Community | July 31, 2008 | 29 comments

Is Obama playing the race card?

source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/07/31/2008-07-31_mccain_camp_accuses_obama_of_...

Image
DeliaTheArtist
"The simmering issue of race boiled over on the presidential campaign trail today after John McCain's camp accused Barack Obama - the first African American with a real shot at the presidency - of playing the race card.

The harsh attack came after Obama predicted McCain and Republicans would try to scare voters about him and say he doesn't look like other presidents on dollar bills.

"Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck," McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said in a statement. "It's divisive, negative, shameful and wrong."

Obama, campaigning in Missouri Wednesday, said President Bush and McCain would play to fear to maintain their hold on the White House because they have nothing to offer voters.

"Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, 'he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name,' you know, 'he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."'

While race has been an undercurrent throughout the presidential contest, McCain has never used Obama's African-American heritage as an issue. In fact, the Arizona senator has routinely condemned people who try to inject race into the daily debate.

Back in February, McCain apologized after radio host Bill Cunningham introduced him at a Cincinnati event by repeatedly referring to his opponent as "Barack Hussein Obama."

A month later, McCain also suspended a campaign blogger for sending out a link to a video that attempted to tie Obama to the black power movement, rappers and Malcolm X.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said today that his boss was not referring to race when he said that Republicans would try to paint him as different.

"What Barack Obama was talking about was that he didn't get here after spending decades in Washington," Gibbs said. "There is nothing more to this than the fact that he was describing that he was new to the political scene. He was referring to the fact that he didn't come into the race with the history of others. It is not about race.""
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics
  2. tags:
    News,  News and Politics,  Politics,  Obama,  4 more
  3.     
    |

29 comments // Is Obama playing the race card?

  • sketchmeplz
    • 0
      sketchmeplz  

    • Of course he is playing the race card and its the only reason he won...
      Trust me if McCain was black McCain would have won. People are stupid plus he won because the republicans actually HAVE to work...

    • 3 years ago
  • regularrf
    • 0
      regularrf  

    • He better watch the bullshit people don't want to hear that crap, its the other way here McCain is being treated
      like white trash.

    • 3 years ago
  • Mafioso
    • 0
      Mafioso  

    • I am just waiting for this "Policy Book" Obama is planning on releasing. I want to see exactly what he has planned.

      Now whether or not he will go through with them (his policies and plans) or whether they are feasible, we will have to wait and see.

    • 3 years ago
  • Mr_Costello
    • 0
      Mr_Costello  

    • McCain's tribe will come at Obama everything they've got, the Republicans will try to paint him as different - Obama is addressing a nation, who's citizens are jaded, enervated and embarrassed by they're current admin.

    • 3 years ago
  • Mafioso
    • 0
      Mafioso  

    • I think you might be mistaken by going based off of "revisionist history" that you were taught. The South ceded from the North, not because of the threat of losing slavery. At the time states made their own rules and only had to consult the federal level of government when trading or dealing with foreign nations. The South felt as though they had less of a say with what was going on with the rules being made up by the "politicians" in the north. Where most politics took place. They felt their concerns were falling on deaf ears. Slavery became an "underlying cause" once the actual secession took place, because once it was over, amendments were made to the constitution which allowed the northern states to take a more adament approach to abolishing slavery.

      I think you need to read up on a more thorough history book, not the ones you read in grade school.

      This is from Wikipedia... but it is a sentiment echoed by most of the information you will find on the Civil War...
      "The coexistence of a slave-owning South with an increasingly anti-slavery North made conflict inevitable. Lincoln did not propose federal laws against slavery where it already existed, but he had, in his 1858 House Divided Speech, expressed a desire to "arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction".[3] Much of the political battle in the 1850s focused on the expansion of slavery into the newly created territories.[4][5][6] All of the organized territories were likely to become free-soil states, which increased the Southern movement toward secession. Both North and South assumed that if slavery could not expand it would wither and die.[7][8][9]

      Southern fears of losing control of the federal government to antislavery forces, and Northern fears that the slave power already controlled the government, brought the crisis to a head in the late 1850s. Sectional disagreements over the morality of slavery, the scope of democracy and the economic merits of free labor vs. slave plantations caused the Whig and "Know-Nothing" parties to collapse, and new ones to arise (the Free Soil Party in 1848, the Republicans in 1854, the Constitutional Union in 1860). In 1860, the last remaining national political party, the Democratic Party, split along sectional lines.

      Both North and South were influenced by the ideas of Thomas Jefferson. Southerners emphasized, in connection with slavery, the states' rights[10][11][12] ideas mentioned in Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions. Northerners ranging from the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison to the moderate Republican leader Abraham Lincoln[13] emphasized Jefferson's declaration that all men are created equal. Lincoln mentioned this proposition in his Gettysburg Address..."

      So it came down to power, the Southern States feeling the Northern States were trying to control the federal level of government and a fear this would spread to their state powers, and the Northern States feeling as though Slave States had all the power and would hinder progress.

      Slavery may have been the straw that broke the camels back, but the issue itself wasn't what was important or at stake. It was power and control of government. The North didn't really care about whether Southern States held slaves, they just didn't want those states saying it was okay for other states to hold slaves and then gaining an unfair advantage over the federal level interests (which in turn would affect the Northern States interests).

    • 3 years ago
  • Angel4truth
  • Mafioso
    • 0
      Mafioso  

    • "What Barack Obama was talking about was that he didn't get here after spending decades in Washington," Gibbs said. "There is nothing more to this than the fact that he was describing that he was new to the political scene. He was referring to the fact that he didn't come into the race with the history of others. It is not about race.""

      How does this even make sense? The people on our currency were part of a new system of government. And the capital wasn't even Washington DC at the time some of them were presidents or involved in politics. It's not like they were experienced politicians either, some were farmers, inventors, print pressers, lawyers, & in the armed services.

    • 3 years ago
  • Mafioso
    • 0
      Mafioso  
    • Mafioso:

      Well that had to do with where they (politicians at that time) lived, not their experience in politics. They were creating the politics of that time. I hate that the actions they (the founding fathers) took snowballed into what government is now. It is a very simple story with very complex issues.

      Basically it came down to this. They formed a country in which they believed the people had the right to form their own opinions on what was good for the country as a whole. In order for this to work properly they needed to make sure that information traveled to the people, at that time this wasn't as easy as it is today (with email, cell phones, media, etc), because of this many states or colonies in the south were unable to effectively participate in the political process, leading to a rebellion because they felt they were not being heard and slowly being left behind in the revolution the northern states were becoming a part of (industrialization, aristrocatic affairs, and the ideal location for the business of government).

      As a result, we had the "civil war", which was not about slavery as taught in school, but was about the southern states feeling as though they were being ignored and their main money making abilities (namely farming) were being taken to task by "progressive" thinkers in the northern states that were moving away from archaic methods of farming and moving towards industrialization and more progressive means of making money (This movement also led to more progressive thinking. Because northern states were moving towards an economy that depended on its citizens being educated, they no longer saw a need for slavery or an emphasis of manual labor, with this idea came about the movement to rid all states of slavery once the progressive thinkers of the time began to question the right of one person to own another).

      This war ended up having the worst possible effect on our freedoms and civil liberties because it in turn brought about the changes that made the federal government more powerful than state powers and created a "democracy" run by one governing body (the federal government) with many subsidiaries (state and local government). This made it possible for corruption to run more rampant and for the entire democratic process to be compromised.

      Although it also helped end slavery, this was not for the sake of helping blacks, it was instead a secondary issue that only a few actually truly cared about. They made the slavery issue a valid point in showing that the southern states were not progressing but counting on archaic methods to make money, and they too should instead make advances based on innovative ideas and inventions. Hence the improvements made to the cotton gin (which was sometimes blamed for continuing the need for slavery), and other farming tools and inventions that helped make it less imperative to have as many people working in the fields.

    • 3 years ago
  • Mafioso
  • Mafioso
    • 0
      Mafioso  
    • Mafioso:

      Okay, I hope you don't call yourself an educated voter... Not only has he changed his stance on talks with foreign nations (such as Iran, Pakistan, and Cuba), but he has also said he backs our relationship with Israel (one of the main reasons so many other nations hate us).

      He went from an environmentally friendly platform, to supporting nuclear power plants (just for us though, he now says no one else should be allowed to use nuclear power). He has moved away from alternative resources for energy and has encouraged congress to look into approving off shore drilling ( a proposal very much like the one Bush has proposed).

      He has also supported other corporations, both big pharma and oil, and has even had some contributions from them as recent as June and July (of course not from the companies themselves, but some of their associates and ceos in the form of individual contributions).

      Some of the names being thrown into the ring by his top advisors for VP have been atrociously right wing on some important issues, such as corporate corruption, gay rights, and womens' rights.

      He has now moved away from saying major corporations should be taxed more, and has claimed he will now target wealthy individuals, though his stance on his economic policy would imply that he will revisit that issue if he were to be elected (in other words nothing is a for sure thing on his economic policy).

      He has neglected to address issues he basically clenched the nomination on. Many of the ones mentioned above, but also including health care (he now supports the HMOs and insurers more than the individual), the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (now he says he is taking a more "realistic" approach), as well as his stance on civil liberties and infringements on those liberties (he once made it seem as though he despised the terrorist act, now he back peddles and says some of its components are essential in keeping Americans safe), lets not forget to mention labor unions and NAFTA. And what happened to his stance on illegal immigrants, once he said he was for the integration of those people into our society as valuable members of our communities, now he says nothing at all on the issue.

      We shouldn't be hearing less on his stance on the issues, we should be getting greater detail on them, but of course that hasn't happened, because he wants to win an election.

      This doesn't scream of someone who is not a politician, or "green" as he states he is, but someone who has the game down and is not afraid to play it.

      I want someone different as he claims to be, but his stance (or lack thereof) on the issues, and his actions in and out of the senate, make me realize he is just another politician who will pander and say anything to get elected.

      Great speakers don't always make great leaders. Let us not be fooled.

    • 3 years ago
  • Mafioso
    • 0
      Mafioso  
    • Mafioso:

      I never thought he was a radical, I always knew he was just another politician. That is my point. He never intended to make the necessary changes needed to get this country back on track and making the people the major focus and concern, rather than money and profits.

      He is the one that led his supporters to believe he was more liberal than McCain, and your admission on your view that McCain is four more years of Bush, but Obama would be some sort of saving grace or at the very least less damaging than McCain, would imply their views are vastly different. They aren't. They were a couple of months ago, but now they aren't.

      You say they (his stance on the issues) haven't changed, the wording rather has changed. Well as far as I'm concerned that is semantics, a game that all politicians play rather well. It worked on you, did it not?

    • 3 years ago
  • Angel4truth
    • 0
      Angel4truth  
    • Mafioso:

      I wouldn't agree to that.

      I have a feeling that some people are making their own decisions for a change.

      Not being fucking lemmings to a talking head.
      (sorry for the language)

    • 3 years ago
  • Angel4truth
    • 0
      Angel4truth  

    • If he hasn't BET (tv) is. I saw advertisements that were pro Obama only because he is black.

      Yeah, I forgot the exact name of it but it was Obama and black me, or something.
      Lovely.

      You would think that Americans would be above that and that "African Americans" would want to be called "Americans" and that the racial shit in this country would not be tolerated.

    • 3 years ago
  • Nuevarine
    • 0
      Nuevarine  
    • Angel4truth:

      I don't know if you noticed, but most black people aren't republican from the jump, so...maybe BET likes Obama because he's Democrat....and half-black?
      But anyway, McCain's old, Barack's half-black, what else is new?

    • 3 years ago
  • Mafioso
    • 0
      Mafioso  
    • Angel4truth:

      Does it matter if he/she is a person of color? You don't have to be black to make a valid point about race.

      If you have to be a person of color, I am , and I second that notion.

    • 3 years ago
  • Angel4truth
    • 0
      Angel4truth  
    • Angel4truth:

      That isn't the issue at all.
      What I was trying to EXPLAIN was that BET was making it all about race, not about individuals or issues.

      It was dumbed down or something.

      I would have been insulted if lifetime said to vote for Hillary because she could further our female agenda.
      (I don't watch that channel, so I don't know if they went that way, but either is BS.)

    • 3 years ago
  • Angel4truth
    • 0
      Angel4truth  
    • Angel4truth:

      Thanks Brendan for seeing the facts, not the knee reflex answers that people have these days.

      I have a very mixed family and naturally not biased toward anything.

      I live in no prism that makes stuff weird. I live down town and I think I am like one of the only fair-skinned people here (who cares!).

      I enjoy my neighbors. They wave and say hi when they see me. So no, not high and mighty and not afraid of anyone black, male or otherwise..and/or different from myself. (smiles, winks.. seriously, that would be crazy!!)

      Thank you for understanding that the only thing I was trying to say was....
      That BET looked like it was making it racial.

      (OMG I'm white and watching BET! and no, not scared of the tv either. They have some cool stuff on that I don't find other places, I'm all for the station.) --she laughs lightly and smiles with eyes sparkling.

      But to the relavent question my answer is: I don't think that Obama needs to pull any race card. Period.

      However, many in the country are obsessed with race(I think that makes our country less strong).
      (she wrinkles her nose --thinking.. that's just crazy)

      In the same breath, it is proven that people of all races and sex very much like Obama.

      Oh, and no... don't have time to watch FOX news.

    • 3 years ago
  • extblues
    • 0
      extblues  

    • Race is an issue in this campaign only by virtue of the fact that one candidate just happens to be black and the other just happens to be white.

      Beyond this qualifier, whenever someone tries to use "the race card", either obliquely or directly, as a talking point, they should be pointedly reminded about all of the other issues that are much, much more important to the country as a whole than something as relatively superficial as the color of one of the candidates skin, or how old he happens to be for that matter.

      Now understand this: problems with race still exist in this day and age...no argument there. But if we, as a nation, don't start to realize that if something isn't done about some of these major problems, it won't matter what part of the world our ancestors came from, because we'll all be going down together.

      Remember all of the fuss made over gay marriage four years ago? Same basic principle. For sure it was an important issue...no question. But the entirely disproportionate amount of attention given to it meant that much larger problems weren't given the critical attention they deserved.

      And we all know how that turned out, right?

    • 3 years ago
  • Angel4truth
  • Mafioso
  • Angel4truth
    • 0
      Angel4truth  
    • extblues:

      And don't you think that is a waste of our short time on earth? I have much better things to do. However,

      Wars are being fought over this, genocide all over the earth, same deal. RACE.

      We shouldn't tolerate it in any form, not in racial pride, (I.e. white power: skinheads or black power: african american movement)...
      I don't think they are the same, but both are about race. One more violent than the others, but BOTH encourage racial identity, not identity as and American.

      WE should all strive for one and only one thing. We should be AMERICAN, UNITED STATES CITIZENS.

      Am I supposed to refer to myself as a "Hungarian-European-native-American"?? God no!
      I'm AMERICAN. PERIOD.

      Race divides us and makes our country WEAK.

    • 3 years ago
  • CaptB
    • 0
      CaptB  

    • I think McCain is desperate at this point to do anything to catch up. He is not going by what he said early on that he was going to run a dignified campaign. Even republicans and Fox news are saying that McCain's ads are childish and taking the low road. McCain is trying to polarize people anyway he can. Anything to avoid the issues. All McCain can run on is the Iraq war. Unfortunately, he doesn't know the difference between the Shiites and Sunni's.

    • 3 years ago
  • mposs
  • Angel4truth
    • 0
      Angel4truth  
    • mposs:

      I don't think white people have a problem electing who ever is qualified.
      But it seems that the "african american" community is embracing this as their chance to rule or something. SEE BET TV.

      I HATE RACIAL SHIT.

    • 3 years ago
  • Angel4truth
  • Mafioso
    • 0
      Mafioso  
    • mposs:

      Racial solidarity is still a problem, because it implies you do not look at the issues, you just go based off of one characteristic you have in common, being a particular color.

    • 3 years ago
  • Mafioso
    • 0
      Mafioso  
    • mposs:

      Oh and racial solidarity goes both ways... You just stated that black people who vote because the candidate is black is voting for that person as a sign of being one with that candidate, well the same can be said of those white voters who vote for the white candidate. Maybe they are showing their racial solidarity.

      You see the problem with racial solidarity now? It always runs the risk of being ill informed and impractical.

    • 3 years ago
  • Angel4truth
    • 0
      Angel4truth  
    • mposs:

      Thanks, you said it better than I could.

      I have seen polls that Obama is loved across all racial and social barriers, so ....

      But to have someone vote for anyone due to race/sex, religion, etc is pain ignorant.

    • 3 years ago
  • bennyfilm
    • 0
      bennyfilm  

    • Unfortunately I think race does play a huge part in this campaign, whether we agree or Obama and McCain agree that it should or not doesn't really matter. The important thing is that we acknowledge it, not as an advantage, disadvantage but just as a fact. I guess one good thing that will come out of all this is that we will talk about it more, we should!

    • 3 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos