DescentBB

I don't believe history will paint this picture. Firstly because I don't believe the history books are honest, even if it were accurate, and second because I think this description is conveniently over-simplistic. I don't believe Obama's election was entirely due to the color of his skin--I think that's what brought in a lot of the gullible people. I think a lot of people voted for him because they believed the "hope & change" fantasy, and I believe the powers that be backed him because they saw him as a tool to move America in the direction of globalization.

In which TB has absolutely no grasp of history, take 57...action!

taking the racial descriptor out, the list of presidents doesn't apply to is very very slim

Basically Washington, and the presidents who never survived their first terms.

I think it's obvious he was nominated over his Party rivals because of his race.
I know lots of people who voted for him and cited voting for a black man to be our President gave them much hope and satisfaction. Those sentiments have been identified in polls across the electorate so that isn't a false assumption.

He is certainly regarded by black Americans as a disappointment. The consensus there is he has not done much if anything for them.

He squandered a powerful, once only, opportunity to help heal the nation. If he had taken the proper course he would have had plenty of political clout from both sides of the spectrum to implement policy when racially charged incidents arose that captured the attention of the country instead of his choice which had polarized the country.

And he still has his unencumbered two years left where he has no party politics to consider where he is now free to really get things wrong.

I don't think history will have much praise for him once it has had a chance to write his chapter.

once again, folks with NO INVOLVEMENT in the 2008 primary or election process for the Dems are going to try and make up reasons for Obama's victory. Once again, people who have done nothing but hate Obama since BEFORE he was in office try to paint history. It's all just BS, and justifies nothing deeper.....

Once again slick tries to use the race card to dismiss reality as nothing but 'hate'.

It's a good thing the race card isn't a gun because slick wouldn't have any toes left if it was.

The looney left has been playing the race card ever since Obama first ran. Remember all the , "You teh racist" whenever someone criticized Obama? Even here on this board that happened.

Of course race is a factor when it comes to Obama.

It was a significant factor in both of his elections.
It is a significant factor in the criticism against him.

(What I find ridiculous are the politically-partisan arguments that say race is a significant factor in only one of the above, but the other was/is "only about the issues". )

Will Robinson wrote:He squandered a powerful, once only, opportunity to help heal the nation.

Please elaborate. You seem to missing key parts of history in your memory.

Foil wrote:Of course race is a factor when it comes to Obama.

It was a significant factor in both of his elections.
It is a significant factor in the criticism against him.

(What I find ridiculous are the politically-partisan arguments that say race is a significant factor in only one of the above, but the other was/is "only about the issues". )

Certainly there were those opposed to him based on race.
And just as certainly, based on results, those voting for the black man outnumbered the racist peckerwoods that voted against him.

How do you define "significantly" comparing those two camps?

While you may choose to quantify both groups as "significant" I think they are not at all equal in numbers as people might think your comment was intended to imply.

I think there were far more white people in favor of him than against him.
Or do you actually think more white people who complain about/ oppose him him do so because he is black rather than because he is a disappointment based on his actions/policy/duplicity/etc?

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:He squandered a powerful, once only, opportunity to help heal the nation.

Please elaborate. You seem to missing key parts of history in your memory.

What history do you think I'm missing?

Seems to me a large, and I do mean large number of people can’t seem to tell the difference between racist motivated criticism and any other kind.

And it’s way too easy to use it as a shield.

And I get sick of it.

Will Robinson wrote:

Foil wrote:Of course race is a factor when it comes to Obama.

It was a significant factor in both of his elections.
It is a significant factor in the criticism against him.

How do you define "significantly" comparing those two camps?

While you may choose to quantify both groups as "significant" I think they are not at all equal in numbers as people might think your comment was intended to imply.

Nope. I never implied anything about comparative size or percentage.

My point was simply to counter the claims that say "race had little to do with his election" / "race has little to do with the criticisms against him".

From my perspective:

• Both elections, particularly the first one, were sometimes markedly shaped by the "first black president" story, even if the campaign didn't directly say it.

• Conversely, the criticism I hear about his administration from folks around the heavily white suburb where I live still sometimes has a "those blacks" racial tone, even though it's not always overt.

It's slowly changing, but it's the way people are. Frankly, what drives me crazy are the partisan claims that say, "We don't have much racism over here; but those on the other side, they're the racists." That's naiveté... at best.

Will Robinson wrote:

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:He squandered a powerful, once only, opportunity to help heal the nation.

Please elaborate. You seem to missing key parts of history in your memory.

What history do you think I'm missing?

What opportunity are you speaking of and why was it "once only?"

vision wrote:....What opportunity are you speaking of and why was it "once only?"

The opportunity was a one time only event because there is only ever going to be a single 'first black President'.

The opportunity to frame the event in way that invites all people to celebrate the great progress it represents and rally everyone around it to create a tipping point resulting in broad based cultural momentum toward establishing the post racial environment he was promised to deliver.

Instead he merely invited blacks to rally around him as a 'better version' of Al Sharpton based on his having the big stick.

I don't know how much cache, victory, etc. he has accumulated for the democrat party, or himself, or his cause as he defines it by choosing to operate the way he has. To sustain the divisive narrative at the expense of improving relations but I do know he traded away the unique opportunity to use his election for something much greater to get it, whatever it adds up to.

Not at all like Dr. King or Gandhi, etc. Much more like a typical petty, opportunist, average politician. He hasn't even improved the life of black Americans in the short term, let alone do something that approaches historical greatness.
Squandered it completely.

Will Robinson wrote:The opportunity to frame the event in way that invites all people to celebrate the great progress it represents...

Ok thanks, I see your point and agree that maybe he could have done something a little different. However, I have a good rant about why it ultimately doesn't matter what he did or did not do, but I don't have time to write it. I can only leave you with a fact that the vast majority of social change in a democracy is a bottom-up process, not a top-down one.

Will Robinson wrote:[The opportunity to frame the event in way that invites all people to celebrate the great progress it represents and rally everyone around it to create a tipping point resulting in broad based cultural momentum toward establishing the post racial environment he was promised to deliver.

Instead he merely invited blacks to rally around him as a 'better version' of Al Sharpton based on his having the big stick.

you are delusional, will. As one who ATTENDED the first Inaugural, the whole event was around a celebration of the PROGRESS the US had made AS A NATION AND PEOPLE. The whole weekend leading up to the day had event after event celebrating that fact. The initial weeks of the Presidency continued that theme. That you failed to see it speaks only to YOUR myopia, and frankly, your blatant racism.
.

You can resurrect every old thread you want and call me a racist as the basis of your disagreement with me.
It never made you right before and it never will. But I understand it is all you have when faced with the truth so you have to keep trying no matter how lame the attempt. Sucks to be you though.

some seriously impaired self-awareness happening here...

Spidey wrote:Seems to me a large, and I do mean large number of people can’t seem to tell the difference between racist motivated criticism and any other kind.

And it’s way too easy to use it as a shield.

And I get sick of it.

+1