LJWorld.com / KU student's YouTube question featured in presidential debate

Archive for Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Pre-law major asks Obama, Clinton about how race, gender affects them

July 25, 2007

KU student part of history

A KU student helps make history as the internet transforms presidential debates as we know them. For the first tim, average citizens were the ones posing questions to the democratic presidential candidates by way of video clips posted on YouTube. Enlarge video

Special to the Journal-World

Videoblogger Jordan Williams, a Kansas University student from Coffeyville, poses a question through YouTube to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton about how they will address critics about issues pertaining to their race and gender Monday night during a democratic presidential debate.

Three questions with ... Jordan Williams, Kansas University junior from Coffeyville, about the YouTube debate

Jordan Williams, Kansas University junior from Coffeyville, who posed a question during Monday's YouTube debate to Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Kansas University junior Jordan Williams saw himself Monday night on CNN reading a question to Democratic presidential candidates.

"I was floored to begin with," he said Tuesday. "And then, secondly, I was a little bit dismayed when Sen. Obama made a joke. : But they didn't answer the question, so I was immediately a little annoyed."

It was an introduction to presidential campaigns for the 20-year-old English and pre-law major, who was home in Coffeyville, where he is working at a McDonald's this summer.

He had recorded video of his 27-second question on his computer and posted it on the YouTube Web site.

His was one of 3,000 questions submitted during Monday's debate. Only a handful of questions made it to broadcast on the nationally televised debate.

Williams' question - sometimes paraphrased as asking Sen. Barack Obama "Are you black enough?" - gained attention from political pundits and bloggers.

He said the question was carefully worded to ask what Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton say to critics who may suggest Obama is not "black enough" or Clinton is "too manly."

"I wanted them to indict the American public for having these preconceived notions," Williams said. "It's sad that we live in a country that puts people in such specific boxes of how they are supposed to act."

Instead he thought both candidates avoided the question. The member of the KU Young Democrats supports Clinton because he believes she will "represent the progressive movement for women and minorities."

Williams says he spends some of his free time watching C-SPAN or reading Time and Newsweek.

"I just think it's very important," Williams said. "Some people care about what Lindsay Lohan's doing on the weekend, and I like to care about what speech (former) Sen. (John) Edwards recently gave."

Aside from his question, he thinks the new form of debate was a success because it involved average citizens and younger Americans.

"It was a chance for the candidates to not use sound bites to escape a question," he said.

The young political junkie asked a carefully worded question with the poise of a skilled pollster, but he sees his future profession somewhere else than on the campaign trail.

"I'd much rather be a citizen," Williams said.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

24 July 2007
at 11:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JayhawkAlum03 (Anonymous) says…

Very cool! I didn't see the debate and can't handle the political race quite this early in the process, but that is awesome for him. Can't help but feel good about a KU guy whose hobbies include C-SPAN and Newsweek representing the university. Now if only more people would quit caring about lindsay lohan and paris hilton….
25 July 2007
at 12:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

HateTheYankees (Anonymous) says…

Agreed. Good for Jordan. I wish candidates hadn't avoided his question just as they avoided so many others Monday night.
25 July 2007
at 12:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ru4ku2 (Anonymous) says…

Unfortunately it was the dumbest questions of the night. “not black enough”? Are you serious? Embarassing to have KU's name associated with such a stupid question.
25 July 2007
at 12:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

HateTheYankees (Anonymous) says…

If you paid any attention to the '08 campaign, you would know that a major issue confronting the Obama campaign is the two-pronged racial issue: first, his own biracial heritage, and second, his background and education at wealthy (read: predominantly white) schools. It is not a token concern for a minority candidate— it is a legitimate problem, and steps are constantly taken to address it. To denounce this question as dumb, as “ru4ku2” has done, only reveals the poster's own ignorance on said topic.
25 July 2007
at 2:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

local_support (Anonymous) says…

I'm floored that this honest and straight-forward inquiry put forth by Jordan received airtime. Great question in my opinion and totally justified too. Naturally I too was disappointed with the answers from the candidates but would still like to give kudos to Jordan for representing our university in such an insightful way.

PS Anyone who doesn't get why he asked this question is not ever going to and we'll just leave it at that.
25 July 2007
at 3:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ropadope (Anonymous) says…

yay! as though more retardation is required in this process. no offense, really. no point in doubting the LJW when NPR and the BBC espouses the same {had intended shhittee}, right? man, youtube sure is cool! all medium and mediocre, no message. but it sure is cute, huh? too retarded for words. and here i'd thought that actual reach into representative democracy was the point. nope!
25 July 2007
at 3:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

srj (Anonymous) says…

“Are you black enough”? will go down with the “boxers or briefs” question to Bill Clinton in 1992. What a stupid question.
25 July 2007
at 6:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Pogo (Anonymous) says…

Jordan Williams has seemingly learned to play the race card at a very early age. It's not so much a comment on Jordan Williams as it is on what might be perceived as the denigration of our society. I thought race wasn't to be a factor under the law. Why's Jordan Williams so hung up on it? Does he think that people of color who were born and reared in inner city housing projects are going to view Jordan Williams as “black” as they are? I'm sure Coffeyville, Kansas has a section of team simply teaming with innner city like housing projects and a whole rainbow of “ethnic diversity”. What a joke.
25 July 2007
at 7:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

Is Hillary “female” enough? Is Obama “black” enough? Is Edwards “gay” enough? Somehow this idiocy substitutes for ideas, policies, and leadership. For a party that espouses a “color blind” society, the Democrats never seem to get beyond skin deep. The question even assumes that all blacks should look and think alike. This judging books by their color is insulting and shows how devoid of substantive ideas the Democrats really are.
25 July 2007
at 7:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

formerksteacher (Anonymous) says…

I can't believe people are acting as if Jordan Williams is overly concerned about race or something. His comment was alluding to the reactions of the American Public about Obama and Clinton - not asking if Obama was literally 'black enough'. HELLO! Give the poor guy some credit. He clearly reads the news, keeps up with the issues, and is a halfway intelligent man. It's amazing that some of you posters never stop to think before trying to tear someone down. Before criticizing this well-spoken young man, maybe you should try listening to his question on youtube.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TfFUVK_OA-s

If the link doesn't show up, just do a search on youtube.com for “are you black enough”.
25 July 2007
at 7:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…

Williams asked a silly question and got silly answers.
25 July 2007
at 7:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

max1 (Anonymous) says…

“Jordan Williams has seemingly learned to play the race card at a very early age.” -pogo

http://mediamatters.org/items/2006120…
On the December 4 broadcast of San Francisco radio station KSFO's Sussman, Morgan & Vic, in speaking to a co-host — apparently Brian Sussman — co-host Melanie Morgan referred to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) as an, “as you call, 'Halfrican.' ” Sussman responded, “Halfrican … his father was from Kenya, his mother's white.” He added that, “in my opinion — 'cause my opinion is your average white guy,” Obama “is not allowed to wear the African-American badge because his family are not the descendants of slaves, OK?

http://mediamatters.org/items/2007050…
On the May 7 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh defended his “Barack, The Magic Negro” song — a parody mocking 2008 Democratic presidential hopeful and Sen. Barack Obama (IL)
25 July 2007
at 8:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ramsrevenge (Anonymous) says…

I'll give the guy props. I'm sure you all submitted your questions too right, they just weren't aired?
25 July 2007
at 8:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Das_Ubermime (Anonymous) says…

Jordan Williams should have known better than to expect presidential candidates wooing the American public to indict the same American public. Obama answered that he thought it was necessary to alleviate the circumstances which prompt those questions (disparity between whites and blacks in this country). Clinton answered that she trusted that the American public (as a whole) would not see this as an issue and elect the best candidate.

While these may not have been the answer he was looking for, they are positive answers to a negative question.
25 July 2007
at 8:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ihatelv (Anonymous) says…

Max1, what's your point?
25 July 2007
at 8:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

max1 (Anonymous) says…

“This judging books by their color is insulting and shows how devoid of substantive ideas the Democrats really are.” -Sigmund

Perhaps you should read the opinions of your esteemed Republican spokesperson, right_thinker, more carefully before pointing fingers at Democrats. The Republican tactic from the get-go has been to paint Obama as an Islamic terrorist, and to stress the fact that he is black, and therefore unelectable. And as with all KKK sympathizers, after right_thinker's true feelings were exposed (his hood fell off) during a moment of uninhibited frothing, right_thinker backpedaled with the typical “I am not a racist!” song and dance.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jul…
” Barack Hussein Obama, closet Muslim (denies), black man-ain't happenin' : I'm afraid you're out of touch if you think America will elect a black man to the highest office. “ -right_thinker
25 July 2007
at 8:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

oscarfactor (Anonymous) says…

Perhaps the follow-up question which should have been asked: Is Obama's momma Kansan enough?
25 July 2007
at 8:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

max1 (Anonymous) says…

“I don't know what the definition of a racist really is anymore. Would you lay it out for me, please?” -right_thinker

Gladly, here is an example of racism in action:

“Barack Hussein Obama, closet Muslim (denies), black man-ain't happenin' : I'm afraid you're out of touch if you think America will elect a black man to the highest office.” -right_thinker
25 July 2007
at 9:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

It might be interesting to see what would happen if enough women and minorities would realize that together, or even individually, they could change outcomes in elections. It could change the world if those large voting sections would simply STOP automatically giving their votes away to the same party (or at least candidates from those parties). The parties and their candidates do not have to answer tough questions, or follow through on promises, because they can (rightly) simply assume they have those factions locked up. It might change politics and elections a great deal if the major parties did not have large voting constuencies that they continue to take for granted, before during and after the elections are over.
25 July 2007
at 9:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

max1 (Anonymous) says…

“Barack Hussein Obama, closet Muslim (denies), black man-ain't happenin' : I'm afraid you're out of touch if you think America will elect a black man to the highest office.” -right_thinker
25 July 2007
at 9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

Oh, and the parody about “Barak the Magic Negro” was not mocking Obama…it was in fact mocking Al Sharpton. Very much so!
25 July 2007
at 9:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ceallach (Anonymous) says…

After an hour and a half of unanswered questions I gave up and went to bed. I agree with an earlier poster, this is starting waaaaaaay toooooo sooooon. Instead of turning out the voters for 2008, I think it is more likely that these debates (both sides) will actually turn off the voters. Do these people really represent the “cream” of American leaders rising to the top? I think not.

Suddenly, everywhere I look I see OBAMA bumper stickers in Lawrence! What's that all about? Do we know enough about him to seriously consider him for president of this country? I am concerned about his lack of political experience. Like it or not, good intentions and good manners just do not cut it in DC. Obama's race doesn't bother me at all. My family is quite diverse, we literally are a rainbow coalition :) As far as being black enough or feminine enough goes, that just makes us aware of the fact that racism and sexism are found wherever human hearts are beating. Prejudice (wherever it is found) reflects the condition of that person's soul, not their mind. Each of us must determine whether or not we will let prejudice into our hearts and lives.
25 July 2007
at 9:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

I thought the whole debate a little odd (but then, aren't they all) and a bit too frivolous for the seriousness of the final outcome. Good for Lawrence to get recognition around the world, although I didn't care for the question myself. The question on being black enough is one that warrants a doctoral dissertation on what it means to be black in America, not just a 30 second retort. For some, as evident by people on this very forum, being black is clearly enough to disqualify a person for president. How sad that one need just scratch the surface on race issues and the ugly oozes out like puss from a boil.

“Barack Hussein Obama, closet Muslim (denies), black man-ain't happenin' : I'm afraid you're out of touch if you think America will elect a black man to the highest office.” -right_thinker

As Forest Gump might say, “Racist is as racist does.”
25 July 2007
at 9:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

max1 (Anonymous) says…

“Suddenly, everywhere I look I see OBAMA bumper stickers in Lawrence! What's that all about? Do we know enough about him to seriously consider him for president of this country?” -Ceallach
“I gave up and went to bed.” -Ceallach
25 July 2007
at 12:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

max1 (Anonymous) says…

“Are you black enough?”

“nice race card pull… what a lame question” -Mr_Ramirez

It was you rightwing extremists who pulled the race card and questioned if Obama was black enough to begin with, and now you senile morons try to pretend this is a new issue.
And don't forget this:
“Barack Hussein Obama, closet Muslim (denies), black man-ain't happenin' : I'm afraid you're out of touch if you think America will elect a black man to the highest office.” -right_thinker
25 July 2007
at 12:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ihatelv (Anonymous) says…

I beleive right_thinker was trying to say that the current race climate in this country will prevent a black man from being elected president, not that he personally was racist, and thought that their shouldn't be a black president…..

On a side note, is “colored” an appropriate term to use when referencing a black person? Just curious, becuase the NAACP is still called the NAACP……..
25 July 2007
at 12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

davidnta (Anonymous) says…

The fact that people think they can ignore race is one method the right uses to oppress a minority group. It's like if we ignore it, then maybe it would go away except that it doesn't and it only gets worse.

In my experience with my right leaning friends compared to my left leaning friends, more race remarks, race and gender based stereotypes, and mysogistic remarks come from the right leaning friends compared to the left leaning friends. So to bring it back to the race and gender question that Jordan put upon Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton is totally valid and appropriate to show the problem that exist today.
25 July 2007
at 12:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

davidnta (Anonymous) says…

To answers ihatelv's question, no it's not appropriate to refer someone as “colored” but “people of color”. The reason why the NAACP is still called NAACP is because in my opinion the organization is already an established name in the United States.
25 July 2007
at 12:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ihatelv (Anonymous) says…

right_thinker, that's what I thought. I was just making sure………
25 July 2007
at 12:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

meggers (Anonymous) says…

I didn't think Jordan necessarily asked a dumb question, although there are a lot of more important questions I can think to ask of those seeking the highest office in the nation. I thought Jordan was merely giving the candidates the opportunity to show how ridiculous it is for the media to get hung up on such frivolous speculation. Both Clinton and Obama answered the question in exactly that spirit, but apparently that wasn't what Jordan was looking for. I think Obama especially answered well, and despite Jordan's implication in the JW article, he clearly did more than make a joke. Here is his response:

You know, when I'm catching a cab in Manhattan — in the past, I think I've given my credentials.

(laughter)

(applause)

But let me go to the broader issue here. And that is that race permeates our society. It is still a critical problem.

But I do believe in the core decency of the American people, and I think they want to get beyond some of our racial divisions.

Unfortunately, we've had a White House that hasn't invested in the kinds of steps that have to be done to overcome the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow in this country.

And as president of the United States, my commitment on issues like education, my commitment on issues like health care is to close the disparities and the gaps, because that's what's really going to solve the race problem in this country.

If people feel like they've got a fair shake, if children feel as if the fact that they have a different surname or they've got a different skin color, it is not going to impede their dreams, then I am absolutely confident that we're going to be able to move forward on the challenges that we face as a country.

(applause)

Obama clearly took a frivolous question and used the opportunity to talk about real inequality issues facing the country. I'm puzzled about what more Jordan could have possibly expected.
25 July 2007
at 1:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ceallach (Anonymous) says…

meg, I think Jordan made his reason for asking the question quite clear.

“I wanted them to indict the American public for having these preconceived notions,” Williams said. “It's sad that we live in a country that puts people in such specific boxes of how they are supposed to act.”

It's sad that we live in a WORLD that puts people in specific boxes . . the boxes are constant around our globe, only the names on the boxes change. As with all prejudices, this is not just a problem within America, it's a problem within humanity.
25 July 2007
at 1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

max1 (Anonymous) says…

“I beleive right_thinker was trying to say that the current race climate in this country will prevent a black man from being elected president” -ihatelv

Considering the previous sh!t you've slung here, it doesn't surprise me that you would try to defend one of your fellow extremists.
There was no ambiguity about it — right_thinker made himself/herself perfectly clear. The “closet Muslim” remark was typical of his/her hate-driven drivel.

“Barack Hussein Obama, closet Muslim (denies), black man-ain't happenin' : I'm afraid you're out of touch if you think America will elect a black man to the highest office.” -right_thinker
25 July 2007
at 1:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

meggers (Anonymous) says…

Ceallach,

I agree with all of that, but rather than tearing people down, a true leader is going to elevate the discussion and inspire people to look beyond their own personal stereotypes and prejudices and focus on the principles that promote equality and opportunity for everyone. People tend to tune out when they feel like they are being accused of something, but when they are inspired to look beyond themselves and focus on the larger picture, they are less likely to allow petty and irrational prejudices to guide their behavior.

I think Obama's response was spot on.
25 July 2007
at 2:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mick (Anonymous) says…

The country has serious problems that the leading candidates and the mainstream media are avoiding. $4Trillion in national debt, an addiction to hundreds of $Billions annually in deficit spending, $600 billion annual “defense” budgets, erosion of our Constitution with the Military Commissions Act, the Warner Defense Appropriations Act, NSPD 51, the July 17 Executive Order and numerous other orders, the threat to our sovereignty with the plans for a North American Union, following PNAC's imperialistic agenda, etc. Only Ron Paul is addressing the real problems.
25 July 2007
at 2:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mick (Anonymous) says…

With any of these leading candidates, Republican or Democrat, we get pretty much the same as we have now. Oh, Beyonca fell down the stairs. That's news!
25 July 2007
at 2:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

meggers (Anonymous) says…

Ron Paul is an intolerant xenophobe.

It wouldn't surprise me if he runs as an independent, once he loses the republican nomination. He's playing well with the *I hate illegals* crowd.
25 July 2007
at 3:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

ihate: “On a side note, is “colored” an appropriate term to use when referencing a black person? Just curious, becuase the NAACP is still called the NAACP::..”

Oh my god! Did someone in 2007 just ask that? I simply can't believe people are still this ignorant to the world around us.

Just curious, ih, what color are you? Certainly you aren't actually white. I'll bet you are closer to the color of an unsalted cracker.

Keep up the good work, you and rt. Your vocal support of the Republican platform, mixed with your own special brands of hatred, racism and sexism, is bound to be making it that much easier for thinking people to vote for Democrats.
25 July 2007
at 3:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jwill09 (Anonymous) says…

Yeah I agree with my critics actually. I've learned from watching quite a bit of O'Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes that one's critics usually carry with them the most veracity. I know the question wasn't that great at all, and I do realize there are more important issues out there (healthcare, the war, anyone?). I hope I don't come across as some race baiting liberal obsessed with everything that ends with an “ism” (that's not my intention). Thanks to the people who flatter me, you're too kind. To paraphrase Kathy Griffin, “oh my question wasn't a good one? I'm not saying they're all good.” :)
25 July 2007
at 3:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ceallach (Anonymous) says…

meg, didn't mean to imply that BO didn't answer the question. Did as well as could be expected in the time frame. He is so new to the political scene that many of us have no idea what his commitments or strategies are on any given issue.

“Unfortunately, we've had a White House that hasn't invested in the kinds of steps that have to be done to overcome the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow in this country.” What steps does he propose?

“my commitment on issues like education, my commitment on issues like health care is to close the disparities and the gaps,” What is his commitment to education or health care? How does he propose to “close the disparities and gaps?”

Right now it all sounds good when you listen to either side, but this ain't my first rodeo, and I prefer more substantial ingredients in the pie in the sky they are trying to feed us.
25 July 2007
at 3:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

“This judging books by their color is insulting and shows how devoid of substantive ideas the Democrats really are.” -Sigmund

Perhaps you should read the opinions of your esteemed Republican spokesperson, right_thinker, more carefully before pointing fingers at Democrats. -max1

I don't think any Republicans will vote in the Democratic Primary, but as a Conservative I don't think Obama is “unelectable”. In anything it appears that his own party thinks he is unelectable, either because he is black or not black enough, depending on which Democrat you talk to.

If, as I expect, the top of the Dem's ticket in '08 is a white female and a black male, I think they are very electable. The consensus of political punditry seem to hold that women will vote for the white female (who is married to the “first black President”, BTW) and blacks for the black male, simply based upon their gender and race. While I would hope that there would be more thought put in by both groups, sadly I fear that will not be the case. It seems these superficial characteristics are all that is required. If the book has black and female cover, the Dem's will send it to the top of the best seller list, even if the pages are devoid of meaningful content.
25 July 2007
at 4:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

max1 (Anonymous) says…

“The country has serious problems that the leading candidates and the mainstream media are avoiding. $4Trillion in national debt, an addiction to hundreds of $Billions annually in deficit spending, $600 billion annual “defense” budgets, erosion of our Constitution with the Military Commissions Act, . . “ -mick

June 22, 2007
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archiv…
“Billions of no-bid, no-strings-attached contracts have been handed out in New Orleans and Iraq and at Walter Reed Medical Center on the sole basis of who you know and the favors you've done,” Obama said, “and yet we're somehow surprised when the families in the Ninth Ward are still living in trailers”
Obama strayed from the stump speech today, unveiling a “five-step” plan to end what he called the emergence of a “second Gilded Age in America” in a Manchester, N.H. speech centered on government reform. His plan: A permanent “doorstop” on lobbyists; End no-bid contracts; Ban lobbyist gifts; Pick an administration not based on partisan politics; Return government to the people.
“We need a president who sees government not as a tool to enrich well-connected friends and high-priced lobbyists, but as the defender of fairness and opportunity for every American,” Obama said. “That's what this country has always been about, and that's the kind of President I intend to be.”
25 July 2007
at 4:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

With Katrina, those that had private insurance have mostly been paid. Those with no private insurance and waiting on FEMA, not so much. There is a couple of lessons to be learned here. Do not depend upon the Federal Government to bail you out, and private for profit organizations have an incentive to honor their obligations in a timely manner and have a much better record of doing so.
25 July 2007
at 4:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

BTW, do you have any idea how long involved and detailed the Federal Government Bidding process is? No bid contracts are usually allowed in only two circumstances. First, only one contractor has the capability or expertise to do the work or deliver the goods. Second, the need is immediate and the service so commonly available that picking a reputable provider and saving the cumbersome process makes sense.
25 July 2007
at 4:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

sigmund: “The consensus of political punditry seem to hold that women will vote for the white female (who is married to the “first black President”, BTW) and blacks for the black male, simply based upon their gender and race. While I would hope that there would be more thought put in by both groups, sadly I fear that will not be the case.”

It has been nothing but white men up until now to be frontrunners for and elected as president? Haven't whites thus voted for whites for more than 200 years, with the majority of that time being white males voting for white males? Yet only now are voters being accused of voting based only on gender or race. Please.

If whites didn't vote based on race alone, what would have prompted rt to proclaim that a black man couldn't be elected as president? Obviously some are racist enough to point out that they would never vote for someone not of their own race. Where is the outrage over the lack of thought going into that comment? Very sad.
25 July 2007
at 5:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

max1 (Anonymous) says…

“I'd vote for a Colin Powell” -right_thinker
No you wouldn't. You would only vote for those who kiss Bush's a$$ like you do.
Don't lie and attempt to backpedal now — you've made it clear what you represent — kiss Bush's a$$ or get out of the way. However, I'm sure you would vote for that fascist bitch Ann Coulter — that's no surprise.

June 29, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/55…
President Bush and Dick Cheney kept torture memos and more secret from their own Secretary of State.
In the stellar Washington Post expose on Dick Cheney, the public learned that key presidential aides were often intentionally kept out of the loop on important decisions by the Vice President. For example, President Bush's decision to try detainees in military commissions and strip them of their due process rights was not conveyed to Secretary of State Colin Powell:

“What the hell just happened?” Secretary of State Colin L. Powell demanded, a witness said, when CNN announced the order that evening, Nov. 13, 2001.

July 8, 2007
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Powell_…
It was revealed today that prior to the Iraq war, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell spent two and a half hours trying in vain to convince President George W. Bush not to invade.
“I tried to avoid this war,” Powell told the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado, reports Sarah Baxter in the Sunday Times. Powell said he walked Bush through the risks of becoming an occupying force in an Arab country.
The sectarian violence in Iraq has escalated to the point of civil war, said Powell, and one that US forces cannot resolve.

December 18, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/…
Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell said yesterday that the United States is losing what he described as a “civil war” in Iraq and that he is not persuaded that an increase in U.S. troops there would reverse the situation. Instead, he called for a new strategy that would relinquish responsibility for Iraqi security to the government in Baghdad sooner rather than later, with a U.S. drawdown to begin by the middle of next year.

Powell's comments broke his long public silence on the issue and placed him at odds with the administration.

Sept. 15, 2006
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14814940/
The internal GOP struggle intensified along other fronts, too, as Colin Powell, Bush's first secretary of state, declared his opposition to the president's plan.
“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” Powell, a retired general who is also a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in a letter.
A risk to our troops, Powell argues
Powell said that Bush's bill, by redefining the kind of treatment the Geneva Conventions allow, “would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”
25 July 2007
at 6:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

The thing that is missing here is the fact that many, many people actually LIKE both Clinton and Obama. People want one or the other to be President of the United States for what they bring to the table, whether others agree with their views or not. It isn't just about gender or race. Do people who support McCain or Edwards do so only because they are white males? Why then are people so concerned that women and blacks support Clinton and Obama just because of their gender or race?
25 July 2007
at 6:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

srj (Anonymous) says…

All in all, the debate hurt Edwards the most. How can you be the left wing liberial in the field and be against gay marrige?
25 July 2007
at 7:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

Anyone who says they would vote for Ann Coulter must never be allowed to say that Obama doesn't have enough experience.

So, rt, you say you would vote for Alan Keyes, despite the fact that he has left the Republican party after most Republicans refused to lend support in his Senate run against Obama. Well guess what? You might still get a chance! A group called “We need Alan Keyes as President” has formed to support his independent run for the presidency. So if he does run, and you don't vote for him as you say you would, that will make you (among other things) a big, fat liar.
25 July 2007
at 8:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

max1 (Anonymous) says…

“That's the main ingredient needed to be a liberal today, shout down and say foul things about conservatives.” -right_thinker

The only ingredient needed by you rightwingnuts appears to be the phrase “Bush hater”.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jul…
“far-left, secular-progressive frothy Bush haters like you” -right_thinker (righwingnut)

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jul…
“The left/far-left/Bush haters (hate to the level I see on this particular forum) is akin to all minorities . . The far-left and the rabid W haters that dominate this forum are delusional if they think they are a majority.” right_thinker (Bush a$$-kisser)

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jan…
“the polls are not saying what you're saying and Bush haters, strictly depend on polls . . opposing views are NOT tolerated by Bush haters (which is practically synonomous with secular-progressive).”
-right_thinker (poor baby feels picked on)

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/nov…
“This is where YOUR party is at that YOU elected far-left Bush-Hatersproud of yourselves?” -right_thinker (sore loser)

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jul…
“And yes, the stock Bush haters' skin is about to split wide open” -right_thinker (redundant and language challenged)

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/feb…
“My God, the Bush haters are out en masse today.” -right_thinker (same tired old line)

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/mar…
“You Bush haters just slay me.” “Where was the outrage from the far-left (now Bush-Haters) when Willy . . ” -right_thinker (Bush's a$$-kissing parrot)

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jul…
“This is why they hate Republicans, and moreover, George W. Bush” -right_thinker (My, that's original. Couldn't you have just used your old line Bush-haters?)

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/apr…
“Now the far-left Bush haters will use … Good evening my beloved far-left Bush haters ” -right_thinker (Oh, you've regressed)

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/may…
“This is the problem with the far-left Bush-haters” -right_thinker (Bush-haters? Gee, that's original)

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jul…
“it has the rabid W haters . . this is a fact you Bush-haters conveniently ignore” -right_thinker (W haters? My, Bush's a$$-kissing parrot learned a new phrase and even remember his old lines)

Well, the 3000 character limit prevents me from posting right_thinker's 53 other uses of the phrase “Bush haters”, and I have no idea how many variations on that theme the old asskissing parrot has used.
25 July 2007
at 8:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

“And speaking of evil, for all of you who think I'm some r/w extremist nut, I'd vote for Hillary if I were a Democrat.”

Let me clue you into something about our political system here in America — you don't have to be a member of the party to vote for that person in the election! So guess what, rt, you don't have to be a Democrat to vote for Clinton for president. You still have that opportunity, if she makes it past the primaries that is.

I just thought I would fill you in on that little fact.
26 July 2007
at 1:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

max1 (Anonymous) says…

“There may come a point where you may want to consider posting an original thought, far-left Bush-Hater, far-left Bush-Hater, Awk!, Awk!” -right_thinker

http://images3.wikia.com/uncyclopedia…
27 July 2007
at 1:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lovenhaight (Anonymous) says…

Anyone who doesn't think that race is an issue in our country and in this election is an idiot.