Don't do it. Just don't.

Don't post racist filth here under the guise of letting us know what we're "in for" if Obama's the nominee. I, for one, will assume that you are either a racist yourself, or have no compunction about using racist filth to try and sow doubt about Obama.

It. Won't. Work.

The latent racism I'm seeing on DU is really, really distressing.

under the guise of concern.

and he even heard from his "very liberal friend."

:eyes:

Could have been his very liberal gay friend.

:puke:

:hi:

:loveya:

:loveya:

Now you have me wondering. :shrug:

comes up in the General. We know enough about the RW Smear Machine to drown them out. I think the public is sick of this stuff anyway. i think they know it doesn't get them health care, or an end to the Iraq War, or prosperity. A message of hope and a joining together of all Dems is what will win for us in 08. And I think we will!

:thumbsup:

:applause:

DU is full of it right now, literally.

There is a differcnce between expressing concern and race baiting. And yes it is like pornography I will know it when I see it..

It is fine to say that Obama can't win in the south because of race.....but when you post racist bullshit that got people fired from the Clinton Campaign for forwarding it.. You are no bettern than they are.

I don't alert often, but that I do alert on.

telling gay people they are unnatural and that they can be CHANGED.

you mean that kind of racism?

gay people have a kind of racism that's worse than african american racism. at least when a black person 'comes out as a black person' to their family they are accepted.


when a gay person comes out to family , friends, jobs, they often get kicked out of their family, fired from jobs and worse, told they need to go to church or a save the gays camp.

no, Obama is an enemy of the gay race and I will comment on Obama's racism all day long!

why black folk and gay folk can't unite behind a true civil liberties banner is really beyond me!

His race shouldn't be a factor in the least. His DECISION to have that minister appear at his rally is the issue. Not the color of his skin.

Here's the only gay race which I know of:

http://www.gaygames.com/

That doesn't give you license to lie. McClurkin in not an aide or connected to Obama's campaign with the exception of having performed at an event.

And you have a lot of fucking nerve claiming that homophobia is worse than racism. People who measure in that way are truly clueless.

Feel free to complain all day and into the night. I understand why you would. Don't feel free to lie.

Obama is not homophobic. He is not a bigot. How about you?

in a state of denial. Hell, in 06 harold ford jr had a great chance to become the first Black in Tn. history to serve in the U.S. Senate. The election was 10 days away and Harold either was tied or ahead in some polls and things were looking great for Mr. Ford. Then along came the RNC. You know the Republican National Committee and they ran an ad that featured a white blond woman and all she said was "harold, call me". Many, many folks saw this as racist and asked Corker to take it down. He did not and thus the election was changed and instead of Mr. Ford becoming Senator Ford, you now have Senator Corker.

So please do not call me racist when I post stuff that is true. Do not call others racist when they post stuff that is true. As far as injecting race into this campaign maybe one should look at obama's speeches. Historical illustrations chosen by Obama's speech writers are race-related and that can be no accident.One illustration blatantly promotes revisionist history. Abraham Lincoln resisted Confederate succession with force of arms not to free the slaves, but to save the Union.Putting aside whether it yields him the votes to win the nomination, is there anything worthy of criticism with regard to Senator Barak Obama's somewhat oblique playing of the race card? I just ask and the answer is left up to the informed voter.

Ben David

so don't twist my words. And if you don't want people to think you're racist, don't post things that could be interpreted as such.

You've been running around screaming that Obama is a racist for weeks now.

Don't continue. If you do, I'll keep calling you on it. Don't like it? Tough.

:thumbsup:

The other week, I saw blatant racist right-wing talking points under the guise of a discussion about immigration. Really sickening. I seriously thought I wouldn't find that stuff on here.... *sigh*

with hatred and discrimination?

What we saw last night was a colorblind election based upon the make up of the supporters surrounding Obama and cheering him on. America has finally shown, openly and for the world to see, that we are growing and maturing. It was historic. I'm sorry that you don't agree.

I'm with Cali. Racist remarks have not place at DU and no place in our political discourse.

If you persist, and I've seen other posts that you have made which are very disturbing, I and I'm sure others will continue to alert the mods to your hatred.

I feel very sorry for you.

There ARE legitimate policy issues that a reasonable leftist could have, aren't there?

electability.

"Electability." Hmm... What is the accepted standard for being "electable," may I ask?

There are candidates' positions; candidates' strenghts or shortcomings; candidates' characters; candidates' likeability - and many other criteria. "Electability" is none of those - it is a conjured up image created by supporters or detractors which emphasizes only the total positive or the total negative about a particular candidate. It is based on generalities and assumptions.

If you have doubts that someone can be elected in this particular political climate, state the reasons; do not state the assumption as being the reason.

I won't vote for him because all those other racist people won't vote for him...? In this case one is just perpetuating racism by giving into all those racsist 'out there'. If you don't support Obama's politics, fine, but not supporting him b/c of his race is, well, racist.

it certainly doesn't point to any actual mental acuity on your part. I was clearly referring to spreading racist crap that's floating around. Now you know. And you should know that that's not the same thing as criticizing Obama on policy issues, or style or anything else along those lines. Call him a corporatist, lie about his record, whatever. I'll challenge you but I sure won't call you a racist for it.

A reasonable lefty should have been able to figure that one out.

It's a sign that we are shifting to a post-literate society.

That was hardly clear at all. If enough people have a similar misunderstanding to what you've written--and they have--the obvious common element is what you've written.

When referring to racist filth and "what we're in for", the net is cast so wide and vaguely that it seemingly includes any issues. From rerererereading it, all I could discern is that the "what we're in for" referred to the electability issue. Is that true? If not, what does it mean? If that is what's meant, I don't think that's that much of an issue, whereas I do about Clinton.

No, your threat was amorphous, hostile and unproductive. The problem is not one of reception but of transmission.

Warning people that they run the risk of being derided as a racist for spreading undefined resistance is a group-think, peer-pressure bit of pre-emptive sanctimony. Criticizing the inability to discern what is poorly communicated is simply silliness.

Just as a question, is it racism to point out that the 40 Days of Faith extravaganza was a deliberate attempt to coalesce solidarity around the candidate based on race and religion? Is there no racial component to this at all? Isn't the use of a white gay preacher when two black ones were offered either calculated race-appeasement or a colossal blunder?

about 60% of dems in Iowa chose another democrat other than obama. unfortunately, of my top three choices actively running, 2 have dropped out, which is disappointing. the other, who is the most progressive, is still in for now, but prospects are looking bleak. So all that is left is Washington insiders ObamaHillary, whose policies are practically indisinguishable, and Edwards, former Washington insider running as an outsider as well. Any of them would do fine compared to any republican. But none of them are gonna be my new messiah.

"Eat it haters" is not going to be an effective campaign strategy, IMO, to persuade the 60% to vote with the 37%.

Msongs

But he is a corporate suck-up just like Mrs Clinton.

That is all.

off the shelf rhetoric, but it's certainly not racist. Just a mistruth- to put it kindly, Mr.Pig.

In case you didn't know that.

like the two threads that are now doing just that- one with over 100 posts and one with 30 or so.

I was beginning to wonder...

there are members of the electorate who will not vote Obama strictly because of his race?

:shrug:

Just wonderin...

Just don't post filth like this... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3949295&mesg_id=3949295

:wow:

Obama is still not my first choice, but I will support him enthusiastically if he wins the nomination.

and for no other purpose than to show your concern about the matter.
Or, if you use it as a non-sequitur argument against an Obama nomination in other threads.
Or, even if it's not a non-sequitur, but you raise it as a "valid" point.

In other words, *having* that opinion doesn't make you a racist, but *stating* that opinion *implies* a sort of proto-, meta-, racisim-by-proxy.
Which is still bad.
:shrug:

Acknowledging that racism exists and that it plays a part in politics is not racism.

There were two posts with the same content posted within 1/2 hour of each other. I hope you realize that this was more than just an "acknowledgement" of racism in this country.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3949295&mesg_id=3949295

I think even Republicans would find this sort of thing disgusting - even though I've never met a Republican who wasn't secretly bigoted, they don't like to be perceived that way.

Really?

They say JFK's campaign really took off when a bunch of bigots started mouthing off that they would never vote for a {insert lengthy list of insults here} Roman Catholic. He ended up winning the very district where that particular anti-Catholic campaign was being run.

The people of that district apparently wanted to prove that the bigots were a minority.

On the other hand, I agree that I would rather not read that shit here on DU. But by all means let the bigots launch their attacks in the public square. I can think of few things that would help Obama's chances more.

I know this is true: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3950133&mesg_id=3950133

All I see here are hundreds of people pointing out the substantive differences between Edwards and Obama.

I hasten to say I don't believe race will be important if Obama runs. Any of our candidates will win if they get to run.

I'm setting a new record for nominating cali posts today.

Thank you.

It's pathetic, but we must remember the "big tent" philosophy -- i.e., having no principles -- means the party today is simply a Frankenstein's monster of interests and passions, some of them grotesque.