I'd say the young persons with cellphones is a demographic that is flying under the radar screen of pollsters -- an underreported story. To be sure, there must be more young professionals with no landline in 2008 than there were in 2004. This could make a difference in vital swing areas with a large young population -- Northern Virginia for instance.

I live in Arlington, VA and there are 4 Obama votes in my house and no landline. From talking with my neighbors in the area, this is pretty common.

djbwillthinkforfood.blogspot.com

It is not just blacks and young people, but minorities in general. 1/3 of America is now minority. The Republicans have lost blacks, and in astronomical numbers, and are getting pasted by the Hispanic vote as well (thanks Tom Tancredo) Sarah Palins, whites are we tour certainly can't help either. Finding a minority at a Palin rally is like Wheres Waldo at a grand scale. Obama only needs, what, a little over 30% of the white vote to win? I think if this holds and minority vote abandons McCain in droves next tuesday will be remember as black, brown, and every color but white tuesday.

Enjoy this week Sarah, it is your last week at the show. In 4 years the numbers will work even harder against you, unless you somehow become a great Spanish singing rapper who is a mah jong champion as well.

I don't know about you, but I find it very troubling that over 90 percent of African Americans are voting for Obama.

I would find it equally disquieting if over 90 percent of whites were to vote for McCain.

Blackton, much enjoy your feet on the ground realism about the statistics of ethnicity.  The photos from the McCain and Palin events are startling to see, when you realize how totally white the crowds are.  

jacksondyer, exactly WHY do you find black voting for Obama troubling?  Seriously.  If you were black, wouldn't you?  I don't mean that all would, perhaps esp those with socially conservative views might have reservations.  But I'll be the majority of blacks recognize what an extraordinary breakthrough this election represents.  Come November 4, American really WILL be changing.

But look at it this way, JD:  there is a difference between the implications of a negative vote, and those of a positive vote.  I said this a little more elegantly elsewhere on the board a couple of weeks ago, to wit, it's not unlikely that a significant part of JFK's vote in 1960 was Catholics (and Irish Catholics certainly) who finally got a chance to vote for someone from their tribe who was going to make it.  This was not just a later mirror-image of the millions who voted against Al Smith in 1928 because he was a Catholic.  It was something different, a shift in inclusiveness that can change the nation for the better, rather than something exclusive (excluding?) that left the country with a kind of unresolved ethno-religious paranoia.

So, while I agree that in some ways it's dangerous for identity politics to be the driver, it's not as bad when it's positive (and, for example, in 2000 I think the Dems were going for a happy Jewish-Lieberman vote in FL) as when it's a fearful negative vote.  Positive ideas and feelings do well, negative ones are destructive, and I think a large Afro-Am vote for Obama -- this year -- is a positive thing that celebrates a breakthrough that can change the country for the better.

Jackson, you're joking right? Blacks voted 88% for Kerry in 2004 and you think this is worrisome? We are approaching self-parody here, Jackson.

Oh, and you're going to want a link, aren't you?

www.cnn.com/.../epolls.0.html

Pew counts cellphones and has a huge Obama lead...

Would 90% of the black vote be going to a black Republican presidential candidate?  I doubt it.  Hence I don't think it's strictly a racial vote, but a synergy between policy and "making racial history."  

mjhollerich said:   "jacksondyer, exactly WHY do you find black voting for Obama troubling?  Seriously.  If you were black, wouldn't you? "

Well, I am Jewish and I did vote for Gore Lieberman, but not because he was Jewish.  It was because I agreed and still do with his political views.

Had Gore chosen, say Noam Chomsky as his running mate there is no way I would have voted for him.

ironyroad said:  "But look at it this way, JD:  there is a difference between the implications of a negative vote, and those of a positive vote.  I said this a little more elegantly elsewhere on the board a couple of weeks ago, to wit, it's not unlikely that a significant part of JFK's vote in 1960 was Catholics (and Irish Catholics certainly) who finally got a chance to vote for someone from their tribe who was going to make it."

Just a little bit of Jewish history, Irony: NY Jews were in a position to elect a Jewish Mayor decades before they elected Abe Beam to that office. He was the first Jewish Mayor of the city.

In spite of what people think Jews don't necessarily vote for Jews. Often time a non Jewish politician who agrees with their principles will get their vote over a Jewish candidate.

I read recently somewhere that ethnic groups who pursue political power do so at the expense of social and economic success. The examples given were the Irish in the US. It was said that the Irish by dominating politics in various cities were they lived were kept down by a patronage system.

Paul Theroux the travel writer has written in “The Old Patagonian Express (1979)” that the Irish in South America unlike their cousins in the North bought land and became large landlords rather than Mayors of towns and policeman. He made a snide comment about Italians saying that the Irish left those jobs to them. (Theroux’ mother I believe is of Italian extraction.

What do you make of this argument, Irony?

zacwbond said:  "Would 90% of the black vote be going to a black Republican presidential candidate?  I doubt it.  Hence I don't think it's strictly a racial vote, but a synergy between policy and "making racial history." "

Depends on the Republican doesn't it?

If ithe Republican was  Colin Powell I am sure they would support him.  I can think of many other Black Republican they would support.

Jackson, so when you vote for a Jew, it's because of policy, but when blacks vote for a black guy, it's because of race?

I love ya buddy, but consider the fact that Jews will probably vote something like 75% for Obama.  Now imagine if Obama were Jewish.  I bet that number would climb significantly.  Looking at those results, someone could say, well I'm concerned that so many Jews are voting for the Jew, when we both know that the real reason for those numbers would be, as you say, policy agreement.  Blacks are overwhelmingly Democratic and have been for some time, and that's based on policy.  We know that, because there has never been a serious black candidate for president before.

jackson, you still haven't really responded to the argument that it's not as creepy when it's positive rather than negative, or the other argument, that a white Dem would get 88% anyway, other than to say they'd vote for Colin Powell. First off, Colin Powell seems like a sane Republican - a totally different hill of beans from the Palin crowd. Depending on who he ran against, he'd probably get a lot of crossover votes. If you really think they're just voting their skin color, then come back with statistics on how many voted for Alan Keyes in the 00 primaries. There's an acid test for you.

jhildner said:  "Jackson, so when you vote for a Jew, it's because of policy, but when blacks vote for a black guy, it's because of race?"

Are you going to tell me that 95 plus percent of Blacks support his policies?

75% perhaps but not 95%.

"If you really think they're just voting their skin color, then come back with statistics on how many voted for Alan Keyes in the 00 primaries. There's an acid test for you. "

Sorry but the acid test was when Blacks abandoned Hillary for Obama. Their policies weren't that different, were they?

"What do you make of this argument, Irony?"

I'm not sure, jd.  But I'll be happy to respond if you first tell me what you make of my argument.

Jackson: You my friend are arse.  Hillary lost the black vote on her own account with what were WIDELY perceived in the black community as racially charged/insensitive comments from her and others in her campaign.  I'm sure you'll argue that they weren't racially insensitive, but then as a non-African-American I don't think you are as sensitive to that issue as we tend to be (whether correct or not is not the point--it's the perception).  Plus HRC didn't really start getting crushed in the African-American vote until she went scorched earth in the latter part of the primary season (when it was clear to anyone with a calculator that she wasn't going to win).

And if, as you say, HRC and BHO's policies were essentially the same, why the hell WOULDN'T African-Americans vote to put the first African-American in the White House?  Hell tons of women did the same thing with HRC.  I suggest you stick to making poorly thought out arguments on behalf of Jewish Americans or better yet, just don't.

Jackson, please explain why 88% of blacks voting for a white Democrat is unremarkable, but 95% of blacks voting for a black Democrat is troubling. The difference is negligible.

Add to the fact that the GOP has been openly hostile to African Americans, as a group, since at least the late 70s. Honestly, if a party were openly hostile to Jewish people, I find it hard to believe that Jackson would be troubled by 85-95% of Jewish voters supporting their opposition.

Back to the cellphone thing, studies show that there are now more American households with a cellphone but no landline than there are households with a landline but no cellphones.

Not polling households that can only be reached by cellphone is numerically equivalent to excluding Baptists from your polling. Or all Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Jews. Or all left-handers. It's nonsensical, unless you assume that households with cellphones but no landline are scattered randomly through the population, which may be true in another decade but certainly is not today.

ironyroad said:   “But look at it this way, JD:  there is a difference between the implications of a negative vote, and those of a positive vote.”

I don’t see the difference between a negative race driven vote or a positive race driven vote.

In either case if the candidate is elected on the basis of “race” he will potentially govern on the basis of “race.”  

The comparison to the Catholic vote isn’t valid since these voters do not constitute a “race” or even an ethnic group. As to the Jewish vote it is too miniscule to bear comparison with either the Black vote or the Catholic vote. In any case I am not aware that Republican Jews voted for Gore/Lieberman.

kj_593 said:  "Jackson: You my friend are arse.  Hillary lost the black vote on her own account with what were WIDELY perceived in the black community as racially charged/insensitive comments from her and others in her campaign."

Typical Obama supporter. When the creep can't answer a point he or she resorts to insults.

Now, go fuck yourslef kj-593 whomever you be!

miceelf said:  "Add to the fact that the GOP has been openly hostile to African Americans, as a group, since at least the late 70s."

A party that appointed the first African Americans to hight level cabinet positions with Powell and Rice can't be said to have been "hostile to Black people."

Are you just going to concede the point and not answer me, Jackson?

JD, you're saying that you don't accept the argument that there is a certain parallel to be drawn between Obama and African-Americans in 2008 and JFK and Catholicis (esp. Irish) in 1960?

If I read you correctly, the basis for your assertion of invalidity is that Irish Catholics (a) didn't/don't constitute an ethnicity and (b) shouldn't be used as a parallel example because their numbers are much smaller than the Af-Am population.

I think the first point is open to some debate, especially for 1960, but I'll simply state that I know from personal/family experience that JFK's ethnic-religious origins counted and that there was an unmistakeable feeling of pride that one of ours had made it to the top, and that millions of other Americans were going to vote for him.  To that extent, I would dispute that among Irish-Americans there was no self-identification as a distinct group to whom Kennedy "belonged" more than any other, and I would dispute any claim that this did not translate into voting behavior.

Your second point is irrelevant, as the argument was not about absolute numbers, but about to readiness to vote on an assumed or real sense of identity and whether it's a good or bad thing.

The parallels between JFK's support and Obama's isn't, in any case, my argument.  It's an example to illustrate my argument, which I'd recast this way:  "tribal" identification is bad in a modern democracy, which functions by creating constituencies of common interest across older lines of ethnic, religious, racial, or even regional identity.  Nevertheless, as the modern republican democracy of the United States has always had -- although we've come a long way -- a real social map different from its ideal map, and people have *not* had equal access to political representation, there are natural emotions of excitement and pride and identification when a group that has been disadvantaged and excluded sees someone who looks like them make it.

And by the way, there is very little historical dispute that pure anti-Catholic bigotry generated the election result of 1928.  If you believe that Smith went down to defeat because vast swathes of the Democratic South preferred Hoover's policies and not because of hatred and fear of Smith's ethnic and religious identity, you are being, at the very least, naive.

Black people have had to endure unimaginable inhumanity since the 1st slave ship docked in South Carolina in 1611. When my father came to this country as a Jewish refugee from Germany in 1938 one of the 1st cities he came to after arriving in New York was Memphis, Tn. When he saw how people were abused in that part of the country back then he remarked that blacks had it about as bad as he did back in Berlin (at that point Jews were not yet being deported to concentration camps). I wish my dad were alive today to see Americans just about to elect a black man as president, and by a landslide. It would end for him the one thing he did not love about this country, its racism. Anyone out there still (incredibly) thinking about voting for McCain should consider this historic opportunity for America's redemption, and then instead vote for Obama.

frilz, the Nuremberg Laws which took away the rights of citizenship were enacted in 1935. These laws merely gave the stamp of legal approval to what had been a fact since 1933: Jews were treated as untermenschen with no rights.

In any case, in Eastern Europe Jews had been massacred in pogroms periodically for centuries.

The comparison you bring up is tendentious in the extreme.

“JD, you're saying that you don't accept the argument that there is a certain parallel to be drawn between Obama and African-Americans in 2008 and JFK and Catholicis (esp. Irish) in 1960?”  ironyroad

Yes, that is what I am saying.  In your earlier post, btw, you emphasized the Catholic vote and mentioned the Irish as a btw.

If you want to limit the comparison to the Irish vote then you may have a point.  However, the point I was making is that the Irish didn’t gain much from the election of an Irish Catholic to the Presidency.

The Irish Americans gained more by pursuing other avenues of wealth and social prestige. The entry into higher education and all the Professions did more for them than electing Irish people to political office.

There is of course some overlapping.

The same will be true for African Americans.

In any case, there is a difference between explaining an event and approving its occurrence.  

“The parallels between JFK's support and Obama's isn't, in any case, my argument.  It's an example to illustrate my argument, which I'd recast this way:  "tribal" identification is bad in a modern democracy, which functions by creating constituencies of common interest across older lines of ethnic, religious, racial, or even regional identity.”

Here I agree.

“Nevertheless, as the modern republican democracy of the United States has always had -- although we've come a long way -- a real social map different from its ideal map, and people have *not* had equal access to political representation, there are natural emotions of excitement and pride and identification when a group that has been disadvantaged and excluded sees someone who looks like them make it.”

I don’t entirely agree here: (I do agree and like you ideal as opposed to real social map distinction) not all ethnic/religious groups take pride in the same things.

I’ll stick to my own group for a minute. Electing Jews to public office has not been the primary point of pride for Jews. I never heard a Jewish mother talk about her son or daughter the successful politician. I did hear praise for my son/daughter the doctor, lawyer, etc.

“And by the way, there is very little historical dispute that pure anti-Catholic bigotry generated the election result of 1928.”

I never denied that, I merely said the distinction between positive and negative ethnic voting is specious.

The Protestant bigots who voted against Al Smith got the depression instead. You may call it “divine retribution” if you like.

In any case, is it not possible that these same Protestant voters learned a lesson from their earlier experience and made possible the election of a Kennedy? I wonder if anyone has ever studied this point.

rozenson said:  “Are you just going to concede the point and not answer me, Jackson?”

Stop being a nudnik. I already answered you point when I said that the Black community’s voting on the basis of race was already demonstrated in the primary when a superior candidate, Hillary Clinton, was shunned in favor of Obama, a man with little accomplishment and dubious friends.

I am surprised that you are not troubled by the fact that 95 plus percent of African Americans will be voting on the basis of race.

Jackson, the wholesale shipping off of European Jews, often times referred to as "The Final Solution", was the result of the Wansee Conference, where top nazi officials met and ordered the systematic removal of Jews to concentration camps. Black peoples' ancestors were shipped in similarly horrific conditions aboard slave ships, where untold numbers of people died and their offspring endured 260 years of slavery. Obama represents the redemption of this long and terrible American history and I'm surprized that even 5% of black people would vote for McCain (it must be a statistical error on the part of the pollsters).

frilz1, you don't know what you are tlaking about so please stop with the comparisons.

By the time the Wansee Conference was held millions of Jews had already been muredered in Russian and elsewhere in Eastern Europe.

Babi Yar was but one such place;

en.wikipedia.org/.../Babi_Yar

"Wansee" was supposed to offer a more "humane way of killing Jews."

The Shoah was but the culmination of decades and even centuries of unimaginable persecution of Jews.

To repeat, you don't know what you are tlaking about so please stop with the comparisons.

jackson:  "Are you going to tell me that 95 plus percent of Blacks support his policies?"

Yep.  Blacks have been overwhelmingly Democratic for some time.  They vote for the Democrat for president in a general election by huge (around 90 percent) margins, regardless of the race of the candidate.  I doubt that a black McCain would win this group.  Colin Powell is not a black McCain.  He's supporting Obama.  He's a moderate.  McCain is running on a conservative platform that blacks simply don't support.

Blacks are somewhat more socially conservative than is widely thought, I think, but they are overhwelmingly liberal otherwise.  Obama's race, and the hope it represents among blacks, may drive that support up a bit, and certainly will add to the enthusiasm and turnout, but I don't view that as illicit or odd.  I would expect any group to react that way toward one who is perceived as one of their own, especially given a history of discrimination.

As for not choosing the "superior candidate" in the primary, I think you know that blacks were skeptical about Obama at first, preferring Hillary in many polls, but, much like the rest of the country, warmed to him after getting to know him and seeing that he could win over white voters.  Also, it strikes me as absurd now to view Hillary as the unquestionably "superior candidate" given where we are.

"The Irish Americans gained more by pursuing other avenues of wealth and social prestige. The entry into higher education and all the Professions did more for them than electing Irish people to political office."

I don't think it is or was a zero-sum game.  The Irish were good at modern politics because they came from a democratic (by the light of its day) system, although one that was the product of an imperial power, Britain.  Nevertheless they understood the system as immigrants from other places did not, as they had experience of working it -- if I remember my Irish history Daniel O'Connell's Repeal Association was the first popular-membership party in the western world with a fee that even a manual worker could afford.

The American immigration patterns fitted the Irish experience -- they wanted small closely-knit communities because they felt that they had protection in numbers, and the small size and dense population of Ireland made the vast expanses of the praries too dizzying a change (in contrast to Scandinavian immigrants, for example).  Of course, there was major corruption in urban ward-tramping politics, and this appalled the Protestant middle and upper classes at the end of the 19th century, leading to the Progressives and the Muckraker ethic.  Eventually the Irish became de-ghettoized, so to speak, but there are still some traces of defensiveness and occasionally even paranoia that hark back to when anti-Catholicism was respectable, if not mandatory, and Catholic and American identities were seen by many as mutually exclusive.

And for those reasons I would argue strongly that my non-scientific parallel 1960-2008 is not without validity, and I strongly disagree that there is no difference between a negative vote based on fear or dislike, and a positive vote based upon pride and one-time celebration of "tribal" achievement.  The latter is inclusive at heart and leaves a better taste behind on the nation's tongue, so to speak.

Jackson, I stand by what I said in my 1st post, which is that in 1938, when my father left for America, the treatment of Jews in Germany was horrible, however the shipments off to concentration camps was not yet being done wholesale and en mass. Certainly no Jews were murdered in Russia until 1940, when the nazis 1st invaded. Please stop trying to confuse people here! And I see you have avoided talking about its comparison to black people in America from 1611 forward by several hundred years, and why it helps explain the desire for the redemptive act of voting for Barak Obama, who coincidentally happens to also be the very best candidate in 2008. So I salute the good judgement of anyone who votes for him over (ughhhhh) McCain, whether they be black, white, brown, yellow, or green!

Irony, I'll let your post be the last word on the subject since the the thread is about to disappear to page number 2.

I am sure will pick up where we left off on some other thread.

jacksondyer said:

"I don't know about you, but I find it very troubling that over 90 percent of African Americans are voting for Obama.

I would find it equally disquieting if over 90 percent of whites were to vote for McCain."

I don't know about you, either, but I would find it more interesting to know what and why you feel disturbed by Obama himself. That might better help understand why you are so troubled about the statistics you report.

That <90% of whites might vote for McCain wouldn't be disquieting, it would be confounding, mind-boggling, and highly suspect because it's preposterous to envision; unless, of course Obama were to declare himself the Antichrist or a Jihadi or some damned thing. It is short by about a light year of plausibility that <90% of African Americans would vote for Obama (which I find a little suspect, but let pass).

I'm more surprised to hear, from their own mouths, all kinds people who admit that they have never voted for a Democrat before, for thus and such reasons, yet plan to or are strongly leaning to vote for Obama against their otherwise solid party preferences. (Some individuals have gone on even to set aside their concern that Obama might be socialist, because -they say- they are so disturbed and worried by the state of the economy that they have more confidence in Obama's ability to deal with the mess than McCain. How do you like them apples?)

Normatively, I would expect ±75% of African Americans to vote for the Democratic candidate, higher for a popular one. This year, a remarkable percentage of just about every demographic save traditional and social conservative Republicans are planning to vote against their usual preference, due to one or more highly plausible negative incentives to vote for McCain. Add to that an additional %5 to perhaps as high as 10% African Americans might vote for Obama foremost that they are strongly motivated to vote for Obama just because he would be the first black man to succeed in becoming President. (Who woulda thunk? I certainly didn't and am still hesitant to pop the corks until the fat lady sings.)

So, if you are willing, please enlighten us what your reasons and criteria are that you are so disturbed. Then perhaps I will understand why you are so disturbed.

frilz1, you are acting like an Obama zombie.

First, you are the one who introduced a specious comparison between Black slavery and the Shoah.  Only fools jump in with comparisons where wise people fear to compare.

Second, the election of a member of previously oppressed minority doesn't always mean the embracing of that minority by the majority.

Jews have learned this hard lesson time and time again.

Trotsky is but one example.

Another more telling one, is Bruno Kreisky the Prime Minister of Austria who refused to prosecute Nazi war criminal and was generally hostile to the Jewish Community.

You can support Obama all you want but don’t do it by bringing up the Holocaust.

This is my last reply on this thread.

Jackson, here is MY last reply on this issue: To me, the saying "Never Again" does not just mean never again for the Jews. To me it means never again for ANY group of oppressed people. Jews should understand the sufferings of other groups better than anyone, based on their history, and fight against it. If you don't understand that then you are WORSE than a fool.

I rest my case.........

A clarification, a friend emailed me to say that my remarks about Trotsky may not be understood.

Trotsky was a Jewish leader of the Bolshevik revolution who led the red army to victory.

Jews in the Soviet Union were being massacred by the thousands in the civil war the revolution of 1917.

Both the red army Cossacks and the White pro Czarist army Cossacks took part in the whole sale slaughter of Jews. Jewish leaders appealed to Trotsky to intervene but he refused saying that he wasn’t interested in ethnic affairs.

So much for Jewish leaders helping Jews.

If your argument is that "black people are not giving the white guy a fair shake this time around," jacksondyer, it would be more efficaciously made when the particular white guy in question is not one who voted against Martin Luther King Day.  McCain "policies" like that lost the black vote all on their own.  They didn't need Obama's race to do it for them.

Given your posting history and what it says about your priorities, I very much doubt you would be as statesmanlike in your weighing of policy documents when one of the candidates had a mark of anti-Semitism on his voting record as you are demanding African-Americans to be in this election.  Perhaps those 95% of black folks simply took a look at the guy who voted against honoring of one of the most respected figures in American history and said, "We can do better."  Wouldn't you?

"So, if you are willing, please enlighten us what your reasons and criteria are that you are so disturbed. Then perhaps I will understand why you are so disturbed."

I ahve stated my views about Obama elsewhere and at great length and don't intend to repeat them here.

I am Democrat who will vote for all the Democrats on the list, but not for Obama.

I may or may not vote for McCain. I'll decide on the day of the election.

frilz1 said:  "Jackson, here is MY last reply on this issue: To me, the saying "Never Again" does not just mean never again for the Jews."

You are a pretentious asshole.

No better than those Republican Jews who compared Obama to Hitler.

You are all out of your cotton pickin little minds.

Jackson's point (to summarize: people vote for somebody for dumb reasons) is well taken, and supported by plenty of data.

People vote for somebody because somebody is black. Or white. Or Jewish. Or Christian. Or not.

People vote for the taller of two candidates. Or the older. Or the younger. Appearance is huge. The GOP did not spend six figures on Palin's wardrobe in hopes of stimulating the economy.

People vote because of fear. Because of sloth. Because of greed. Because they text all day long and got a text message from the campaign. Because they don't own a cell phone and don't want to vote for someone who uses those new-fangled text messages.

Tens of millions of people vote for a candidate out of sheer party-affiliation habit. Millions more vote for a Democrat or Republican because their parents voted for a Democrat or Republican. Or not.

I heard a great piece on NPR the other day about how the campaigns are segmenting undecideds. In the old (Rovian) days they did this on the basis of policy: Jane Elm Street is pro-choice; Don Maple Avenue is pro-gun. Now it's gone deeper, far deeper: the segmenting, and the ensuing marketing, goes to how rational someone is. How emotional. How laconic. How convivial. Etc. Big Brother has a Master's in Social Work. He keeps a box of Kleenex next to the couch, in case you puddle up.

All of which, correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't really have much to do with whether or not the U.S. should cut a deal with the Taliban to help police the Afghan-Pakistani border, or divide the petroleum spoils in the Arctic Sea once the ice shelf finishes melting.

williamyard said:  "Jackson's point (to summarize: people vote for somebody for dumb reasons) is well taken, and supported by plenty of data."

All true, however I nwever heard of anyone voting for Obama because of the Holocaust.

That's just too bizarre for words.

William & Jackson, I said in an earlier post that "Obama happens to be the very best candidate in 2008", which is exactly WHY I am voting for him, and also why I recommend that everyone else do the same. I would not vote for ANYONE based on any other reason, including race, creed, or color. If you are going to disagree with me please do so based on what I say, not your odd sense of fantasy.

If I may put in my $0.02 to this thread.  Though I'm mixed, I can, by my physical appearance, be called an African-American, though "culturally," "white."  (Too many quotes?).  Given that I oppose tribalism, even among my "own people," since as early as FDR, American blacks have moved steadily towards the Dems and by the late 60's, have been reliably Democratic.  So, black support for Obama is primarily due to his policy positions rather than his "race."  However, I believe that the higher registration among blacks this election season is due, in part at least, to the fact that Obama is black.  Is this "positive racism" troubling?  Only in purely ideological terms.  Many blacks in the past, while in general agreement with Democratic policy positions, never voted because they never thought that their votes counted.  I suspect that the "oddness" in Florida in 2000 tended to reinforce this thinking.

Arguably, many blacks are excited about the idea of voting for a black man for president.  But aren't many non-blacks, particularly whites, excited about voting for a black guy?  Assuming that you agree with Obama's positions and are comfortable with his personal qualities, is the idea of putting a black in the White House for "symbolic" reasons an issue for concern?  On balance, I'm not, though I'll admit that I'm not being totally true to my anti-tribal principles.  

Perhaps my father-in-law's support for Obama best illustrates my feelings.  My father-in-law is a white Southerner who was initially against my wife and I marrying and having children solely on racial grounds.  While he would never have been part of a lynch mob, he did see non-whites, particularly blacks as, "not like us."  That was 14 years ago.  He's still a Republican; however, very early on, he supported Obama.  While I think that having a black son-in-law who is an educated professional, supported his daughter and grandchildren, and is generally "a good one," may have influenced his views that Obama is also "a good one," ("That One?"), I suspect that he does not see Obama's "race" and may be voting solely on what he perceives as Obama's merits.

If Obama wins, (and is reasonably successful in office), he will likely be the presidential Jackie Robinson.  Remember, not too long ago, many whites were unwilling to see blacks and whites play baseball together.  For quite some time now, the notion of keeping blacks out of major league baseball would strike, even many racists, as bizarre. I suspect that in 25 years, we will see more blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc., run for the presidency and their "race" will be about as meaningful as their hair color.  

"If you are going to disagree with me please do so based on what I say, not your odd sense of fantasy."Frtzl

Here is the record:

frilz1 said:  "Jackson, here is MY last reply on this issue: To me, the saying "Never Again" does not just mean never again for the Jews. To me it means never again for ANY group of oppressed people. Jews should understand the sufferings of other groups better than anyone, based on their history, and fight against it. If you don't understand that then you are WORSE than a fool."

So Frilz isn't voting for Obama because he is "the best candidate" but because he belongs "to an oppressed group of people which is facing a Holocaust."

The ridiculousness of the comments speaks for itself.

"Never again," frizl, doesn't mean what you say it means.

It is a translation from an Yiddish saying which in its entirety means, "never again will Jews go to their deaths without fighting back...."

And yes, it does mean 'Never again..." for the Jews alone since they alone are responsible for their own safety and security.

As one can see it doesn't translate into the American reality since nothing remotely similar to the kinds of oppression and destruction was experienced by any group in this country's history including that of African Americans.

As for the history of slavery when Africans were being sold into slavery in the 17th century tens of thousands of Jews were being sold into slavery in auction markets of Istanbul after the Chmielnicki pogroms in the Ukraine.

You nothing about Jewish history, frilz and none of this has anything to do with the elections. People should be voting for an individual candidate and to atone for “historical wrongs.”

Again, Jackson, you didn't read my 1st post, in which I talk about how my father saw the treatment of black people in 1938 Memphis, Tn. as quite similar to the treatment he had in Berlin as a Jew that same year. A righteous man sees the oppression an mistreatment of one group of people as an affront to all mankind and fights against it. What this election represents is an opportunity to not only vote for the best candidate from either party in the year 2008, Obama, but the results of his winning being redemtive for America. To succumb to the Bradley Effect and not vote for the best man simply because of his race is a sin. When you said you were speaking on this for the last time I had hoped to make my followup my own last word, but, you chose to keep distorting what I've said and say stupid things about the nature of "historical wrongs", so here I am (sigh) back again.

frilz1 said:  "Again, Jackson, you didn't read my 1st post, in which I talk about how my father saw the treatment of black people in 1938 Memphis, Tn. as quite similar to the treatment he had in Berlin as a Jew that same year."

I read everything you wrote and it all aims in the same direction. Blacks suffered as jews suffered and therefore we have to vote for Obama.

This is ignorant and crazy talk.

I was in the Air Force and was stationed part of the time in the South (Alabama) and I saw how Blacks were treated. Some of my roommates were Blacks.  I also read a lot of Black American narratives.

Hence I am not ignorant of the way Black people were treated in the South.

However, I also know from relatives as well as from my readings of Jewish history that the lot of Jews was much worse.

But none of this has anything to do with this election and I don't think that there is such a thing as an election  "redemtive for America."

Do you think that Germany electing a Jew as the head of that government would be "redemptive for Germany?"

This is pure fiction.

In any case, "redemption" is a religious term, more precisely a Christian religious term. Are you a Christian? Do you believe in redemption?

I don't. I believe in the Jewish notion of forgiveness and of hard work. They often go together.  Past wrongs can never be redeemed; they can be forgiven with time.

People on the left tend to stalk Black people's anger make it very difficult for them to forgive and go on. It is hypocritical for leftists who usually are not religious to use religious language.

In any case I don't think that Obama is the best candidate, I don't think he is ready to be President, period. I would have voted for Powell a few elections back and there are other worthier Black Americans who are ready to lead the country.