Do the European semitic peoples have the same responsibility for the European holocaust as the European Christians?

I’m so interested in the “mixed-race” thing. I have Irish and German ancestors. Am I “mixed-race?”

But I also believe that this is all moot because it was his association with Trinity and Wright that killed the race transcendent message that he was touting

.

So conversion is impossible. Men who thought their gender was superior can never change.

What you fail to understand is that most descendants of slaves have zero trust of European Americans. They don’t go to school to learn how to be “African American.” It’s the consistency of the massive and unrelenting prejudice they face that educates them.

Why is it any different when a black church (and the majority of black churches don’t preach this sort of message) preaches that white (and other pejorative descriptions) Romans killed a black Jesus?

Is it tough to write something that is that historically ignorant.

European Americans systematically and under “cover” of the “law” stole all the economic resources, among other things, from the the slaves and their descendants. The theft occurred before 1865 under the guise of slavery and afterwards under the guise of “legalized white supremacy.”

And framing Obama is a predominantly black state was going to help his wife how? It was a statement acknowledging that African Americans would have pride in one of their own running and that there was a precedence in such a victory with Jesse Jackson. Even Jackson didn’t think that it was a racist comment. Bill is comfortable discussing politics and African American in a manner that a typical white politician might not. Even without rehashing whether Bill is a racist or not, why couldn’t Obama have been gracious and diffused the situation with a joke? He would have been praised and his reputation as someone above race would have been cemented. Instead, the events in SC and his (supporter’s) hyperbolic reaction framed him as a black candidate when, up to then, he was neither. But I also believe that this is all moot because it was his association with Trinity and Wright that killed the race transcendent message that he was touting.

I respectfully disagree with your characterization of this church as metaphorically harmless. If a white church preached about Jews killing a white Jesus they would be universally condemned as being horribly racist (or anti-semitic). Why is it any different when a black church (and the majority of black churches don’t preach this sort of message) preaches that white (and other pejorative descriptions) Romans killed a black Jesus? When other white-conspiracy statements are also taken to account, this is a strange church to be associated with if one were truly beyond race. This, more than SC, in my opinion, damaged his claims to be a non-racial new face for this country. Shelby Steele’s description of the non-threatening black “bargainer” in white America is unflattering to both blacks and whites and the kind of society we have, but it is close to the truth IMO. But the Rev. Wright is no “bargainer” and, unfortunately, it IS a reflection on Obama’s judgment. It is true that McCain is not called out on his association with the Rev. Hagee, an equally odious preacher, but no one had any illusions of McCain as being racially transcendent. There is great hypocrisy in politics, but the uni-racial identification of this mixed-race candidate was largely of his own doing.

I will first qualify my post by stating that I am also neither a fan of Obama nor Clinton. I feel that Obama uses way too many GOP frames on economic issues, especially in regard to health care and social security and has had the unfortunate affiliation with Joe Lieberman, which sets off alarm bells about his judgment. In regard to Hillary, I admire her willingness to do whatever it takes to win as it shows character, I think she is too beholden to the establishment and the Washington lobbyists and consultant class to truly change the country’s direction; one of the biggest reasons we are in the mess we are in now is that Bill Clinton did away with many of the Depression era regulations that kept our financial institutions honest and in line – he had Robert Rubin as his Treasury Secretary and kept Saint Alan “I love Ayn Rand” Greenspan as Chairman of the Fed.

Having said all of this, I agree wholeheartedly with Dave’s post. While Clinton supporters, such as Bushsucks (or, if you want some bloggers for examples, Jeralyn Meritt’s crew or Larry Johnson’s group), take it to heart as meaning that they personally are racist for supporting Clinton. This is not what he is saying. The issue is that there is more than likely a subset of the Clinton supporters who will never vote for a “black person” but will not admit it because it is “un-PC” to do so. When Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough talk about “electability” in regard to Obama, this is a dog whistle. Once we get to the general and the “independents” come into play, this is what Greg Mitchell and Dave are speaking about. Don’t tell me that there won’t be another version of the Swift Boats. I envision something along the lines of what happened to Harold Ford if it’s Obama.

You have to be willfully blind to not see signs of racism all over this country to this very day – living outside of the USA it becomes even clearer. I, as a former ex-pat, and Ian, as a Canadian, both agree that in 6 months time this will be the big unspoken problem. The fact that it is such a heated topic shows that the wounds of Jim Crow have still not healed; I think that there is a measure of guilt in people’s conscience if they have a racist thought, and they react accordingly by objecting vehemently.

I know that a lot of people are confident since the Dems are winning +10R seats in Alabama; I am really concerned that, especially among independents and “moderate” GOPers there will be too many people that either stay home or vote for the maverick St. John, who will appoint more John Robertses and Samuel Alitos.

The good news is, if the cloture votes are any indication, that neither Clinton nor Obama supported either of them. McCain, on the other, was just that ol’ debbil maverick, voting aye on both of ‘em along with 75+ other colleagues. When you stay home on election day and don’t support the Democratic candidate, regardless of who it is and for whatever reason that may be, you will be reaping the Supreme Court that let Ledbetter happen and that will overturn Roe that you sowed.

“If Iran attacked Isreal with nuclear weapons what would the Untied States response be?”“

You are accepting a neo-con frame of this situation in the first place. It is quite questionable whether Iran would have nuclear weapons in the first place since the United States would do a better job working with its allies rather than saying “my way or the highway” which has been the US policy for almost 8 years now and is a miserable failure.

ACitizen – I can’t even count the ways I disagree with you on this comment. But the most searing is this:
You use the preferences of a Black man you know to describe the lack of racist sentiment in the general populous. That disconnect relieves all of us of having to even read the rest of your comment.

Your supposition seems to be that ethnic minorities are or should be strongly inclined to vote for someone who shares their ethnic heritage (as opposed to voting their interests), thereby painting them as a monolithic voting block. Your friend may be deeply offended by this.

Oh, and do some Googling. Then tell us Obama is a comparable liar.

Hillary Clinton+nafta
Hillary Clinton+sniper+Bosnia
Hillary Clinton+AUMF
Hillary Clinton+peace+Northern Ireland.

Google IAT and you will find that everyone is somewhat racist in this country. Even the black citizens.

Yes the European Jews caused Hitler.

The Souix, the Cheyenne, the Iroquois, the Commanche, the Nez Perce, the Apache, the Crow, and all the other native American tribes caused the European Americans to try and exterminate them.

Please go support St. John McSane. Give him all your money.

Everyone here, except you and Bushsux understand the limitations of the Presidential race. It’s about the Supreme Court nominees. There’s a GOP volunteer center near you.

As to the issue as to accepting the contributions by a politician. 1) Do family members have to report a relatives employment affiliation…or do they report their own? 2) Were the contributions bundled or concealed in some way that the employment or management position wasn’t clear. 3) In the days of automated contributions, were the donations processed, but subsequently refunded as not meeting the criteria the campaign accepts.

And lastly…how much oil company money have the other candidates accepted? While it is certainly wrong to portray oneself as not taking money from certain interests and then INTENTIONALLY doing so…I’d say that one should also balance that with whether the other candidates are accepting far greater amounts or have lawyers , lobbyists or executives from those interests on their campaign staffs.

Obama and the rest of the Dem establishment apart from the Clintons won’t touch the issues of economics and class because they are far to indebted to those who created our current system to be able to do so. Until they do they will continue to lose to the Republicans.

Clinton? Dealing with the issues of economics and class? That really happened between 8-16 years ago. I’m not talking about better economic times simply because of the post-Cold War benefit and dot.com bubble…real economic transformation that deals with class issues? Are we thinking the same Billk and Hillary that pushed NAFTA and other free-trade deals and argued that open markets even without tough cross border international labor union rights were intrinsically good? Bill helped create the current system…the one that includes Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer and the others that have done nothing to stanch the Republicans.

Is that former Black Panther named Eldridge?