will not be running the White House next year.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 23, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Susan and all the crazies who refuse to admit that they are at Obama headquarters:


People who believe in a MERIT BASED SOCIETY AND BELEIVE THAT "PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE JUDGED ON THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN BUT ON THE CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER"


THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT RACISTS.


I know the Obama Campaign is seeking to DEFINE THOSE PEOPLE AS RACISTS - AND MAKE THEIR MAJOR TACTIC CALLING THOSE PEOPLE RACISTS HOWEVER IT IS NOT TRUE.


You are a sick group of people. Thank God you will not be running the White House next year.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 23, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

"I am here now - Ive been around the whole time. Please admit you are at Obama headquarters in Chicago."

First you provide some youtube based proof of Obama playing the race card.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 23, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Susan

What are you doing? Falsely accusing people of being a racist? What is wrong with you? Seriously, an apology is called for here.


reference to your posting at 612


Posted by: Anonymous | June 23, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Well, it seems George Wallace lives, at least in the minds of many here.

Sad. Really sad.

Posted by: Susan | June 23, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

Obama is supposed to be a post-racial candidate - however he keeps on pushing RACE - that makes hims a RACE BAITER AND A FRAUD TO HIS OWN CAMPAIGN THEME.


Last Friday, run the quotes from Obama again.


We have documented many instances of RACE BAITING BY THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN

1) South Carolina primary - Tim Russert called Obama up on the race baiting in the debate

2) Twisting the words of Bill Clinton around - FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF "OFFENSIVE COMMENTS"

3) The Attacks by the Obama Campaign on Gerry Ferraro who has a fantastic record on race relations who Obama was extremely unjustified in attempting to smear her.

4) Advancing RACIST arguments to the Superdelegates - implying "there would be riots in the streets" and the black community would "leave the democratic party en masse" if the Superdelegates did not vote for Obama - essentially DEMANDING THAT THE SUPERDELEGATES BE MOTIVATED BY RACIST MOTIVATIONS. MERIT OR WHO WAS BEST SUITED WAS DISQUALIFIED AS A LEGITIMATE MOTIVATION FOR THE SUPERDELEGATES.


5) Obama's own remarks on Friday basically calling ALL AMERICANS RACISTS UNTIL THEY SUPPORT OBAMA.


Obama's campaign is a disgrace to the MERIT BASED SOCIETY IN AMERICA.


Obama is a disgrace to the Constitution. Obama believes that strong American traditions do not apply to him.


RACE is in this election BECAUSE OBAMA KEEPS RE-INJECTING RACE INTO THE ELECTION


ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES HAVE BEEN MORE THAN HAPPY TO RUN A COLORBLIND ELECTION AND CAMPAIGNS.


OBAMA IS AT FAULT.


OBAMA IS A FRAUD TO HIS OWN CAMPAIGN THEME.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 23, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

Obama is supposed to be a post-racial candidate - however he keeps on pushing RACE - that makes hims a RACE BAITER AND A FRAUD TO HIS OWN CAMPAIGN THEME.


Last Friday, run the quotes from Obama again.


We have documented many instances of RACE BAITING BY THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN

1) South Carolina primary - Tim Russert called Obama up on the race baiting in the debate

2) Twisting the words of Bill Clinton around - FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF "OFFENSIVE COMMENTS"

3) The Attacks by the Obama Campaign on Gerry Ferraro who has a fantastic record on race relations who Obama was extremely unjustified in attempting to smear her.

4) Advancing RACIST arguments to the Superdelegates - implying "there would be riots in the streets" and the black community would "leave the democratic party en masse" if the Superdelegates did not vote for Obama - essentially DEMANDING THAT THE SUPERDELEGATES BE MOTIVATED BY RACIST MOTIVATIONS. MERIT OR WHO WAS BEST SUITED WAS DISQUALIFIED AS A LEGITIMATE MOTIVATION FOR THE SUPERDELEGATES.


5) Obama's own remarks on Friday basically calling ALL AMERICANS RACISTS UNTIL THEY SUPPORT OBAMA.


Obama's campaign is a disgrace to the MERIT BASED SOCIETY IN AMERICA.


Obama is a disgrace to the Constitution. Obama believes that strong American traditions do not apply to him.


RACE is in this election BECAUSE OBAMA KEEPS RE-INJECTING RACE INTO THE ELECTION


ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES HAVE BEEN MORE THAN HAPPY TO RUN A COLORBLIND ELECTION AND CAMPAIGNS.


OBAMA IS AT FAULT.


OBAMA IS A FRAUD TO HIS OWN CAMPAIGN THEME.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 23, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

Obama is supposed to be a post-racial candidate - however he keeps on pushing RACE - that makes hims a RACE BAITER AND A FRAUD TO HIS OWN CAMPAIGN THEME.


Last Friday, run the quotes from Obama again.


We have documented many instances of RACE BAITING BY THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN

1) South Carolina primary - Tim Russert called Obama up on the race baiting in the debate

2) Twisting the words of Bill Clinton around - FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF "OFFENSIVE COMMENTS"

3) The Attacks by the Obama Campaign on Gerry Ferraro who has a fantastic record on race relations who Obama was extremely unjustified in attempting to smear her.

4) Advancing RACIST arguments to the Superdelegates - implying "there would be riots in the streets" and the black community would "leave the democratic party en masse" if the Superdelegates did not vote for Obama - essentially DEMANDING THAT THE SUPERDELEGATES BE MOTIVATED BY RACIST MOTIVATIONS. MERIT OR WHO WAS BEST SUITED WAS DISQUALIFIED AS A LEGITIMATE MOTIVATION FOR THE SUPERDELEGATES.


5) Obama's own remarks on Friday basically calling ALL AMERICANS RACISTS UNTIL THEY SUPPORT OBAMA.


Obama's campaign is a disgrace to the MERIT BASED SOCIETY IN AMERICA.


Obama is a disgrace to the Constitution. Obama believes that strong American traditions do not apply to him.


RACE is in this election BECAUSE OBAMA KEEPS RE-INJECTING RACE INTO THE ELECTION


ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES HAVE BEEN MORE THAN HAPPY TO RUN A COLORBLIND ELECTION AND CAMPAIGNS.


OBAMA IS AT FAULT.


OBAMA IS A FRAUD TO HIS OWN CAMPAIGN THEME.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 23, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD

I am here now - Ive been around the whole time. Please admit you are at Obama headquarters in Chicago.


We all want to hear it.


I heard you were getting drunk the whole weekend, is that true?

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | June 23, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Blarg

YOU have got to be kidding - first you should admit you are associated with the Obama campaign -


Your comments remind me of the Obama South Carolina campaign in which for WEEKS Obama denied that he would make race an issue in the South Carolina primary.


WHAT WAS REALLY HAPPENING? OBAMA WAS LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH. Obama's Campaign was PUSHING RACE AS MUCH AS IT COULD.


IN FACT, THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN COULD NOT GET TRACTION ON SEVERAL RACE ISSUES - THEY HAD TO TRY AND TRY AND THEN TRY SOMETHING ELSE IN ORDER TO GET A POLARIZING ISSUE OUT THERE.

Remember, Obama is campaigning as the "uniter" as well - well ALL OBAMA HAS BEEN DOING IS ATTEMPTING DIVISIVE TACTICS.

Obama makes Karl Rove look like a furry pussy cat.

Blarg you lying self-righteous small-town hating religion-hating race-baiting wackjob - take your deceptions and lies away from this board because WE ARE ONTO YOU.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | June 23, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

"1) South Carolina primary - Tim Russert called Obama up on the race baiting in the debate "

You're lying. Provide some youtube based evidence.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 23, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

"Speaking of constant race talk, how long until Words of Wisdom comes to ruin this thread? We all know it's going to happen; let's start a pool. I say an hour, and that's being generous.

Posted by: Blarg | June 23, 2008 4:58 PM"

"OBAMA IS A FRAUD TO HIS OWN CAMPAIGN THEME.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 23, 2008 5:51 PM "

Wow, fifty three minutes. That's pretty good.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 23, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

Obama is supposed to be a post-racial candidate - however he keeps on pushing RACE - that makes hims a RACE BAITER AND A FRAUD TO HIS OWN CAMPAIGN THEME.


Last Friday, run the quotes from Obama again.


We have documented many instances of RACE BAITING BY THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN

1) South Carolina primary - Tim Russert called Obama up on the race baiting in the debate

2) Twisting the words of Bill Clinton around - FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF "OFFENSIVE COMMENTS"

3) The Attacks by the Obama Campaign on Gerry Ferraro who has a fantastic record on race relations who Obama was extremely unjustified in attempting to smear her.

4) Advancing RACIST arguments to the Superdelegates - implying "there would be riots in the streets" and the black community would "leave the democratic party en masse" if the Superdelegates did not vote for Obama - essentially DEMANDING THAT THE SUPERDELEGATES BE MOTIVATED BY RACIST MOTIVATIONS. MERIT OR WHO WAS BEST SUITED WAS DISQUALIFIED AS A LEGITIMATE MOTIVATION FOR THE SUPERDELEGATES.


5) Obama's own remarks on Friday basically calling ALL AMERICANS RACISTS UNTIL THEY SUPPORT OBAMA.


Obama's campaign is a disgrace to the MERIT BASED SOCIETY IN AMERICA.


Obama is a disgrace to the Constitution. Obama believes that strong American traditions do not apply to him.

RACE is in this election BECAUSE OBAMA KEEPS RE-INJECTING RACE INTO THE ELECTION


ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES HAVE BEEN MORE THAN HAPPY TO RUN A COLORBLIND ELECTION AND CAMPAIGNS.


OBAMA IS AT FAULT.


OBAMA IS A FRAUD TO HIS OWN CAMPAIGN THEME.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 23, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, you won the bet, as well...

Posted by: MarkInAustin | June 23, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Not only do I agree with Blarg, I do not see any point talking about BHO's skin color or McC's age at all.
These physical descriptions are so readily apparent that they are like polling for whether the Sun will rise in the east. They cannot be changed and are irrelevant to any issue of policy or character before us.

If it turns out that 40% will have voted against McC b/c he was "old" and 23% will have voted against BHO b/c he was "darker skinned" than THOSE VOTERS, that would be sociologically interesting about...THOSE VOTERS.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | June 23, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

Obama is supposed to be a post racial candidate - however he keeps on pushing RACE - that makes hims a RACE BAITER AND A FRAUD TO HIS OWN CAMPAIGN THEME.


Last Friday, run the quotes from Obama again.


We have documented many instances of RACE BAITING BY THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN

1) South Carolina primary - Tim Russert called Obama up on the race baiting in the debate

2) Twisting the words of Bill Clinton around - FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF "OFFENSIVE COMMENTS"

3) The Attacks by the Obama Campaign on Gerry Ferraro who has a fantastic record on race relations who Obama was extremely unjustified in attempting to smear her.

4) Advancing RACIST arguments to the Superdelegates - implying "there would be riots in the streets" and the black community would "leave the democratic party en masse" if the Superdelegates did not vote for Obama - essentially DEMANDING THAT THE SUPERDELEGATES BE MOTIVATED BY RACIST MOTIVATIONS. MERIT OR WHO WAS BEST SUITED WAS DISQUALIFIED AS A LEGITIMATE MOTIVATION FOR THE SUPERDELEGATES.


5) Obama's own remarks on Friday basically calling ALL AMERICANS RACISTS UNTIL THEY SUPPORT OBAMA.

Obama's campaign is a disgrace to the MERIT BASED SOCIETY IN AMERICAN.


Obama is a disgrace to the Constitution. Obama believes that strong American traditions do not apply to him.


RACE is in this election BECAUSE OBAMA KEEPS RE-INJECTING RACE INTO THE ELECTION


ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES HAVE BEEN MORE THAN HAPPY TO RUN A COLORBLIND ELECTION AND CAMPAIGNS.


OBAMA IS AT FAULT.


OBAMA IS A FRAUD TO HIS OWN CAMPAIGN THEME.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 23, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Obama has to walk a fine line on the race issue. He certainly can't run away from it when it is brought up, but he can not be seen by white America as being on some "racial crusade". Bottom line - if his campaign is viewed largely as race-based, he is toast. I think his best bet is to remind everyone that he is the candidate who can make progress in the next four years on this issue. He should emphasize "progress" because he doesn't want to get everyon's hopes up that by electing him, we will have solved the racial divide in this country.

Posted by: NM Moderate | June 23, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Both sides will play the race issue for their advantage. It will get very dirty, but that's the way it goes.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | June 23, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

I'm so tired of hearing about race in this campaign. The media is obsessed with it, as this column proves. There are many serious issues at stake in this election. Pick one and talk about that again. Give us a break from the constant race talk.

Speaking of constant race talk, how long until Words of Wisdom comes to ruin this thread? We all know it's going to happen; let's start a pool. I say an hour, and that's being generous.

Posted by: Blarg | June 23, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama did all he could to insert race in the primary and he's using race the general election. He likes saying the words black man.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 23, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Good column Chris, it's good to see the issue brought out in the open. My fear when I heard he was running was that the country was not ready. That is pretty much put to rest by the numbers he has been bringing out. I feel the negative crap we see in blogs like the WaPo are a few loud and ignorant people, not the majority.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | June 23, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company