Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #41

    Jan 21, 2009, 01:58 PM
    So ex, are you expecting the same standard toward Obama as you expected for Bush? Something similar to what Juan Williams expects?

    If his presidency is to represent the full power of the idea that black Americans are just like everyone else -- fully human and fully capable of intellect, courage and patriotism -- then Barack Obama has to be subject to the same rough and tumble of political criticism experienced by his predecessors. To treat the first black president as if he is a fragile flower is certain to hobble him. It is also to waste a tremendous opportunity for improving race relations by doing away with stereotypes and seeing the potential in all Americans.

    Yet there is fear, especially among black people, that criticism of him or any of his failures might be twisted into evidence that people of color cannot effectively lead. That amounts to wasting time and energy reacting to hateful stereotypes. It also leads to treating all criticism of Mr. Obama, whether legitimate, wrong-headed or even mean-spirited, as racist.

    This is patronizing. Worse, it carries an implicit presumption of inferiority. Every American president must be held to the highest standard. No president of any color should be given a free pass for screw-ups, lies or failure to keep a promise.

    During the Democrats' primaries and caucuses, candidate Obama often got affectionate if not fawning treatment from the American media. Editors, news anchors, columnists and commentators, both white and black but especially those on the political left, too often acted as if they were in a hurry to claim their role in history as supporters of the first black president.

    For example, Mr. Obama was forced to give a speech on race as a result of revelations that he'd long attended a church led by a demagogue. It was an ordinary speech. At best it was successful at minimizing a political problem. Yet some in the media equated it to the Gettysburg Address.

    The importance of a proud, adversarial press speaking truth about a powerful politician and offering impartial accounts of his actions was frequently and embarrassingly lost. When Mr. Obama's opponents, such as the Clintons, challenged his lack of experience, or pointed out that he was not in the U.S. Senate when he expressed early opposition to the war in Iraq, they were depicted as petty.

    Bill Clinton got hit hard when he called Mr. Obama's claims to be a long-standing opponent of the Iraq war "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." The former president accurately said that there was no difference in actual Senate votes on the war between his wife and Mr. Obama. But his comments were not treated by the press as legitimate, hard-ball political fighting. They were cast as possibly racist.

    This led to Saturday Night Live's mocking skit -- where the debate moderator was busy hammering the other Democratic nominees with tough questions while inquiring if Mr. Obama was comfortable and needed more water.

    When fellow Democrats contending for the nomination rightly pointed to Mr. Obama's thin proposals for dealing with terrorism and extricating the U.S. from Iraq, they were drowned out by loud if often vacuous shouts for change. Yet in the general election campaign and during the transition period, Mr. Obama steadily moved to his former opponents' positions. In fact, he approached Bush-Cheney stands on immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperate in warrantless surveillance.

    There is a dangerous trap being set here. The same media people invested in boosting a black man to the White House as a matter of history have set very high expectations for him. When he disappoints, as presidents and other human beings inevitably do, the backlash may be extreme.

    Several seasons ago, when Philadelphia Eagle's black quarterback Donovan McNabb was struggling, radio commentator Rush Limbaugh said the media wanted a black quarterback to do well and gave Mr. McNabb "a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve." Mr. Limbaugh's sin was saying out loud what others had said privately.

    There is a lot more at stake now, and to allow criticism of Mr. Obama only behind closed doors does no honor to the dreams and prayers of generations past: that race be put aside, and all people be judged honestly, openly, and on the basis of their performance.

    President Obama deserves no less.
    I plan on doing my part :)
    TexasParent's Avatar
    TexasParent Posts: 378, Reputation: 73
    Full Member
     
    #42

    Jan 21, 2009, 05:23 PM

    Although I have become an Obama supporter, I originally was supporting Hillary. Honestly, I wouldn't have supported anyone on the Republican ticket due to my perception of the Bush Presidency.

    Having said that, I agree with the article Speech posted. President Obama got a free pass on a lot of things. Ask yourself, would a young white man with his prior experience beat Hillary in the Primary? The answer is a resounding no.

    I think now that Barack Obama is now President, I think he will be a good one; but make no mistake, he wasn't held to the same standard as a white man would have been during his campaigns.

    As the article and 'speech' have said, the American people deserve no less than the same honest critique of his Presidential decisions as all previous Presidents have received.

    Now that he's elected, he's no longer black or white; he's the President of the United States and is accountable to the people he serves.
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #43

    Jan 22, 2009, 11:30 AM
    Well put, Tex.

    Here, straight from the horse's mouth Helen Thomas, is what's wrong with the media. From an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation:

    Helen Thomas: I'm a liberal, I was born a liberal, I'll be one 'til I die, what else should a reporter be when you see so much and when we have such great privilege and access to the truth?

    CBC Interviewer: Well, you know, it's interesting because I'm sure that if somebody from the right was sitting here they would say... if you ask the question what should a reporter be they will say, "Oh, I don't know, How about objective?"

    Helen Thomas: You're not asking people not to think not to care are you? But you are asking them to give a fair reporting both sides and so forth and I did it for 57 years I was never, never accused of bias in my copy. But I had a right to be angry and unhappy at the trend that I saw in my country that I was close enough to see.
    At least it was a refreshing moment of candor. "What else should a reporter be" but a liberal... whether "born" that way or because of "when you see so much," she can't seem to make up her mind which.

    One can't be anything but a liberal when privy to the "truth," and only some uncaring, unthinking conservative would dare think a reporter should perhaps be - objective. How antiquated an idea that surely must be. And not only must one be a liberal to be a reporter, they must be in total denial (or complete ignorance?) of their bias.
    TexasParent's Avatar
    TexasParent Posts: 378, Reputation: 73
    Full Member
     
    #44

    Jan 22, 2009, 12:38 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Well put, Tex.

    Here, straight from the horse's mouth Helen Thomas, is what's wrong with the media. From an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation:



    At least it was a refreshing moment of candor. "What else should a reporter be" but a liberal...whether "born" that way or because of "when you see so much," she can't seem to make up her mind which.

    One can't be anything but a liberal when privy to the "truth," and only some uncaring, unthinking conservative would dare think a reporter should perhaps be - objective. How antiquated an idea that surely must be. And not only must one be a liberal to be a reporter, they must be in total denial (or complete ignorance?) of their bias.
    What's interesting is the CBC interviewer who asked the question belongs to Canada's only publicly subsidized national television broadcasting corporation which has long been accused of having a liberal bias because it was in their best interest to slant their reporting to favor liberal notions and 'Liberal Party' national governments who historically have supported the CBC whereas the Conservative Party has long called for and end to public subsidization.

    Even with the liberal bias of the CBC, I've always found that as a matter of course the CBC try and present both or many sides of the story. That is what I found most disturbing after coming to the US, the media here seem to only truly present one side of a story even if they pretend to insert a balanced comment from the other side. I can't stand the news media down here, it's very partisan and shallow.

    Yes, there are very liberal reporters in Canada (what would you expect, liberal governments and Canada's sacred social programs make most Canadian's liberal at heart); but there are some very objective reporters too, more so from what I remember than appear in the US media.
    kp2171's Avatar
    kp2171 Posts: 5,318, Reputation: 1612
    Uber Member
     
    #45

    Jan 22, 2009, 12:52 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasParent View Post
    It's like they are still on the farm in Iowa, uneducated and have just bought their first television.

    Why is it that the American media seems to talk at a Grade 6 level?
    HMMM...

    Guess my experience is different.

    From Iowa.

    Farmland country.

    We've had boobtubes for longer than the latest sale, even color sets. *gasp* guess I even have connections to the internet. Even use The Google, as our former Texan in Chief stated.

    Please don't assume that the midwest farmer is an ignorant, uneducated person.

    Really. Really??

    Do you think the mess this country is in came from the man who worked the fields?? Really??
    TexasParent's Avatar
    TexasParent Posts: 378, Reputation: 73
    Full Member
     
    #46

    Jan 22, 2009, 01:08 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by kp2171 View Post
    HMMM....

    guess my experience is different.

    from iowa.

    farmland country.

    we've had boobtubes for longer than the latest sale, even color sets. *gasp* guess i even have connections to the internet. even use The Google, as our former Texan in Chief stated.

    please dont assume that the midwest farmer is an ignorant, uneducated person.

    really. really???

    do you think the mess this country is in came from the man who worked the fields??? really???
    I really should have said 'ignorant, uneducated person' rather than pulling a state out of my butt which I know nothing about. Please accept and extend my apologies to all the people of Iowa.
    kp2171's Avatar
    kp2171 Posts: 5,318, Reputation: 1612
    Uber Member
     
    #47

    Jan 22, 2009, 01:14 PM
    So Iowa resides in your arse? ;)

    There are idiots everywhere. I'm a charter member of the fidiots. Just ask my wife.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #48

    Jan 22, 2009, 04:54 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasParent View Post
    Ask yourself, would a young white man with his prior experience beat Hillary in the Primary? The answer is a resounding no.
    Hello again,

    I HAVE asked myself that question. My answer is, that every time he won, every primary; every caucus, and finally the general election, it was because he was the better candidate with the better organized campaign.

    IF black people voted MORE for him, is it because he's black, or because he's better organized? Black people LOVED Hillary, but Obama got their vote.

    There are lots of conclusions that can be drawn from his election... The racist angle is only one.

    excon
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #49

    Jan 23, 2009, 03:28 AM
    Yes race was but one angle that possibly got his foot in the door .Remeber ;he was a backbencher in Illinois Senate ;and Kerry picked him to give the keynote address in 2004 . From there he propelled to where he is today. His rise had nothing to do with his race.

    I went to SanDiego last summer and watched his organization at work on the streets and concluded then that he would win . Any chance that McCain had of winning (and it was close for a few weeks ) was dashed by the Sept. economic crisis .
    1stRankings's Avatar
    1stRankings Posts: 9, Reputation: 3
    New Member
     
    #50

    Jan 23, 2009, 10:21 AM
    First I need to put a disclaimer... I am in no way racist and am happy that the black population is excited about Obama's election and I feel for that reason alone they have something to be happy about.

    However if you look at Obama's qualifications, his inconsistencies and his policies and compare them to the constitution you will have to agree he is no better than Bush... Obama has already made it clear he will appoint biased judges:

    Quote from Obama:
    "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old--and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."

    NO, we don't appoint judges who are biased to feelings, we appoint judges who will judge based on the constitution and laws that our country was founded on. Anyone who would insinuate such nonesense should be autimaticly disqualified for president in the eyes of the American people...

    You want a president who is biased? Maybe if your gay, african american, old or a young mother who wants an abortion it sounds good but its not ethical and its not right. No matter if they are biased towards my views or yours it is still wrong, we need judges unbiased by feelings and even public opinion... they should be biased to the constitution alone...

    Obama has also the theory that the constitution is ammendable to the times we live... it is not, it is a code we live by. When we change it we will lose freedoms...

    If you study what Obama has said and written you will realize he is pushing for a socialist government...

    In that light Obama was the wrong man... and I feel sorry that America would let such a man in based largely on the fact of his color. I am not saying you voted wrong if you voted for Obama because of his color but as far as I am concerned many of us should have looked deeper under the covers...
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #51

    Jan 23, 2009, 11:10 AM
    Hello 1st:

    I agree with your sentiments... Our Supreme Court Justices should be FREE from any political leanings... But, that just isn't how it happens.

    If you're suggesting that Bush appointed such judges, then YOUR political leanings are showing. His selections mirror Republican beliefs. They support the 2nd Amendment, but consistently weaken the 1st, the 4th, the 5th, the 6th, the 10th, the 11th, and the 14th. Interestingly, those are the very Amendments that Republicans don't like either.

    Fortunately, Obama is going to have the opportunity to appoint at least three and maybe four Supreme Court Justices. Too bad that they're going to support the very Amendments that the Bush judges don't.

    Your beliefs were debated LOUDLY during the campaign, and America has spoken. Your beliefs have been soundly REJECTED by the American populace. We are going in a NEW direction. MOST of America is HAPPY with the direction we're now going.

    There are, of course, going to be a few who don't like it. To them, I say - GET USED TO IT!

    excon

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Constant Left leg pain - starting at the middle of the left buttock & goes down leg [ 6 Answers ]

Any ideas what would cause this condition on a grown man? Constant Left leg pain - starting at the middle of the left buttock & goes down leg. Thanks for helping

Counting different calroies [ 1 Answers ]

I was informed that when you count calories to lose weight that you don't just count the calories on the nutrition list ut you have to count the calories from fat and protein and carbs. Is this true? And if it is how many of each do you need? I always thought you just needed like 1200-1500...

Career aspirations [helppp,I only got 12 hours left] [ 12 Answers ]

Hi everyone, I need to write a short essay of half page upon my career aspirations . How should I start with :confused: Anyone please helpppppppppp :(

1 kidney and counting. [ 1 Answers ]

I donated a kidney to my son in 96.. due to a misdiagnosis... that kidney was destoyed and he has been back on dialysis since 99... medicaid took care of all of the transplant expense... but after 6 days... my "coverage" was over... I have no health insurance and have not been tested to see if my...

35 weeks and counting [ 9 Answers ]

Hi all it's me Jnet29 I have a question, for the last week I have been having headaches, nausea and I have been seeing spots for two days and my back have been killing me and I'm going to the bathroom like crazy can anyone tell me what's going on?


View more questions Search