Is Obama black enough? Huh?

Website · Post by **brian** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:25 am

I usually try not to get into politics here, but I saw this opinion piece by Nancy Giles on CBS Sunday Morning yesterday, and it really struck a chord with me. It's not for or against any particular candidate or party. It's more about the state of politics today and the role that race plays.

Video: http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video ... d=2534266n

Text Version: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/ ... 4119.shtml

IDIC!

Xjmt · Post by **Xjmt** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:55 pm

The video isn't working for me but I'll try later.

In any case one tenth of one percent "black" blood was good enough reason for the KKK to hang a person. I believe until very recently many "laws" considered ANY 'black' blood to indicate a 'black' person.

OTOH 'blacks' wanted Tiger Woods to declare himself "black" but his mother is Chinese (I believe) and he said he wouldn't declare himself as an anything.

Bill Clinton is considered by many "blacks" to be the really 'first black president'. They said that, not anyone else and Clinton has never run from that designation.

And yet we now have those who would ask if Obama is "black enough".

Well now I know I have both Hungarian and Irish blood in me but I've never considered whether or not I was "enough" of either because I no not what other blood may be coursing through my veins. And besides why would anyone give a tip of a hat to caring??

Website · Post by **brian** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:08 pm

That's kind of the point Nancy Giles makes. Many blacks say that Obama isn't "black enough" to represent them because he's half white and was raised abroad. He therefore doesn't identify with them. But Hilary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani do?

If you can't watch the video, look at the article. It's just a transcript of the video.

Xjmt · Post by **Xjmt** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:16 pm

But Hilary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani do?

Post by **trucker2000** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:41 pm

Isn't black enough?? How black does he need to be? My gosh, he's blacker than most black people I know.

:political rant: Hillary should not be allowed to run. She's already had her 8 years in office. I wonder why the media hasn't picked up on that. :/political rant:

Post by **AnneB** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:49 am

We have a black state legislator here (don't remember exactly what he is) who said that putting Obama on the ticket would prevent all the other democrats from being elected. He's probably right in South Carolina because we are still a backward state and most of the blacks here fit the stereotype that you see on TV.

Xjmt · Post by **Xjmt** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:11 am

:political rant: Hillary should not be allowed to run. She's already had her 8 years in office. I wonder why the media hasn't picked up on that. :/political rant:

Using that logic the current administration should be allowed another 8 years in office.

Post by **AnneB** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:54 am

Xjmt wrote:
:political rant: Hillary should not be allowed to run. She's already had her 8 years in office. I wonder why the media hasn't picked up on that. :/political rant:
Using that logic the current administration should be allowed another 8 years in office.

Are you in that big a hurry for world war 3? Of course, he still has time to start it.

Post by **trucker2000** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:04 pm

Xjmt wrote:
:political rant: Hillary should not be allowed to run. She's already had her 8 years in office. I wonder why the media hasn't picked up on that. :/political rant:
Using that logic the current administration should be allowed another 8 years in office.

Huh?? You's backwards. What I'm saying, is that under the current Constitution, Bush could very well spend another 4-8 in office if his Wife were elected. (thankfully she's not running). The constitution needs to be amended to prevent that from happening. If you think about it, when the costitution was written, Women weren't even allowed to vote. Thankfully, as times and attitudes changed, the constitution was modified to change with it, only this one little itsy bitsy area was missed.

Xjmt · Post by **Xjmt** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 5:20 pm

Notwithstanding all that I've heard and read that in the past wives of presidents HAVE taken over the duties of the President when that President was unable to perform those duties.

Clarification please, is it only presidential wives you want to exclude or would this carry over to the remainder of the family which of course would mean that this president could not be president because his father was.

Be careful how you answer there ARE women present.

Xjmt · Post by **Xjmt** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 5:25 pm

Anne, You have to be careful about those stereotypes. For some unfathomable (to me) reason some of them like to play 'dumb' because it is thought to mock those who believe it. They're not the only ones who do this but they do, do it.

Post by **trucker2000** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:07 pm

Personaly, I'd like to see an amendment that states:

"The spouse of a former or present President may not run for, nor hold the office of President" type of thing.

I'm not talking about any certain gender. Hillary comes to mind becouse she is the first woman to run, and she is the wife of a former president. She is just the one who brought this issue to light.
(was that diplomatic enough??)

Seriously tho, no gender. Just the spouse of, becouse that would allow a person to circumvent the term limits law.

Xjmt · Post by **Xjmt** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:51 pm

Just the spouse of, becouse that would allow a person to circumvent the term limits law.

But seriously, couldn't the same thing apply to just about any family member?

Post by **trucker2000** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:43 pm

Xjmt wrote:
Just the spouse of, becouse that would allow a person to circumvent the term limits law.
But seriously, couldn't the same thing apply to just about any family member?

Yes and no. To a point, yes. Take the clinton kid. It will be a quite a few years before she can even think about running. Oh the other hand, the Bush kids were old enough when daddy ran. A parent, usually runs the household, where, a spouse shares in the responsibility. I'd say the same goes with politics. I don't think the clinton girl had any input (or much of it) when her Father was President. Oh the other hand, I think Hillary was running the government with her husband out front. (I don't think he has enough brains to run anything, let alone a government)
Just my opinion tho.

Xjmt · Post by **Xjmt** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:13 pm

I ask because I still remember the uproar in the 60s about a potential Kennedy hierarchy what with Jack as President being so popular and potentially Bobby or Ted Kennedy running at the end of Jack's administration. This complaint, of course, was brought by the opposition party. But yet that same party looked forward to a Bush hierarchy what with Jeb waiting in the wings.

I don't think (as is) your view on Hillary will fly with the American public. There'd have to be a firmer reason to prevent hierarchies forming by some carefully worded laws. And yet much of our law comes from British law and they still have royalty and want it.

If anyone can come up with a better idea I'd support it because I don't think allowing hierarchies/roalties would be good for America.