I was watching the BBC News last evening as it was in full Obama cheer-leading mode. One of the things that struck me was that the BBC instantly played the race card, showing images going back to the 1950’s of the discrimination faced by coloured people then. This was followed by images showing the rise of the Civil Rights movement. In the BBC mind, if Martin Luther King was John the Baptist, a President Obama would be Jesus Christ. It’s all about race and the enlightenment of (at least some) American people, or so the BBC would have you believe . However when the hated George W Bush promoted both Colin Powell and then Condi Rice to the very senior position of Secretary of State, I don’t seem to recall similar BBC euphoria. Then the skin colour did not matter so much. I read somewhere that people should not vote for Obama because of his skin. I fully agree. Not because it is black (which is neither here nor there for any civilised person) but because it is too thin. Obama reacts badly to any criticism and between now and November you can be certain that the BBC will flay those who point out his many defects. If only Obama was gay then I suspect the BBC would be in 7th heaven. Instead , when he is beaten byMcCain to the horror of the BBC, they will be in hell. Can’t wait.
RACE HUSTLING.
Bookmark the permalink.
Condi Rice and Colin Powell were of course, like Clarence Thomas, the wrong sort of black, ie Republicans. In the same vein, the beloved Yasmin Alibhai-Brown recentlycastigated ethnic minority tories such as Shaun Bailey and Ray Lewis as ‘Uncle Toms.
David Vance is right – when a Republican appoints African Americans to positions of high office it’s unimportant, because he is a (right wing) white man bestowing those positions, and more importantly, because he has done so on the basis of ability and merit, (rightly or wrongly), rather than as part of some great progressive agenda of identity politics. In other words, it was about appointing the best man or woman for the job, rather than advancing racial politics, so who cares? In the BBC’s eyes it doesn’t count.
On the fine satirical site The Onion, one story had the headline “Is Obama ready to be America’s lowest-paid President?” (I’m paraphrasing). The joke was about race of course, but in fact – on the basis of merit, and by the standards of the real world, he would more or less deserve to be America’s lowest-paid President – simply because he has significantly less political experience than any candidate I can remember.
Not that you’ll find much discussion of that issue on the BBC between now and election day. Discussion will probably centre on whether McCain is too old, or whether America has emerged sufficiently from the swamp of racism to vote into office a man who associates with third-rate domestic terrorists and ranting black supremacists, and who has a list of political achievements that wouldn’t fill a post-it note.
You know – basically, can we trust redneck America to shrug off that virulent racism that has seen people of African origin achieve positions of power in the US far above those that any black person in Britain ever has?
Let’s remember that Obama is not actually black, or is as much white as black, and that he has no roots in mainstream African American heritage, his father being from the other side of the continent.
DV — you were very perceptive in your take on BO. You could have mentioned that he’s just a boiler-plate nanny state socialist who mouths academic Marxism, and has nothing new to say.
If you can stand that sibilant telepropter voice you might think he comes across as glib in messianic settings.
But as the few impromptu encounters with reporters have shown, he is not fast on his feet, he stumbles, and he MAKES huge gaffes that would be expolited mercillessly had he been a Republican.
57 States in the US anyone?
His CV is thinner than an anorexic super-model — but it’s his race-obsessed wife who will possibly do him in.
Especially if the highly-rumored tape of her ranting about “whitey” surfaces.
I can’t ultimately see the bitter, gun totin’ bible thumping Americans finally voting for an elitiost snob like BO who only promises Jimmy Carter4’s 2nd term. But who knows.
By way of contrast check out McCain’s background, it’s pretty darn impressive, especially his years spent as a POW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
Obama, on the other hand has never really done anything or been anywhere.
yesterday I took a glance at the BBC website and thought Obama has already won the presidential election.
On 5 lite this morning, the VILE Nicki Campbell suggested that those who won’t vote for Obama are tohse beareded men who chew straw in the mountains (he means white red reck racists)
However, he poisoned scottish dwarf failed to mention that plenty of WHITE Democrats don’t like (and didn’t vote for) Obama.
Not that this lets the BBC get truth in the way of a good BBC lie.
As DV mentions (I also mentioned this yesterday) that both Condi Rice and Powell are high profile black Americans who have got on with their job and not involved themselves with terrorists or left wing preachers of hate.
Can people start counting how many times the BBC lie over “Obama voted against the war” garbage. ( I counted about 10 in total yesterday on Radio 5 lite, BBC 6PM news, News 24 etc)
It took an American to remind tit head Richard Bacon that Obama couldn’t vote against the war in Iraq as he wasn’t in the Senate at the time.
Again, the BBC won’t let the truth get in the way of a good lie.
Leaving aside all the intricacies of race and politics, I think Obama will swing it simply on image. Far younger, stronger and more dynamic than McCain.
And also better to look at, of course.
I was horrified, disgusted and offended to hear Peter Allen on Drive last night, asking: “Will Americans be able to ignore Obama’s race?”
Why should we ignore his race? He’s black. Big effing deal. It makes no difference to me, at all, what colour he is. What is a big deal to me is that I have to pay Peter bloody Allen to accuse me of racism, when, in fact, it is he who is racist.
When will the BBC desist in their hypocritical, holier-than-thou, sanctimonious attitude towards Americans? I resent it, and I cannot believe that I am required to fund such bigotry.
Martin:
On 5 lite this morning, the VILE Nicki Campbell suggested that those who won’t vote for Obama are tohse beareded men who chew straw in the mountains (he means white red reck racists)
Oddly enough, the ONLY folks who have had the opportunity to vote for Obama so far are DEMOCRATS.
Do you think the BBC knows this? That the only people not voting for Obama, so far, are members of his own party?
Now given that in Primary punt off with Clinton, Obama has received LESS actual votes than her, if the BBC is determined to bring race in, then it must acknowledge that it is the Democrats who are voting along racial line.
Well, over 90% of the black Democrat voters are now voting for Obama, and not the WHITE woman. So from that viewpoint, I guess it must be true.
Of course, all economic and social statistics show that African-Americans have the greatest levels of povery, the lowest educational standards, and the highest unemployment figures.
So the BBC could say that most of Obama’s minority support comes from POOR, UNEDUCATED, UNEMPLOYED blacks.
And hell will freeze over first.
Jack you are unfortunately wrong.
In 17 states, an open primary is held, where people who aren’t registered democrats can vote on the next candidate.
However, I do think yesterdays reporting of Obama’s victory was a bit over the top. Surely there was some other news to report on? Zimbabwe maybe.
Anyone seen a “How Obama could lose, but win” headline from the BBC?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1014183.stm
Surely there has been much nashing of teeth at how someone losing the ‘popular vote’ can win?!
The undercurrent from the BBC’s coverage is obvious: ‘if you don’t support Obama you’re a racist’.
Funnily enough I don’t think the BBC will be whining about ageism if the November elections go Obama’s way.
James:
Jack you are unfortunately wrong.
In 17 states, an open primary is held, where people who aren’t registered democrats can vote on the next candidate.
I don’t follow your logic?
It’s the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY. Are you suggesting that racist Republicans gave up their vote in the Republican primary, just so as they could vote AGAINST a black man because he’s black.
That’s prezel logic my friend.
Obama is, strictly speaking, more Arab-American than African-American.
Has anyone considered if black Americans are too racist to vote for a white candidate?
Gordon_Broon_Eats_Hez_Bawgies:
Obama is, strictly speaking, more Arab-American than African-American.
I know plenty of Americans who think he’s more anti-American than anything else.
But I note he has now taken to wearing a flag pin, despite claiming that it denoted a false patriotism, unlike his genuine patriotism.
Great, I saw the report and know you are talking through your …
“the BBC instantly played the race card, showing images going back to the 1950’s of the discrimination faced by coloured people then.”
Actually if you had listened to what was said, Obama has all but won the Democratic nomination. So part of the report was background on him, and that he is the first black Presidential candidate, black people in the US have historicaly been the subject of discrimination. This is what the footage was about, you ignore that as its inconvenient.
‘when the hated George W Bush promoted both Colin Powell and then Condi Rice to the very senior position of Secretary of State, I don’t seem to recall similar BBC euphoria’ – The report included comment from Condi Rice, welcoming this ‘historic’ development. Perhaps my memory is just better than yours but I remember very well reports when she became the first black, female US Secretary of State. But then you dont watch or listen to the BBC much do you?
The rest is your personal opinion about Obama and is nothing to do with the BBC. However I had a look at the latest news and found this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7437370.stm
The Obama love-in must stop!
What concerns me is that Obama hasnt said anything about what is policies will be (well that is apart from surrendering in Iraq…but thats a Democrat thingy anyway).
Im really surprised by the differences between the US and the UK when it comes to campaigning. At least here you know what people stand for and you can then vote on who you think has your interests at heart. But with Obama…what the hell does he stand for (apart from surrendering to terrorists)?
Mailman
Oh, I’m not at all sure McCain will win. Obama has narrative and charm on his side, and that counts for a LOT in American politics. McCain is going to look a thousand years old standing next to him.
Add the fact McCain has a serious problem with his own base and I think the odds are very much against him.
its a little bit off topic, but I caught childrens news show Newsround yesterday which headed its bulletin with the Obama story. No surprises that it was heavily biased with the anti-american and anti-Bush assumptions, such as this gem “America will be able to make friends with other countries” when Obama becomes president.
What really pissed me off though was the first 30 seconds or so consisted of a speed up shot of President Bush getting on to Airforce One with his wife together with banjo type music, this was purely for comic effect and served no other purpose than to demean the President.
This must be a massive abuse of the BBC guidelines for presenting news in an un-biased way.
It’s funny you should mention Martin Luther King, because he was a Republican who would never in a million years have voted for a racist, socialist asshole like Obama. Like most prominent blacks of his generation, MLK recognized the inherent and rabid racism of the Democrats throughout history.
I find it hysterical when African Americans accuse whites who won’t vote for Obama of being “afraid of a black president”, when given that Obama represents the same failed left wing ideology of collectivism, tribalism and entitlement which has been devastating for African Americans over the last 40 years, they should be the ones who are afraid of a President Obama. Very afraid.
I wonder how many of those white conservatives who are being accused of being racist and afraid, would vote for a black conservative like Thomas Sowell like a shot if he were running. I know I would.
I heard Robert Byrd was taken ill the other day. I wonder if this had anything to do with a black man becoming the nominee of his party. He’s an example of the Democratic Party’s long legacy of racism, with he personally being a former Klan member and Civil Rights Act opponent.
Has anyone considered if black Americans are too racist to vote for a white candidate?
You’re a racist for even mentioning it. So what if 90+% of the African-American population of the US will vote for Obama. It doesn’t count unless it’s white people doing it. Just like slavery.
Jason: Martin Luther King was a socialist and a democrat. Quote:
“You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong… with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.”
Gibby,
Good points. I would love to hear the BBC ask that killer question. They won’t.
Just a note on how important the Secretary of State in the American system: The presidential succession goes like this: Vice President (Dick Cheney), Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi), President Pro Tempore of the Seante (Robert Byrd), Secretary of State (Condoleezza Rice). So she’s fourth in line, just as Colin Powell was.
And in an age of terrorism — as Britons know only too well — we can not assume those rules are entirely hypothetical.
Has anyone considered if black Americans are too racist to vote for a white candidate?
Are you claiming that in previous Presidential elections African-Americans have not voted at all?
Duncan
It is perfectly possible in American politics for a socialist to be a Republican and a racist to be a Democrat, the parties are divided on different lines from those in the UK (many Americans believe that all UK parties are socialist!), which again are divided on different lines from those on the continent.
American politics have also changed significantly since Reagan in that there is a clearer divide on economic issues (although not necessarily on the size of the state) but before that it would be better to compare the party system to 19th century UK when either party could be radical depending on its leadership and momentum.
Are you claiming that in previous Presidential elections African-Americans have not voted at all?
No.
They’ve never had the choice between a black or white candidate before.
I was being cheeky. I quite take the point – it’s a question the BBC wouldn’t ask. If 99% of baclk Americans voted for a black candidate it probably wouldn’t strike tham as disturbing in any way. And if it did, they would keep relatively quiet about it.
Sorry. Irony is lost on me.
Jack Bauer | Homepage | 05.06.08 – 12:47 pm |
Apparently lots of Republicans who lived in states with open primaries voted for either Obama or Hillary, although it was really a vote against one or the other. I got the impression that the majority of those were anti-Hillary votes, which means temporary support for Obama. So it’s not entirely inaccurate to say that Obama got support from much more than black voters. He also got the bulk of the idealistic college student crowd.
Naturally, we’re all supposed to forget about those anti-Hillary votes in the open primaries, starting now. A significant portion of the Obama vote in the primary in many places was an anti-Hillary vote, and therefore will not exist come election day. In addition, there will be quite a few Democrats who will vote for McCain in the end, because they really, really wanted Hillary for whatever reason (die-hard feminism, racism, Rev. Wright, etc.).
And finally, I’m willing to bet that, despite the vaunted record turnouts in so many Democratic primaries, a good chunk of those messiah-loving kids won’t actually get into the voting booth on the day. That demographic has not voted in high percentages, historically. Even though this is supposed to be a special, historical, future-of-humanity-changing election, lots of them will fail to vote. Too many of them won’t get around to it because they know that all their friends are voting for Obama, so their own won’t be missed, they were too busy campaigning for him, he’s destined so they needn’t bother, or some similar irrational reason. Their support for Obama is emotion-based, and they are not thinking rationally. So many of them will not behave rationally on election day.
I think too many of the votes Obama got in the primaries just won’t exist on election day.
The usually more sensible Daily Politics had an Obama victory as a slam dunk, with the Republicans so far behind they neednt bother taking part. The whole piece seemed to suggest an inevitability of Obama winning. OF course the the polling shows that whoever wins its going to be very tight.
Oh, and he isnt Black, he is half white and half black, the black half has played pretty much no part in his upbringing, it was his white mother and white grandparents who brought him up.
The man is as white as it is possible to be, with a dark complexion.
Obama predicted the credit crunch, which makes him better on the economy than McCain, and indeed the Helicopter Ben of the unconstitutional “Federal” Reserve. Indeed while Obama may be vague on some issues he does have a grasp of economics.
The claim that Obama is a socialist is somewhat undermined by Bush’s obscene and irresponsible overspending and corporate welfare (Beare Sterns).
The only real conservative in the Republican Party is Ron Paul.
On the subject of “racism”, people tend to favour people who are like themselves, its human nature.
Hence, blacks will be more likely to support Obama, white women favoured Hillary quite clearly, and no doubt old men will favour McCain.
From the Wall Street Journal,
“For months, Barack Obama has had the image of an incandescent, golden-tongued Wundercandidate. That image may be fraying now.”
“As smart and credentialed as he is, Sen. Obama is often an indifferent speaker without a teleprompter. He has large gaps in his knowledge base, and is just as likely to dig in and embrace a policy misstatement as abandon it. ABC reporter Jake Tapper calls him “a one-man gaffe machine.””
read the rest here:
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121210923476431299.html
From John McCain’s Wikipedia entry…..
In mid-1968, McCain’s father was named commander of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theatre, and McCain was offered early release. The North Vietnamese wanted to appear merciful for propaganda purposes, and also wanted to show other POWs that elites like McCain were willing to be treated preferentially. McCain turned down the offer of repatriation; he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well.
————–
Any man that that can withstand the injuries, pain and torture he did, followed by 2 years in solitary, five and a half years total as a prisoner of the VC and then have the courage to turn down release…….
If I where an American I know the kind of character I would prefer; an old man is a survivor of life with accumulated knowledge and experience.
I would not disparage the young opponent, no one can help being young, just as they cannot help growing old…but one of them has PROVED his character in ways most of us would hope never to have to. That is no small achievement.
But isn’t Dr. Ron older than McCain? And he didn’t just attract old men. (He attracted White Supremacists, Anti-Semites, Islamic Extremists, Anarchists, Communists, Truthers and America Haters generally too.)
A picture of Obama saluting his supporters in victory and the opening mention of Martin Luther King.
This race hustling by the left wing bastion the Daily Mail must end. Anyone up for a demo?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1024327/Racism-threat-assassination-haunt-Baracks-historic-achievement.html
McCain was also onboard The Forrestal when she had a massive deck fire.
http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/MEDIA/images/a-m/Forrestal1sm.jpg
Apparently, Obama once stabbed himslef with a stapler. No doubt this will get centre pages with the Guardian and a whole Pamorama special on why a man who took on a stapler should be Commander in Chief.
Joel: What’s the Daily Mail got to do with it? Are you forced to pay 50p for it every day?
I heard a reporter on Newsnight last night say that Obama might offer Hillary the post of Secretary of Defense to “break the glass ceiling”. Of course, the fact that the much more important job of Secretary of State is occupied by a black woman does not count, because she was appointed by Bushchimphitler. These people are so amateurish it’s almost funny, until you remember who’s paying for it. The joke’s on us.
Rob | 05.06.08 – 5:25 pm
the fact that the much more important job of Secretary of State is occupied by a black woman
….and was occupied by a white woman in the Clinton administration.
‘Glass ceiling’ indeed.
Madeleine Albright was a woman? You learn something every day.
He’s a mulatto!
Do you reckon Clinton gave Albright one up the back door in the Oval office?
The intellectual incompetence of Obama:
“We will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.”
George Bush was certainly a poor public speaker and intellectually mediocre, but at least he wasn’t an idiotic demagogue.
But how did the American people get so stupid? How did they get to this point where they can listen to the most absurd transparent lies day after day?
Watch this video. At 3:00 you learn that children are taught confusion: too break their power of reason.
You accept then Martin that the Daily Mail was exhibiting a left wing bias with its story?
“You accept then Martin that the Daily Mail was exhibiting a left wing bias with its story?
Joel | Homepage | 05.06.08 – 6:53 pm”
Who cares?
We aren’t forced to pay for the Daily Mail and its not representing Britain as the state broadcaster.
Anyway its biased BBC not biased Daily Mail, if you are so hot under the collar about that I suggest you set up your own blog called ‘Biased Daily Mail’ and stop wasting our time with your constant remarks about it here.
Joel: I don’t care what the Daily Mail says. The Daily Mail is not a right wing Tory rag as the unwashed drug takers at the BBC would have people believe.
In fact the Daily Mail has been a big supporter of Gordon Broon.
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/4760,opinion,the-daily-mails-choice-for-labour-leader
The real point is the BBC ALWAYS tries ot deflect accusations of bias by pointing the finger as someone else.
The BBC is different as it is paid for by a forced tax, failure of which to pay can end you up in prison.
The BBC has a duty to be fair and balanced, but to be seen to be fair and balanced.
A lot of you keep stating Obama is a socialist and a Marxist.
In my experience there is little evidence for this amongst any elected American politicians.
In this case too I find no evidence of this in his voting record in congress.
I find no evidence of this in his campaign.
You obviously know a lot more than me, so I would appreciate some links where you prove that to me, if you could make it more than support for a health service or similar, after all David Cameron supports those.