Are whites scared to vote black.

I don't think they are afraid to vote for him. I have seen plenty of white people go by cheering and smiling while they yell for Obama as I hold up the Ron Paul signs on the street. Obama supporters also seem to generally be intelligent, and are the most polite - I guess you have to see it to believe that you could discern that from a street corner, but you can, by comparison. They are happy to represent Obama and I imagine the pride they feel is similar to what I feel for Paul. It's the white male Huckabee supporters that tend to be twisted, angry, and wish they could run me over and get away with it. They are the nuts here, not us!

reply to post by Novise


Well, as a Paul supporter, you are nuts . But I agree, the Huckleberries are on a vastly different plane of nuts.

O yea they will support him and yell and cheer to say that they have supported a black man and that they are not racists but that does not mean when they step into that booth they will support the ma. Things change when people are alone. My whole point of this is that there is no way that all the Polls were that off im mean they were of by 11 to 15 points that is crazy. People went in there and decided that if Barrack one this primary Hillary would have been gone. Thats the truth.

reply to post by Mrknighttime32

My whole point of this is that there is no way that all the Polls were that off im mean they were of by 11 to 15 points that is crazy. People went in there and decided that if Barrack one this primary Hillary would have been gone. That’s the truth.

It may not be as bad as it looks at first. The polls that is. I saw a very good discussion on CSpan that dealt with that issue. First, and most important, polling ended on Sunday. That is the key. That was also the day Hillary “teared-up.” She is a real person after all!

That tv interview was shown 100s of times on NH tv stations, all for FREE as far as she was concerned. Unlike the Muskie incident I’ve referred to above, this turned out to be a PLUS for her. A fair size percentage of NH voters did not make up their minds until Monday or Tuesday, and Hillary got a very good percentage of those voters. At the same time Hillary was surging, Obama was resting on his predicted laurels.

I see no sinister motives in the NH polls.

reply to post by Novise

I don't think they [whites] are afraid to vote for him. I have seen plenty of white people go by cheering and smiling while they yell for Obama as I hold up the Ron Paul signs on the street. Obama supporters also seem to generally be intelligent, and are the most polite . . They are happy to represent Obama and I imagine the pride they feel is similar to what I feel for Paul.

I assume Mr Novise, you were in Iowa or NH? Or both? Mr M/K/32 should take comfort in your observations. Although I was not in either place, I share your conclusions as to the genuiness of the supporters of Barack. Mr M/K/32 acknowledged that, but he wants to know want we think white voters will do in the solitude of the voting booth. His ire is raised by the gap between the 15% poll projecting Obama’s win, versus his 2% loss to Hillary which is a 17% GAP in polling. The same pollsters were almost dead on in the GOP race which “proves” they were capable of getting it right!

The issue for Mr MT32 is: Did the pollsters intentionally mis-lead us? Second issue: Have the Clinton’s subverted the pollsters? I have already explained how the poll-takers stopped working Sunday. Hillary’s core supporters - older women - made up a large segment of the NH voters who did not decide who to vote for until Monday and Tuesday. I see this polling snafu as due to the inherent limitations on polling.

I heard there were 6 or 9 polls involved. It seems unlikely the Clinton’s had anything to do with the NH polling error. I can see anyone subverting ONE or even TWO pollsters, but not 6 or 9 as the case may be. Uh uh. This ought to remind all of us how precarious it is to claim to KNOW the future.

I believe Ron Paul Devotees are in a state of denial. No Ron Paul Devotee I’ve ever discoursed with will face the reality of 300,000,000 people in a world populated by 6.5 billion people, and a country of 3.6 million square miles area.

Look at toys. Look at lead paint in houses. The US learned by the end of War 2 that lead was dangerous, all the more so to small children. Yet today, 2008, we still have upwards of 20% of all our children growing up in older houses that have “grandfathered ” in the lead based paint. No society can have the best interests of children in the forefront and allow this. It is our deeds, not our words that count.

It should go without saying that NO R&F children are so exposed. Rich and Famous. They live in either new housing or restored brownstones types. It is only the Poor and Poorer children who are subjected to the known potential adverse effects of lead in their environment.

We also learned the CPSC - Consumer Product Safety Commission - had but ONE full time inspector for toys coming into the US. Look at Mattel's LYING CEO who first claimed they had high standards in lace then had yet one more recall to make! That failure of government is the fulfillment of the Reagan Rev9olutoin.

The GOP learned they could not abolish such agencies - the public wants to be safe - but the Reaganites discovered they could achieve the same outcome by stripping the agencies of staff. Ron Paul is a Reaganite. But none of his devotees will deal with LEAD in our environment. Zero is the only amount I want In it.

reply to post by donwhite


Why should you listen to me after all I guess.

And you and the OP have a point, but the problem is you are assuming that anyone who clicks on a poll, or answers a phone poll with Obama is a supporter. That is not a supporter! Someone who stands up for Obama in public, donates, volunteers for the campaign or grassroots, that is a supporter!

And the true supporters that Obama has are quality. (And I simply don't see them turning their back on him)

Why should you trust me though? Fair enough but this is ATS where we are supposedly Above the me vs. you thing and this is something I noticed and wanted to talk about.

On the democrat side I am rooting for Obama plain and simple. But you must understand that there are some of us fighting on an entirely different battlefield, with our own strengths and weaknesses.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by Novise]

Originally posted by Mrknighttime32
I cant help but notice that all the polls in the primary in NH showed Obama winning by a huge margin. The way im thinking is alot of people were called during the polls and wanted to vote for Obama, but when it came down to it people saw the reality of having a black man become president or helping a black man become president and it made them change there mind.

Is this true? Do you think it had to do with something with it? Please be honest. I know racism is far from gone in this country and I know it had something to do with it.

No, I honestly don't think that's true... but let me clarify something for you all. Obama isn't Black, he's Mixed. His mother was white, his father was black, and if how my cousins are treated are any indication of how his life was... he wasn't accepted by either culture (white or black). So, you really can't go the race route.... Because he's both. If he had a family tree that stemmed both parents from Africa... then he would have the right to say he's black. He doesn't.

Not to mention... the fact he only lost NH by a 2 percent vote says a lot... he got quite a few votes, of both races.

This is not true. A mixed man is still considered a black man to whites. Many of my friends have told me this and many people that arent my friends. When they talk about him on the news what do the say "first BLACK PRESIDENT".That what is said. My question now is how many of you will be truly honest and say that you would vote for a black person over a white person?

reply to post by JessicaS

posted by Mrknighttime32 Are whites scared to vote black. [Relates to NH polls that erred in Obama’s case] Is this true? Do you think it [racism] had something to do with it? Please be honest. I know racism is far from gone in this country and I know it had something to do with it.

JessicaS: No, I honestly don't think that's true... but let me clarify something for you all. Obama isn't Black, he's Mixed. [Mulatto.] His mother was white, his father was black, and if how my cousins are treated are any indication of how his life was... he wasn't accepted by either culture (white or black). So, you really can't go the race route.... Because he's both. If he had a family tree that stemmed both parents from Africa... then he would have the right to say he's black. He doesn't. Not to mention... the fact he only lost NH by a 2 percent vote says a lot... he got quite a few votes, of both races.

You’re right-on Jessica S. The US Census for 2006 gives this racial breakdown in NH: non-Hispanic whites, 93.8% (91.0); Hispanics, 2.3% (3.8); and African Americans, 1.1% (2.5). Iowa numbers are in parentheses. Obviously the overwhelming percent of Obama's votes came from whites in both NH and Iowa. Mr/K/T/32 worries that Obama's loss in NH might have been due to latent racism. NH allowed voters to mark their ballot in secret whereas in Iowa they had to stand up and be counted. Dick Gregory said it a
long time ago, "Blacks can't be racists." quickfacts.census.gov... (Worth a bookmark)

posted by Novise
Why should you listen to me after all I guess. And you and the OP have a point, but the problem is you are assuming that anyone who clicks on a poll, or answers a phone poll with Obama is a supporter. That is not a supporter! Someone who stands up for Obama in public, donates, volunteers for the campaign or grassroots, that is a supporter! And the true supporters that Obama has are quality. (And I simply don't see them turning their back on him) On the democrat side I am rooting for Obama plain and simple. But you must understand that there are some of us fighting on an entirely different battlefield, with our own strengths and weaknesses.

I was alive and well in the 1960s. I was stationed at MacDill AFB, Tampa, when JFK was assassinated in Dallas. I was sorely disappointed when MLKJr was assassinated in Memphis not even 5 years later, in 1968. Just getting over JFK, then we had to “get over” MLKJr. After LBJ quit the 1968 presidential race, we liberals were encouraged by the successful campaign run by Robert Kennedy. RFK. Then, in June, barely 60 days after the assassination of MLKJr, RFK was shot and killed in Los Angeles.

We had not forgotten that Jack Ruby had killed Lee Harvey Oswald before he could be questioned. That was a tragedy compounded in 1963. And now, the TWO great leaders of a GOOD America were both dead. Both shot dead by assassins. What in the holy hell was wrong in America?

Hubert Humphrey was an old line liberal and he was our fall-back guy. A bit long in the tooth but still a “Happy Warrior.” Dependable and throughly humane. And then came the blow that crushed liberals in America. The Police Riot at the Dems National Convention instigated by Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley. Everyone “knew” Daley had just handed the 1968 race to Richard Nixon. Why did he do that? I have never heard any good theories. Liberalism has never recovered from the decade of the 60's.

Washington (AP) -- More than three times as many black people live in prison cells as in college dorms, the government said in a report to be released Thursday. The ratio is only slightly better for Hispanics, at 2.7 inmates for every Latino in college housing. Among non-Hispanic whites, more than twice as many live in college housing as in prison or jail. civil rights advocates said it is startling that blacks and Hispanics are more likely to live in prison cells than in college dorms. "It's one of the great social and economic tragedies of our time," said Marc Morial, president and CEO of the Urban League. "It points to the signature failure in our education system and how we've been raising our children."

Here is the kind of social consequence that liberals have always worked to prevent. But we have to face so much resistance from many directions to overcome. We’re mostly secular humanists. I venture to say none of us believe in a personal GOD. It’s contra-indicated as they say in medicine. And to avoid the heavy burden of the atheist label, most of us will concede there may have been a Great Clock Maker who set the Universe into motion but otherwise is disinterested in its progress. But as a seafarer lost at sea, we hope tomorrow will bring us our ship!

[edit on 1/13/2008 by donwhite]

When there is a black person, man or woman, running that I agree with he or she will get my vote.

I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for. Fairly certain it won't be Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama, but none of the others have impressed me either. It's a very good thing, IMHO, that I've got 'til November, lol. Maybe the caucuses in Washington that are coming up will help me clear up my confusion. I can only hope.

I've spent the past few days perusing various campaign sites and other sites, and I must say, the mud hasn't cleared all that much, if at all.

Black or otherwise, I'll support the candidate that best reflects my beliefs. Race, and gender will play no part.

reply to post by Mrknighttime32

This is not true. A mixed man is still considered a black man to whites. Many of my friends have told me this and many people that aren’t my friends. When they talk about him on the news what do the say "first BLACK PRESIDENT".That what is said. My question now is how many of you will be truly honest and say that you would vote for a black person over a white person?

On my first visit - 1980s - to Hilton Head Island, I told my wife, "This is Apartheid North." I expect it still is in 2008.

I wonder how many white posters here are aware that in America, Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, that prior to the adoption of the January 23, 1964 XXIV Amendment and Voting Rights Act of 1965, black Americans in the 11 states of the Old South, were regularly denied the right to vote? The Stars and Bars Confederate states, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, TX, TN and AR. Do you see why the Stars and Bars are anathema to blacks?

Typically, the 11 states of the Old South charged an old and generally accepted poll tax in order to vote. Blacks often had no cash, bur subsisted in goods for services economy. A bushel of corn for a day’s labor. Or a share of the crop but that comes at the end of harvest time. Even a small amount of cash could not be paid by 99% of blacks. Poor whites - who often outnumbered poor blacks - had no cash either but were not asked to show proof of payment before they voted.

And one more point: The 24th amendment was introduced to the several states on April 17, 1962. It was approved in January, 1964. ONLY TN and FL of the Old South joined in the approval. NC ratified it in 1969. VA ratified it in 1977. MS rejected it in 1962 and has never changed its vote. Still silent are SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, and AR.

And YET one more thing. In many of the Old South states, to be 1/16th part black was enough to categorize you legally as BLACK. That made you ineligible for jury service and forced you to use "Colored Only" public facilities. It mean that your were not regarded as a reliable witness in court. You could not as a practical matter, hold public office. Of course, it was never said but it was well known that many white’s had a black ancestor especially prior to the end of slavery. But we overlook that, don’t we?

Finally, reading the Constitution and explaining it was used in many states as a prerequisite to voting. Since as many whites could not read as blacks, it was then we invented the term “grandfather” by saying to whites, “BUT if you grandfather was allowed to vote, then you could vote.” White were thereby "grandfathered" IN. And blacks were grandfathered OUT.

[edit on 1/13/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by MrKnighttime32

A mixed man [or woman, a mulatto*] is still considered a black man to whites. Many of my friends have told me this and many people that aren’t my friends. When they talk about him on the news what do the say "first BLACK PRESIDENT." That what is said. My question now is how many of you will be truly honest and say that you would vote for a black person over a white person? [*A proper term but it has fallen into disuse.] [My comments are in brackets]

Let me be brutally blunt.

Fallacious argument. Your argument suffers from the missing middle. It either presumes qualifications do not matter or that the two are equally qualified. IMO, neither is the case.

Qualifications do matter. And matter a lot. Much of what has gone wrong in the current administration is because Bush43 appointed too many people who were not qualified for the jobs they assumed. Bush43 was more concerned over the religious views of his appointees than in their academic qualifications or their job qualifying experience. The country has suffered immeasurably. Maybe irreparably. We surely cannot resurrect the KIAs.

Presidents have about 3,000 appointments to make. Who they choose goes far in the success or failure of their administration. As a "last days" person, Bush43 cares little about the long run. In a secular state religion has no place being a factor for public service. See US Con, Article VI, 3rd paragraph: “ . . all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” We need to respect the US Constitution. And more, in Mitt Romney's case, Mr Huckabee.

Equally qualified? Not in my opinion. A native of Illinois, Hillary Rodham attracted national attention in 1969 when she delivered a controversial address as the first student to speak at commencement exercises for Wellesley College. She was listed as one of the one hundred most influential lawyers in America in 1988 and 1991. She was the First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981 and 1983 to 1992. She was the First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001. Her major initiative, the Clinton health care plan, failed to gain approval by Congress in 1994, but in 1997 she helped establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program [S-Chip] and the Adoption and Safe Families Act.

Hillary is more like Nancy Reagan than like Laura and Barbara Bush or Pat Nixon. She knew where she wanted to go and I’m sure, she has a list of names a half-mile long of who I often call the Movers and Shakers.

I don’t know when she laid her plan to stay ALIVE in presidential politics by running for the Senate from New York a la Robert Kennedy, but she did it and successfully. In other words, she can hit the ground running on January 20, 2009, whereas Obama like any other person new in the race, will need a lot of time - months if not years - to get a handle on the job. We don’t have that kind of time to spare. We have already wasted 7 years on a guy with s very slow learning curve. I don’t mean to take more chances again.

Yes, Obama is my choice for VP. He has earned it. Without him the race is wide open. With him, it's a cake walk. American blacks are entitled to it, if HE wants it. He has great potential, he has time which Hillary does not - she’s 61 - and he’s 46. In 2016, he’ll be perfectly positioned to make the run. For real.

[edit on 1/13/2008 by donwhite]

You're probably right about Obama being the VP candidate. How has he earned it though? Unless I'm mistaken, he's a first term senator with little experiance. He'll bring in votes, there's little doubt of that. But if his only qualification is that he's black, or mixed race if you prefer, then that's wrong. Race has, or shouldn't anyway, no business in politics.

reply to post by seagull

You're probably right about Obama being the VP candidate. How has he earned it though? Unless I'm mistaken, he's a first term senator with little experience. He'll bring in votes, there's little doubt of that. But if his only qualification is that he's black, or mixed race if you prefer, then that's wrong. Race has, or shouldn't anyway, no business in politics.

He has earned it by conducting a high level campaign which got the approval of a majority of Iowans and nearly another in New Hampshire. Well, a plurality. He has written 2 books, and both got good reviews but I have not read either. I agree that as a first term senator he has not had too much time to get a lot of experience. The Dems had a 1 vote majority in the senate for the most part of ‘01 to Jan, ‘03, and now again after Jan ‘07, ahead by 1 vote. But that applies as well to Hillary.

Race is not exactly the reason I say he’s earned the VP slot. It’s really more for the African American voters who have been faithful to the Dems since 1933. They have earned the right to have the first of their own who is qualified to hold that job and I believe Obama is as qualified as Richardson or Edwards. So yes, race is factored in, but it’s not a reward for him. If Hillary wins the nomination and the campaign has progressed as I hope, then she MUST offer the post to him and it is an unwritten “law” that if offered, you do not decline.

[edit on 1/14/2008 by donwhite]

I've not read his books either, though the reviews are mixed. I think it depends upon who's doing the review...lol.

If asked you don't decline, that's true...though in '80 I suspect that Jerry Ford declined Mr. Reagan. I never did hear the backroom stories from that particular episode. You? I've always suspected that Mr. Ford wanted more influence than Mr. Reagan was willing to give him.

We all know that Mrs. Clinton holds grudges...if the campaign gets nasty, as it inevitably will, can she forgive and forget? I don't think so. Race won't be the reason, personality conflict will be the reason.

reply to post by seagull

We all know that Mrs. Clinton holds grudges...if the campaign gets nasty, as it inevitably will, can she forgive and forget? I don't think so. Race won't be the reason, personality conflict will be the reason.

If it turns out that Hillary wins the nomination, and then "skips" Obama, it would be the worst mistake the Dems ever made. 39 million blacks would be offended and rightly so. No, IMO, if Obama does as he has been doing, there is no way he can be denied the VP slot.

I used to argue Hillary - from New York now - needed someone who would balance the ticket and put the South into play. John Edwards. Sen. Bill Nelson of FL. Then I thought maybe the mountain states would be the "swing" states. In which case, Gov. Bill Richardson of NM would be the No. 2 choice. But then Obama did better than I expected and its a new paradigm. 72 years of faithful voting MUST be rewarded. No choice.

There was no more animosity than between Jack Kennedy and Bobby and Lyndon Johnson. But to win, they overlooked personal differences. I'd expect Hillary to do the same.

Like it or not, and it's no joke, in politics there are 2 rules: Never forget your friends, and NEVER forget your enemies.

Personally, I am not as you say, "afraid" to vote black. At one point in my life, I was hoping Colin Powell would have run for president. I thought he may have been good. He still might be good for the Republican side of things. I like how he separated himself from the current administration.
For me, I do not believe Obama has enough experience, especially when it comes to foreign policy. I now it sounds like a simple cop out, but with that said, it is very hard to find anyone with convincing foreign policy that can get us out of our current situation IMHO.

The question seems about as loaded as "when did you stop beating your wife," but I'll bite.

I just might vote for Obama just on the grounds that he represents a step forward from the race-baiting of people like Sharpton and Jackson. The vast majority of whites want to move forward from the racism of the past and unite as Americans. If Obama can help with that, whatever big-gov't, big-spend, big-tax plans he has just might be worth overlooking.

If either of the two lefty R's, namely Rudy & Huckabee, are the nominee, I would prefer Obama.

I certainly would prefer Obama, an intelligent (former U of C law professor) charasmatic leader with the potential to unite the nation, to Hillary, former first lady with a track record of petty corruption. And Michelle Obama, who is just as much of an inspiration as Barack, would be my hands down preference as first spouse over slick willie.

Originally posted by Mrknighttime32
I am a African American male and I have a question for white Americans out there.

I cant help but notice that all the polls in the primary in NH showed Obama winning by a huge margin. The way im thinking is alot of people were called during the polls and wanted to vote for Obama, but when it came down to it people saw the reality of having a black man become president or helping a black man become president and it made them change there mind.

Is this true? Do you think it had to do with something with it? Please be honest. I know racism is far from gone in this country and I know it had something to do with it.

Just as example older whites seem to vote for hillary this is no accident older whites are more prone to be racists or just resist the fact that a black man could be there leader.

Please everyone tell me what you think.

Well to be honest, to some it might be hard but not to the majority of people. And to be honest again, it really pisses me off when people pull the race card!

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? Id be glad to tell you what I think of them!

reply to post by donwhite


Don White, you say "I have labeled people like ...Condo [sic] Rice as cannibals. Because they 'eat' their own kind to get ahead."

Don, now by what conceivable grounds do you say that Rice is a 'cannibal' but Powell is not? Is it because Powell had issues with the Bush/Rumsfeld Iraq policy while Rice has not, at least publicly?
Other than that, their profiles are amazingly similar. Both are black Republicans and super-achievers with compelling personal stories, who rose to serve as Secretary of State under GW Bush.