|
It doesn't have to be. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Of course not. If you don't vote for him or do vote for him because of his skin color, then it's
racist. But choosing to not vote for him because you don't agree with his political views (or
something like that) is not racist. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Some of the people who are Obama's most vocal supporters are actually the racist ones. It was a
really sad and pathetic spectacle early in the primary season when white liberal-minded Americans
seemed more excited about the colour of Obama's skin than about his actual campaign platform. Much
of the media and many of Obama's supporters simply could not get over the prospect of an African
American becoming president of the United States.
This race-based approach would have been acceptable if Jesse Jackson were the Democratic candidate.
But we all know that Obama never really made a point of emphasizing his racial background, nor is he
running on a platform of race-based issues. Just like John F. Kennedy was a president who happened
to be a Roman Catholic, Obama is a candidate who happens to have had a black father.
There is no doubt that some people who vote against Obama will secretly do so because of his race.
But the fact that some of his supporters are so obsessed by the man's skin colour--when he never
turned it into a campaign issue--is in itself a form of racism. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'm only saying "true" based on the debate heading... Because there are infinite reasons to choose
to vote against a candidate, casting that vote does not necessarily mean you must be a racist.
That other tripe about being left of Joseph Stalin is inflammatory and inaccurate. Frankly our US
political system is poisoned with this extreme right and left ideology comparison. Neither label
truly explains the position of most candidates and making extreme comparisons like the one with
Stalin just distracts us from more substantive issues. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
29 Jul 2008 01:27
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
