Obama's Shocking Ignorance
Posted May 7th, 2008 by Da King
We might as well elect this guy.
But first, a joke:
"President Bush blasted Congress for not allowing oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Democrats said it wouldn’t do any good, because it wouldn’t produce oil for 10 years. You know, the same thing they said 10 years ago." - Jay Leno
That joke is funny until you really think about the ramifications of all these years of inaction on ANWR and other domestic oil and energy production that has been blocked by the Democrats. Thanks for nothing, Dems. Hope you're happy now. What's that you always say about helping the little guy ? We don't need your kind of help.
====
Barack Obama's criteria for selecting Supreme Court Justices displays a serious lack of knowledge of how our system of government works. Obama would turn the judicial branch into a legislative branch who would judge cases according to "social and economic justice", as opposed to the rule of law. The following exchange between Megyn Kelly of Fox News and Rudy Giuliani captures the essence of it:
KELLY: It's funny you should mention that, Mr. Mayor, because Barack Obama in a statement responding to John McCain's point today said and I quote, "Barack Obama has always believed that our court should stand up for social and economic justice, and what's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves."
[Giuliani starts laughing]
KELLY: Why the laughter?
GIULIANI: Well, the laughter because that is not what a judge in the American legal system is supposed to do. That is not a really responsible definition of a judge. The judge is supposed to interpret the law. And the law is written by other people. It's written by members of the Congress. It's written by framers of the Constitution. It's written by the people when they amend the Constitution.
And then a judge has to have a certain, I would say, dedication to trying to interpret what other people mean and sometimes cannot put their social views into action. This is a very fair issue. John McCain would appoint judges who are more, I would call, originalists in terms of trying to define the meaning that other people had.
I think Senator Obama has made the case very strongly that John McCain has made that, he will appoint social activist judges, judges who tend to try to solve social problems rather than trying to figure out what does the law mean?
KELLY: Yes. Remember Mr. Mayor, during the confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John Roberts, one of the Democratic senators asked him, "Will you stand up for the little guy?" And he said, "Only if the little guy deserves to win under the law."
GIULIANI: Of course. It's not about - this isn't about little guy, big guy, small guy or a large guy, it's about the law. It's about what's fair, what's just, what is the law say. A judge is the interpreter of the law in the American legal system, not someone who creates it.
KELLY: Let me ask you.
GIULIANI: If you end up — if you end up making a judge of somebody who creates the law, then you've made a judge into a legislator, and you really have totally distorted our separation of powers.
The President Of The United States must swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Obama has clearly stated here that he would not do so, and instead would seek to overturn the rule of law by appointing Justices who would judge cases based upon the social and economic status of the participants rather than the application of the law. This would undermine our entire Justice system, and subvert the power of the Legislative branch as well.
I know Obama supporters are more interested in those words 'hope' and 'change' than anything else, but this position of Barack Obama's should disqualify him from being the President. This is government 101, and Obama either doesn't understand it or intentionally wants to destroy it. Either way, it's entirely unacceptable.
YES WE CAN [say 'NO' to this fool]. This story should be ALL OVER the media airwaves, because it affects every american and our entire system of government. This is an issue that people SHOULD care about. We can't afford to let the Left hijack our system of justice in this way. On an importance scale from 1 to 10, this is a 10. We can't let Obama lead this undermining 'change'. Some change is bad, and this change would be very bad indeed.
Anyone who disagrees, please go read a textbook on America's system of government, asap. This is a public service announcement.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
B. Hussein Obama will win the Dimocrat nomination but not the election in November.
BO is not only an arrogant snob, but worse .. he's a radical lefty.
Only the guilt-ridden Kool-Aid drinkers like 'The Reverend' [a.k.a., the Akron Atheist], Negroes, and the America-haters of the Left will vote for this character.
And notice, even with Comrade Hillary's poor showing yesterday, she continues on, focusing on discrediting BO.
If Hillary had the slightest amount of decency in her, you'd say this is because she wanted to save America from a BO disaster, But alas, that's not the case. The comrade is only trying to ensure BO's defeat in the Fall so she can get the Dim nomination in 2012 and have a good shot at the presidency then.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
My fear is that Obama WILL win the election. McCain isn't a great candidate, and the Dems are starting out with a huge advantage this year, due to Iraq, the economy, and Bush fatigue. People do want change, and if Obama isn't exposed, he could win, which would be an unmitigated disaster for this country. I'll keep trying to expose him like I did here, but I don't think his supporters are even looking at his policies. They act starstruck by his superfluous rhetoric. They are oohing and aahing at the shiny lights. It's pretty sad, really, and all based on misconceptions.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Lilly M. Ledbetter was told by the Roberts' Supreme Court that she had no claim against a career of pay discrimination because she did not file the discrimination claim within 180 days of the beginning of her employment, which was when the discrimination began. Ledbetter would have probably been retaliated against and/or fired if she had begun a claim early in her employment at Goodyear.
The Republican Supreme Court has no accomodation for "social and economic justice" when given the opportunity to decide on it.
/=
Justices’ Ruling Limits Suits on Pay Disparity
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: May 30, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 29 — The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it harder for many workers to sue their employers for discrimination in pay, insisting in a 5-to-4 decision on a tight time frame to file such cases. The dissenters said the ruling ignored workplace realities.
The decision came in a case involving a supervisor at a Goodyear Tire plant in Gadsden, Ala., the only woman among 16 men at the same management level, who was paid less than any of her colleagues, including those with less seniority. She learned that fact late in a career of nearly 20 years — too late, according to the Supreme Court’s majority.
The court held on Tuesday that employees may not bring suit under the principal federal anti-discrimination law unless they have filed a formal complaint with a federal agency within 180 days after their pay was set. The timeline applies, according to the decision, even if the effects of the initial discriminatory act were not immediately apparent to the worker and even if they continue to the present day.
From 2001 to 2006, workers brought nearly 40,000 pay discrimination cases. Many such cases are likely to be barred by the court’s interpretation of the requirement in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that employees make their charge within 180 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.”
Workplace experts said the ruling would have broad ramifications and would narrow the legal options of many employees.
In an opinion by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the majority rejected the view of the federal agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that each paycheck that reflects the initial discrimination is itself a discriminatory act that resets the clock on the 180-day period, under a rule known as “paycheck accrual.”
“Current effects alone cannot breathe life into prior, uncharged discrimination,” Justice Alito said in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas once headed the employment commission, the chief enforcer of workers’ rights under the statute at issue in this case, usually referred to simply as Title VII.
Under its longstanding interpretation of the statute, the commission actively supported the plaintiff, Lilly M. Ledbetter, in the lower courts. But after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last June, the Bush administration disavowed the agency’s position and filed a brief on the side of the employer.
In a vigorous dissenting opinion that she read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the majority opinion “overlooks common characteristics of pay discrimination.” She said that given the secrecy in most workplaces about salaries, many employees would have no idea within 180 days that they had received a lower raise than others.
An initial disparity, even if known to the employee, might be small, Justice Ginsburg said, leading an employee, particularly a woman or a member of a minority group “trying to succeed in a nontraditional environment” to avoid “making waves.” Justice Ginsburg noted that even a small differential “will expand exponentially over an employee’s working life if raises are set as a percentage of prior pay.”
Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer joined the dissent.
Ms. Ledbetter’s salary was initially the same as that of her male colleagues. But over time, as she received smaller raises, a substantial disparity grew. By the time she brought suit in 1998, her salary fell short by as much as 40 percent; she was making $3,727 a month, while the lowest-paid man was making $4,286.
A jury in Federal District Court in Birmingham, Ala., awarded her more than $3 million in back pay and compensatory and punitive damages, which the trial judge reduced to $360,000. But the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, erased the verdict entirely, ruling that because Ms. Ledbetter could not show that she was the victim of intentional discrimination during the 180 days before she filed her complaint, she had not suffered an “unlawful employment practice” to which Title VII applied.
Several other federal appeals courts had accepted the employment commission’s more relaxed view of the 180-day requirement. The justices accepted Ms. Ledbetter’s appeal, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, No. 05-1074, to resolve the conflict.
Title VII’s prohibition of workplace discrimination applies not just to pay but also to specific actions like refusal to hire or promote, denial of a desired transfer and dismissal. Justice Ginsburg argued in her dissenting opinion that while these “singular discrete acts” are readily apparent to an employee who can then make a timely complaint, pay discrimination often presents a more ambiguous picture. She said the court should treat a pay claim as it treated a claim for a “hostile work environment” in a 2002 decision, permitting a charge to be filed “based on the cumulative effect of individual acts.”
In response, Justice Alito dismissed this as a “policy argument” with “no support in the statute.”
As with an abortion ruling last month, this decision showed the impact of Justice Alito’s presence on the court. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, whom he succeeded, would almost certainly have voted the other way, bringing the opposite outcome.
The impact of the decision on women may be somewhat limited by the availability of another federal law against sex discrimination in the workplace, the Equal Pay Act, which does not contain the 180-day requirement. Ms. Ledbetter initially included an Equal Pay Act complaint, but did not pursue it. That law has additional procedural hurdles and a low damage cap that excludes punitive damages. It does not cover discrimination on the basis of race or Title VII’s other protected categories.
In her opinion, Justice Ginsburg invited Congress to overturn the decision, as it did 15 years ago with a series of Supreme Court rulings on civil rights. “Once again, the ball is in Congress’s court,” she said. Within hours, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who is seeking the Democratic nomination, announced her intention to submit such a bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/washington/30scotus.html
May 7th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Propaganda from the NY Slimes; can't you do any better than that, Tom?
And speaking of the NY Slimes, the good news is that they are being forced to layoff about anbother 100 newsroom employees because of falling revenue & circulation.
Soon Murdoch will buy the Slimes and put the rag out of its misery.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
As much as wel all love blogs, The majority of voters don't even know what blogs are. Please everyone, Write and Write Often, Letters to the Editor of every Newspaper & Publication, Call into Talk Shows. Over & Over repeating Facts that Expose the Very Dangerous to our National Security & Well Being, Power Monger Obama Bin Liar !!! This man is a Puppet to Very Corrupt and Anti-American interests. Please everyone, This election must be about Survival, Not race, gender, age, conservative, or liberal as Oprah and the Media would have it. We must not let the Media dictate the result of this very important election. Please Write Now And Often !!!
May 7th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
" I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction "
Beware the Inexperienced Corrupt Anti-American Power Monger Obama Bin Liar !!!
Be Afraid… Very Afraid !!!
May 8th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Mr. Ghost,
Once again you are confusing your opinion with fact. Did it happen or not?
May 8th, 2008 at 5:23 am
Tom,
The example you provided proves that the Supreme Court followed existing Civil Rights Law in the cited case, as they SHOULD. Thanks for proving my point. If there is anything to be changed in your example, it is the law, which should be changed by the Legislative branch of government. The law should NOT be ignored by the Court. If the Court starts doing that, we might as well not have laws, and every case can be decided upon the Courts whim. If there is blame to be assigned in that case, it is with the people who wrote the law, not the Supreme Court who MUST apply it.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:29 am
Ok, now let's see your defense of the Rehnquist court's Bush vs. Gore. You know, the one that they decreed could never be cited as precedent.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:35 am
The President must swear to uphold the laws of the Constitution? Bush? You're kidding right? He's all about executive power!
May 8th, 2008 at 7:33 am
We all need to read " Leave Us Alone " by Grover G. Norquist
May 8th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Friend,
What the 'leave us alone' coalition does not understand is that if the government left its members alone — especially in regard to taxes — those on the government dole would has a drastic drop in their standard of living.
And the worse of the bunch here are not the welfare recipients. It's many of those who 'work' in government, who not only consume resources by their presence on the government payroll but who also, by their bureaucratic actions, retard the creation of wealth in this country.
Government is necessary for society to function, but too big of a government as we have now is like a cancer.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:14 am
The way Tom is lining them up is too scattered, King. Maybe you should just go ahead and defend all the Supreme Court cases in chronological order, say since Reagan won office.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:37 am
King, the real problem here is that Tom really seems to believe that the kind of judge that Obama says he will appoint is the very kind that fills the bill best. Actually the Constitution says that the judges of the Supreme Court have only appellate jurisdiction in most cases other than those that involved foreign government representatives in the US. The Court ruled in this case just as the Constitution says they should whether this woman was given any consideration or not. The document says that the Court rules as a appellate court from the rulings of lower courts and that is just what they did in this case.
It is very obvious how Ruth Bader Ginsburg determines her job in that she failed to apply existing law to Constitutional law and just tried to be the referee in this case. The Court is only allowed to determine the constitutionality of the laws in a case like this one.
Obama obviously wants to appoint judges who don't mind legislating from the bench because they don't interpret the Constititution the same way the Founders must have done. It is this interpreting that is needed not making of new law. I wonder how simply you need to explain the Constitution to some people so they can understand what it is about.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
No, Roberts and Alito are gamers. That's what they are. They game the legalese of the law, breaking it's spirit, by ruling on a technicality for the powerful and against the weak and vulnerable. Alito has made a career out of it. Roberts is simply a far rightist with an agenda….see Indiana voter ID.
Anyway….King, I hope you feel better after that rant post….however, nothing you ranted will stand up to scrutiny. Obama is correct. The Constitution gives the power to the people, not the powerful. Any Supremes nominee should embody the spirit of the Constitution.
Obama will pick good judges.
This…."this position of Barack Obama's should disqualify him from being the President."……is kind of silly coming from a person who has supported the lawless regime of the Decider.
Conservatives expect liberals, after living through the last 8 years, to believe that Republicans are the bulwarks of law and the Constitution…….I mean come on…..you can't possibly be serious.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Still no answer…
Where has Obama been using his Kenya and/or Indonesia Passport that he made the choice to Not Be An American or worse yet Could Not Be An American ?
If anyone knows, Please respond…
May 10th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Tom, the Bush v Gore case wasn't close. It was 7-2.
May 10th, 2008 at 8:21 am
tbomb,
Bush's extra-constitutional activities (examples please) doesn't mean that the constitution no longer applies, and it certainly isn't a defense of Obama's unconstitutional criteria for selecting Supreme Court justices.
May 10th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Roy,
Apparently we aren't explaining the job of the Supremes simply enough, because our pal the Reverend is still calling for Supreme Court justices who will throw the Constitution out the window and implement "social justice". The Rev reminds me of George Orwell's character Napoleon the pig in his book Animal Farm, who thinks "some animals are more equal than others".
Maybe if we only used words with less than five letters…..
May 10th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Question,
I'm not really following you. Obama has Kenyan and Indonesian passports, but he formerly lived in both countries. What is unusual ?
May 10th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Maybe we shouldn't even have Supreme Court judges if Obama's picking them based on his moral compass. He can just go ahead and rule on cases that make it that far because no one knows his moral compass better than Obama himself.
Then when Jeb Bush wins the White House in four or eight years, he'll be free to use his moral compass and I'm sure people like the Reverend will think it's just swell when Roe v. Wade is overturned.
May 10th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
King,
My concern is that Obama has friends and associates in countries considered as threats to the USA. It is possible with multiple passports to travel to places where US citizens are forbidden to travel to. My concern and opinion is that Obama represents a Huge Risk to our National Security and Well Being.
May 11th, 2008 at 2:18 am
wow, i was checking back on my old hometown's newspaper and 1) based on the general ignorance and lack of intelligence of the post and majority of the following comments I am glad I no longer live there, and 2) there clearly is a lot of hidden racism which is being exposed as a result of fear. Whoever this "Da King" character is should have the courage to make his identity known and not hide beneath the shadows of some silly blogger profile. The constitution, despite its flaws, was intended to uphold and protect the rights (social and economic) of the people, so suggesting that someone who stands behind that is somehow 'radical' or 'crazy' or 'leftist' is absurd. I hope this post merely represents a narrow minority of akronites.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:07 am
No matter what anyone says about Obama it is considered by the Media as being Racist. It is Obama who is Racist. He is Inexperienced and Not Fit To Serve, He isn't fit to be in the position of Senator either. Wake Up America.
May 11th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Why did you run away from Akron, Mike? I sense a lot of hostility that undoubtedly springs from some hidden fear. Possibly sexual in nature.
May 11th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Mike, I am going to say that you have never read Article III of the Constitution of the United States. I say this because you say that the Constitution was intended to uphold the rights of the people concerning things social and economic. Nowhere in the original Constitution do you find any of this nor do you find the Supreme Court ordered to do this. The Court is to apply laws to the Constitution and determine right or wrong. Some of the Bill Rights is aimed at protecting individuals but not even all 10 of them have anything to do with private individuals. 9 and 10 concern the powers of the states to govern within their borders.
Maybe you need to read the Constitution a couple of times. I keep my copy right beside my computer in the textbook that I taught American Government from for 28 years, and I haven't found da King wrong concerning that document in over 4 years of reading him somewhere. I think you could learn a lot by reading and paying attention to him, as he knows that document very well.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
King,
Have you heard about Obama talking to that group in Oregon and telling that he has been in 57 states and has one to go. Then he mentioned that his staff wouldn't allow him to go to Alaska or Hawaii. Now I saw this twice on CNN Friday afternoon and it has been forgotten. I have seen a picture of his new lapel pen with the 57 states on it but nothing at all from the MSM since that. Here is the whole thing just as CNN carried it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
The shocking thing about this is that he didn't correct himself and nobody seemingly wanted to help him out. Not one word from the CNN people about it but they sure stopped running the sound bite. Ignorance shows up in him in more ways nearly daily. I have seen suggestions that he has already talked to Iran, Egypt, Venezuela, and North Korea about joining up with us to make the 57. That number is 60 if you listen to the words he told those poor Oregon people.
May 11th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Maybe one of the muslim countries has 57 states and he got mixed up.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Those uppity Negroes….what nerve they have to be voting and such….stupid Voting Rights Act.
LOL
Obama will CRUSH McSame in November.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:07 am
Mike,
What you are missing is that the Constitution is meant to uphold the rights of ALL the citizens. It is not supposed to favor one group over another to implement "social justice" as Obama contends. The Supreme Court is supposed to uphold the law, not make it. That's what the legislative branch is for.
I can't speak for anyone else who posts here, this blog is open to all and I don't censor anything other than profanity, but if you are contending there is some hidden racist agenda behind my words, then YOU are the one with the problem.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:07 am
"Obama will CRUSH McSame in November"
Sure.
B. Hussein Obama "will CRUSH McSame in November" — at least in the Muslim enclaves and amongst the Negroes — but not in the real America.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:15 am
Roy and Larry,
I think Obama just had a long day on the campaign trail and got the number of states mixed up with the 57 varieties in Heinz ketchup. I'm surprised John Kerry never made the same mistake. I seem to recall Kerry talking about the 57 Supreme Court justices once, though….all the more to implement 57 varieties of "social justice". I guess that makes me a racist. Darn. Someday, maybe I'll get it. I love Big Brother.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:21 am
Ah, how I love the "if you aren't for Obama, you must be a racist" claptrap. That's using the old gray cells, Chris.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:46 am
larry: Jeb Bush? Thats a good one. Made me laugh.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:26 am
King, I hear all that crap about me being a racist because I don't want Obama every day. A small group of Obama worshippers really seem to believe that to not back him, if you are white, is pure racism and that only that kind of racist wouldn't support him. I do believe that this November they will find out just how many of us there are, in that group of "racists".
May 12th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Don't worry, Roy.
Wait until you see what happens to B. Hussein Obama in the West Virginia primary.
Those people in the Mountaineer state don't let a little name calling compel them into selling out the country by voting for BO.
The W. Va. primary will be a taste as to what awaits this radical leftist come the Fall — if the Dims are stupid enough to nominate him.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
" I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction "
There are 57 Muslim countries !!!
Beware Obama Bin Liar !!!
Be Afraid !!!
Be Very Afraid !!!
May 12th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Now how could anyone get the idea that racism is a big factor in this election.
BTW…you ignorant assholes…."Negroes" is no longer an acceptable term for people of color…
Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause
By Kevin Merida
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 13, 2008; A01
Danielle Ross was alone in an empty room at the Obama campaign headquarters in Kokomo, Ind., a cellphone in one hand, a voter call list in the other. She was stretched out on the carpeted floor wearing laceless sky-blue Converses, stories from the trail on her mind. It was the day before Indiana's primary, and she had just been chased by dogs while canvassing in a Kokomo suburb. But that was not the worst thing to occur since she postponed her sophomore year at Middle Tennessee State University, in part to hopscotch America stumping for Barack Obama.
Here's the worst: In Muncie, a factory town in the east-central part of Indiana, Ross and her cohorts were soliciting support for Obama at malls, on street corners and in a Wal-Mart parking lot, and they ran into "a horrible response," as Ross put it, a level of anti-black sentiment that none of them had anticipated.
"The first person I encountered was like, 'I'll never vote for a black person,' " recalled Ross, who is white and just turned 20. "People just weren't receptive."
For all the hope and excitement Obama's candidacy is generating, some of his field workers, phone-bank volunteers and campaign surrogates are encountering a raw racism and hostility that have gone largely unnoticed — and unreported — this election season. Doors have been slammed in their faces. They've been called racially derogatory names (including the white volunteers). And they've endured malicious rants and ugly stereotyping from people who can't fathom that the senator from Illinois could become the first African American president.
The contrast between the large, adoring crowds Obama draws at public events and the gritty street-level work to win votes is stark. The candidate is largely insulated from the mean-spiritedness that some of his foot soldiers deal with away from the media spotlight.
Victoria Switzer, a retired social studies teacher, was on phone-bank duty one night during the Pennsylvania primary campaign. One night was all she could take: "It wasn't pretty." She made 60 calls to prospective voters in Susquehanna County, her home county, which is 98 percent white. The responses were dispiriting. One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn't possibly vote for Obama and concluded: "Hang that darky from a tree!"
Documentary filmmaker Rory Kennedy, the daughter of the late Robert F. Kennedy, said she, too, came across "a lot of racism" when campaigning for Obama in Pennsylvania. One Pittsburgh union organizer told her he would not vote for Obama because he is black, and a white voter, she said, offered this frank reason for not backing Obama: "White people look out for white people, and black people look out for black people."
Obama campaign officials say such incidents are isolated, that the experience of most volunteers and staffers has been overwhelmingly positive.
The campaign released this statement in response to questions about encounters with racism: "After campaigning for 15 months in nearly all 50 states, Barack Obama and our entire campaign have been nothing but impressed and encouraged by the core decency, kindness, and generosity of Americans from all walks of life. The last year has only reinforced Senator Obama's view that this country is not as divided as our politics suggest."
Campaign field work can be an exercise in confronting the fears, anxieties and prejudices of voters. Veterans of the civil rights movement know what this feels like, as do those who have been involved in battles over busing, immigration or abortion. But through the Obama campaign, some young people are having their first experience joining a cause and meeting cruel reaction.
On Election Day in Kokomo, a group of black high school students were holding up Obama signs along U.S. 31, a major thoroughfare. As drivers cruised by, a number of them rolled down their windows and yelled out a common racial slur for African Americans, according to Obama campaign staffers.
Frederick Murrell, a black Kokomo High School senior, was not there but heard what happened. He was more disappointed than surprised. During his own canvassing for Obama, Murrell said, he had "a lot of doors slammed" in his face. But taunting teenagers on a busy commercial strip in broad daylight? "I was very shocked at first," Murrell said. "Then again, I wasn't, because we have a lot of racism here."
The bigotry has gone beyond words. In Vincennes, the Obama campaign office was vandalized at 2 a.m. on the eve of the primary, according to police. A large plate-glass window was smashed, an American flag stolen. Other windows were spray-painted with references to Obama's controversial former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and other political messages: "Hamas votes BHO" and "We don't cling to guns or religion. Goddamn Wright."
Ray McCormick was notified of the incident at about 2:45 a.m. A farmer and conservationist, McCormick had erected a giant billboard on a major highway on behalf of Farmers for Obama. He also was housing the Obama campaign worker manning the office. When McCormick arrived at the office, about two hours before he was due out of bed to plant corn, he grabbed his camera and wanted to alert the media. "I thought, this is a big deal." But he was told Obama campaign officials didn't want to make a big deal of the incident. McCormick took photos anyway and distributed some.
"The pictures represent what we are breaking through and overcoming," he said. As McCormick, who is white, sees it, Obama is succeeding despite these incidents. Later, there would be bomb threats to three Obama campaign offices in Indiana, including the one in Vincennes, according to campaign sources.
Obama has not spoken much about racism during this campaign. He has sought to emphasize connections among Americans rather than divisions. He shrugged off safety concerns that led to early Secret Service protection and has told black senior citizens who worry that racists will do him harm: Don't fret. Earlier in the campaign, a 68-year-old woman in Carson City, Nev., voiced concern that the country was not ready to elect an African American president.
"Will there be some folks who probably won't vote for me because I am black? Of course," Obama said, "just like there may be somebody who won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman or wouldn't vote for John Edwards because they don't like his accent. But the question is, 'Can we get a majority of the American people to give us a fair hearing?' "
Obama has won 30 of 50 Democratic contests so far, the kind of nationwide electoral triumph no black candidate has ever realized. That he is on the brink of capturing the Democratic nomination, some say, is a testament to how far the country has progressed in overcoming racism and evidence of Obama's skill at bridging divides.
Obama has won five of 12 primaries in which black voters made up less than 10 percent of the electorate, and caucuses in states such as Idaho and Wyoming that are overwhelmingly white. But exit polls show he has struggled to attract white voters who didn't attend college and earn less than $50,000 a year. Today, he and Hillary Clinton square off in West Virginia, a state where she is favored and where the votes of working-class whites will again be closely watched.
For the most part, Obama campaign workers say, the 2008 election cycle has been exhilarating. On the ground, the Obama campaign is being driven by youngsters, many of whom are imbued with an optimism undeterred by racial intolerance. "We've grown up in a different world," says Danielle Ross. Field offices are staffed by 20-somethings who hold positions — state director, regional field director, field organizer — that are typically off limits to newcomers to presidential politics.
Gillian Bergeron, 23, was in charge of a five-county regional operation in northeastern Pennsylvania. The oldest member of her team was 27. At Scranton's annual Saint Patrick's Day parade, some of the green Obama signs distributed by staffers were burned along the parade route. That was the first signal that this wasn't exactly Obama country. There would be others.
In a letter to the editor published in a local paper, Tunkhannock Borough Mayor Norm Ball explained his support of Hillary Clinton this way: "Barack Hussein Obama and all of his talk will do nothing for our country. There is so much that people don't know about his upbringing in the Muslim world. His stepfather was a radical Muslim and the ranting of his minister against the white America, you can't convince me that some of that didn't rub off on him.
"No, I want a president that will salute our flag, and put their hand on the Bible when they take the oath of office."
Obama's campaign workers have grown wearily accustomed to the lies about the candidate's supposed radical Muslim ties and lack of patriotism. But they are sometimes astonished when public officials such as Ball or others representing the campaign of their opponent traffic in these falsehoods.
Karen Seifert, a volunteer from New York, was outside of the largest polling location in Lackawanna County, Pa., on primary day when she was pressed by a Clinton volunteer to explain her backing of Obama. "I trust him," Seifert replied. According to Seifert, the woman pointed to Obama's face on Seifert's T-shirt and said: "He's a half-breed and he's a Muslim. How can you trust that?"
* * *
Pollsters have found it difficult to accurately measure racial attitudes, as some voters are unwilling to acknowledge the role that race plays in their thinking. But some are not. Susan Dzimian, a Clinton supporter who owns residential properties, said outside a polling location in Kokomo that race was a factor in how she viewed Obama. "I think if it was somebody other than him, I'd accept it," she said of a black candidate. "If Colin Powell had run, I would be willing to accept him."
The previous evening, Dondra Ewing was driving the neighborhoods of Kokomo, looking to turn around voters like Dzimian. Ewing, 47, is a chain-smoking middle school guidance counselor, a black single mother of two and one of the most fiercely vigilant Obama volunteers in Kokomo, which was once a Ku Klux Klan stronghold. On July 4, 1923, Kokomo hosted the largest Klan gathering in history — an estimated 200,000 followers flocked to a local park. But these are not the 1920s, and Ewing believes she can persuade anybody to back Obama. Her mother, after all, was the first African American elected at-large to the school board in a community that is 10 percent black.
Kokomo, population 46,000, is another hard-hit Midwestern industrial town stung by layoffs. Longtimers wistfully remember the glory years of Continental Steel and speak mournfully about the jobs shipped overseas. Kokomo Sanitary Pottery, which made bathroom sinks and toilets, shut down a couple of months ago and took with it 150 jobs.
Aaron Roe, 23, was mowing lawns at a local cemetery recently, lamenting his $8-an-hour job with no benefits. He had earned a community college degree as an industrial electrician, but learned there was no electrical work to be found for someone with his experience, which is to say none. Politics wasn't on his mind; frustration was. If he were to vote, it would not be for Obama, he said. "I just got a funny feeling about him," Roe said, a feeling he couldn't specify, except to say race wasn't a part of it. "Race ain't nothing," said Roe, who is white. "It's how they're going to help the country."
The Aaron Roes are exactly who Dondra Ewing was after: people with funny feelings.
At the Bradford Run Apartments, she found Robert Cox, a retiree who spent 30 years working for an electronics manufacturer making computer chips. He was in his suspenders, grilling shish kebab, which he had never eaten. "Something new," Cox said, recommended by his son who was visiting from Colorado.
Ewing was selling him hard on Obama. "There are more than two families that can run the United States of America," she said, "and their names aren't Bush and Clinton."
"Yeah, I know, I know," Cox said, remaining noncommittal.
He opened the grill and peeked at the kebabs. "It's not his race, because I got real good friends and all that," Cox continued. "If anything would keep him from getting elected, it would be his name. It might turn off some older people."
Like him?
"No, older than me," said Cox, 66.
Ewing kept talking, until finally Cox said, "Probably Obama," when asked directly how he would vote.
As she walked away, Ewing said: "I think we got him."
But truthfully, she wasn't feeling so sure.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Now how could anyone get the idea that racism is a big part of this election??
"at least in the Muslim enclaves and amongst the Negroes — but not in the real America."
PS…."negroes" is no longer an acceptable term for people of color you ignorant morons….
May 13th, 2008 at 4:36 am
Chris,
Please don't use profanity here, or I will have to delete you, and I don't want to do that. Thank you.
Saying that race is NO factor in the race is quite different from saying it is a BIG factor. Of course there are a few people who won't vote for Obama because he is black. Nobody is naive enough to think racism has disappeared completely in America, but it has diminished. There are also people who won't vote for Hillary because she is a woman (according to polls, there are more who won't vote for a woman than for a black man). Black people are voting for Obama in record numbers BECAUSE he is black. That's the way some people are.
But I think you are missing a critical piece of the picture here. If Obama's race was a BIG factor in this presidential campaign, HE WOULDN"T BE THE FRONTRUNNER. He wouldn't even be close. Hillary would have won long ago. The article you posted even said the racial incidents were isolated. In addition, I think race was barely a factor AT ALL until the racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright's incendiary comments came onto the public scene and cast a pall over the entire Obama campaign (as proof, witness Obama's victory in lily-white Iowa prior to the Wright controversy). Wright raised valid questions about Obama's worldview, whether the Dems want to admit it or not. I think Obama has basically survived the Rev. Wright problem (with damage), but that's where race became a larger issue, requiring Obama to make his "race speech" and ultimately to disavow Wright.
And most of all, MY criticism of Obama had to do with his stupid and unconstitutional criteria for selecting Supreme Court judges. That is a legitimate issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with race, yet everytime I criticize Barack Obama for his political beliefs, some fool shows up and calls me a racist, as if freedom of speech has been repealed because we can't risk offending the black candidate. That is crapola, it's own kind of prejudice, and is every bit as intellectually bereft as someone who won't vote for a black man in the first place simply because of the color of his skin. I'm not falling victim to it, and I hope nobody else does either. Rather than debate the issues, some Obama supporters immediately play the race card instead. Sorry, no sale.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:19 am
This part of the Washington Post article just looks like Republican Party activists at work. Who but the GOP microencephaloids obsess on Wright and Hamas?:
[quote]The bigotry has gone beyond words. In Vincennes, the Obama campaign office was vandalized at 2 a.m. on the eve of the primary, according to police. A large plate-glass window was smashed, an American flag stolen. Other windows were spray-painted with references to Obama's controversial former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and other political messages: "Hamas votes BHO" and "We don't cling to guns or religion. Goddamn Wright." [/quote]
I used to live in Indiana. They burned a cross on the front lawn of the black fraternity where I was going to college. Indiana's GOP was totally entwined with the KKK in the early twentieth century.
We should all be glad the rest of America is not like that. Polling of attitudes of contemporary youth show that young people don't have racist attitudes. That bodes well for politics in America if racism cannot be manipulated. The nastiest of Americans are dying off right now and out of the electorate.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:00 am
This….
"Wright raised valid questions about Obama's worldview, whether the Dems want to admit it or not."
..is only your opinion. You must assume that Obama's views are similar to Wright's to state what you did. It's still, and only, a guilt or smear by association attempt. To use a candidates pastor as a sledgehammer is not only diversionary and unfair, but it's one-sided as well. You accept without question McCain's being honored by Rev. Hagee's endorsement. Double standard at work.
And in addition, with the exception of the HIV exaggeration, what Wright said was mostly all based on truth.
It isn't conservative truth, mind you….but truth nevertheless.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:09 am
***Obama campaign officials say such incidents are isolated, that the experience of most volunteers and staffers has been overwhelmingly positive.***
The Post article said this but this statement was surrounded by examples of racism in Indiana that made it sound much more like the people of that state are very racist. I think that this article had a purpose and that it was based on what I consider racism since racism works both ways and Reverend Wright exhibited just this in his racist comments about white people.
Racism is just a whole lot more than white beating on black in any manner. Blacks beating on and killing largely blacks is an example of racism and has to end before the whole thing ends. I am sure that the Obama people have run onto blacks who won't vote for him because of his race, as there are people like that.
Rev Red, do you know the other states that Obama has campaigned in up to his Oregon speech? I haven't heard much about the primary elections in them yet. Is he saving them as a late October surprise?
May 13th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Potty mouth Chris writes, "Negroes" is no longer an acceptable term for people of color…"
Says who — you? lol Sorry, but your political correctness doesn't fly anymore. Negro is a fully acceptable term whether you like it or not.
+++
King correctly observes that, "Black people are voting for Obama in record numbers BECAUSE he is black."
Indeed they are — about 90% of the Negroes in recent primaries did just that. But of course, the Negro can't can't be racist — or at least that's what the liberals tell us. Right?
+++
Tom notes that" Indiana's GOP was totally entwined with the KKK in the early twentieth century."
If so, that would be a real oddity as the KKK is essentially a Dimocrat phenomena. It was started by Dim, run by Dim — like Sen. Robert (KKK) Byrd Dim of WVa. This old fool Byrd is the is the senior Dim statesman in the U.S. Senate. Nice.
What say you on that, Tom?
May 14th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Here we go, back to Fantasyland.
Tom makes a completely unfounded accusation against the GOP for trashing an Obama campaign office, and then associates the KKK with the GOP, when EVERYONE knows the KKK was a southern DEMOCRAT phenomenon, as Vince correctly pointed out.
Reverend Falsehood again mentions the non-existent relationship between John McCain and John Hagee (for about the 50th time), as if that is somehow a parallel to the 20-year close relationship between Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright, which it isn't. Rev, you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the backside.
And just for the record, Rev, I said the relationship between Obama and Wright RAISES QUESTIONS about Obama's worldview, I didn't say it made Obama guilty of anything. Try to keep up.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
His relationship to Wright doesn't raise any questions for me. It does for you. It's still, and only, guilt by association, just as I said.
Wright had an audience of 8000, mostly black, Chicago area voters. Hagee reaches millions of, mostly white, voters.
All the racist Democrats of the Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, George Wallace days fled the Democratic party in the last half of the 20th century. Now racists find solace in the GOP. The GOP's policies reflect the intolerance and white supremacy mentality that racists love and cherish so deeply. If the GOP wasn't purely a white political party, then there would be a black GOP representative in Congress.
Is it that no conservative has an answer to the no-blacks-representing-the-GOP question?
Now don't misunderstand. I didn't say the GOP was racist. I said that racists vote with the GOP. That doesn't mean, either, that I'm saying all GOP voters are racist. They're not.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
The core of racism in America today is found in the Dimocrat Party.
The Dims are the party of identity politics, the party of affirmative action & racial quotas, the party of black racists like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Rev. Wright, Rev. Moss, etc.
Oh my. Did I forget and commit a faux pas here by forgetting that Negroes can't possibly be racists, at least according to the liberals.
And believe it or not, King, the liberals actually believe this, and here's why.
It is because the white liberals are the most racists people you'll find. They don't believe the Negro is mature enough to be able to be a racist. In the liberal mind, the Negro is not responsible for his actions … so they condescendingly treat him as if he was a man-child — just like they did in the old days only today they are a bit subtler about it.
One of the proofs of this is the way the white liberals feel they have to speak over for the blacks rather than let the blacks speak for themselves. You see, the libs have this sickening parental attitude towards minorities. They try to project the image that the Negro could not survive in america without them. Ha!
Indeed, the white liberal is the ultimate racist. In fact, no group has done more damage to the blacks than has the liberal with their insane government policies like the Great Society and the so-called War on Poverty which destroyed the black family structure. [Who knows, maybe that that the real intent of the Great Society in the first place ... you know, destroy the black family and make the Negroes dependent on government. Well, if that wasn't the intent, it sure was the result.]
So take a bow all you libs — and that means you, Akron Atheist, Tom, Chris, etc. — you’ve done more to retard the progress of the blacks in this country than the KKK could ever dream of doing.
Now tell us the pipe dream of how the mess you made of things was the unintended consequences of your good intentions gone bad. Sure.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:47 am
"Negro is a fully acceptable term whether you like it or not."
Sure…if you want to remove all doubt of your ignorance.
LOL
I'd love to see you break that slur out around some black folks.
LOL
May 15th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Liberals advocacy for civil rights and a hand up for those who have been downtrodden by white supremacy has worked successfully…..just as FDR's New Deal worked to uplift a country beaten down by rich white supremacists.
The first hasn't made blacks beholding or dependent on government any more than FDR's New Deal made us a socialist nation.
Ghost, I'll defend your right to say what you say any time. I will. But silly stuff like this…"The core of racism in America today is found in the Dimocrat Party."….and this…."(blacks) can't possibly be racists, at least according to the liberals."….and this…." Indeed, the white liberal is the ultimate racist. In fact, no group has done more damage to the blacks than has the liberal with their insane government policies.."…..make you sound like a person out of touch with reality. I understand that these may be your perceptions….but your perceptions are not shared by even many conservatives.
Are blacks better off now, or worse off, than they were in the 1950's? Hasn't the black middle class expanded in the last 20 years? Isn't that a good thing? Hasn't welfare been reformed to include work, so that those whites with perceptions like you, can no longer blame America's ills on those "lazy welfare queens"? Hasn't affirmative action uplifted many qualified black candidates into job openings and educational slots?
May 15th, 2008 at 9:40 am
1. Affirmative action & racial quotas are inherently immoral — and they're unconstitutional, too. Fortuantely they are being killed via ballot initiatives in the states. Too bad a ban on affirmative action is not on the Ohio ballot this November. Care to speculate how much that ban would win by, Rev.
2. The Negro family is in disarry due to liberal welfare programs. It is in worse shape than pre-Great society programs.
3. And don't honor yourself, Rev. I don't need you or your ilk to defend my right to speak. I have that right with or without you. Fact.
4. Welfare was reformed to include work mainly NOT so America would stop criticizing all those 'weflare queens' and other bums who leached off the systyem. It was reformed because it was the proper & sane thing to do. It was destroying the underpriviliged — you know, the ones you Dims pretend to care about. [Now that I think about it, I bet you fought against those long over due welfare reforms, right?]
++++
And poor deluded Chris. He's still trying to enforce his political correctness by banning words he 'thinks' are offensive to protected groups like the Negro. Ah, that's the libs. Always imagining that others actaully need them.
And because I use a proper term that is over his head, Chris thinks I need to fear Negroes. That'll be the day.
But the fact is the libs and Dims who need to fear minorities. For when the Negroes wise up to how libs & Dims have been destroying their children in Dimocrat-run failed urban public schools, through government dependency, support of abortion mills, etc, they just might start hunting you libs down. I can just see it now; little Chris and the Akron Atheist running through the streets of Akron looking for shelter and screaming, "But we meant well."
So let's see, "Negro" is not allowed to be used anymore. I guess I missed that notification from Al Sharpton. But wait — I heard Obama's black racist spiritual advisor — you know, the Rev. Wright — use the term 'Negro" in one of his rants. [He even used the dreaded 'n-word'. Yes he did. Ugh-oh. What say you on that, Chris?].
And why can the liberal LA Times call Obama, "Barack the Magic Negro" and not be hauled before the court of political correctness?
What's going on with this double standard you're trying to apply to me, Christopher? Explain.
Nor can we mention 'Hussein' is Obama's middle name as it might offend him, right?
Nor can we acknowledge that B. Hussein Obama has the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate in the past few years.
And it's getting to the point that any criticism of BO is considered racist — at least according to you leftwing thought police types.
Sorry Chris, your political correctness is so yesterday. Grow up, kid.