Is the United States ready to elect a black man as president?

[John Simkin]

Russell Brand faces being blacklisted by the American media after causing outrage with a string of offensive jokes at the live MTV Video Music Awards. Brand, who was hosting the ceremony live, had already been forbidden by MTV bosses to mention Scientology.

He began his opening monologue by saying: "Please, America, elect Barack Obama. On behalf of the world. Some people, I think they're called racists, say America is not ready for a black president. But I know America to be a forward-thinking country because otherwise why would you have let that retard and cowboy fella be president for eight years? We thought it was nice of you to let him have a go, because in England he wouldn't be trusted with a pair of scissors."

[David G. Healy]

Russell Brand faces being blacklisted by the American media after causing outrage with a string of offensive jokes at the live MTV Video Music Awards. Brand, who was hosting the ceremony live, had already been forbidden by MTV bosses to mention Scientology.

He began his opening monologue by saying: "Please, America, elect Barack Obama. On behalf of the world. Some people, I think they're called racists, say America is not ready for a black president. But I know America to be a forward-thinking country because otherwise why would you have let that retard and cowboy fella be president for eight years? We thought it was nice of you to let him have a go, because in England he wouldn't be trusted with a pair of scissors."

blacklisted? Doubt that.... There's been a lot worse on other US cable networks... Speaking of MTV, have you heard some of the song lyrics?

No, the American dumbing down media giants are notorious for NOT soliciting non-American opinion re its presidential candidates...

Edited September 8, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Evan Burton]

Not to mention Scientology? Why? I watched that doco "Scientology & Me" and wonder if this isn't a demonstration that what the presenter of the doco said was absolutely correct.

[Ron Ecker]

If Obama gets elected, I think it will be more a case of the U.S. not being ready to elect John McCain or any neocon-loving old man who looks like he's ready to die in office.

Aren't U.S. presidential candidates always something of a joke overseas? I would think that they should be. For the last 20 years, of course, it's been two crime families in charge, with Bob Dole being an outright Republican concession in 1996. These two families have left a strange collection of lightweights and deadweights in their wake, perhaps an intentional situation till the Clintons (with Hillary) and the Bushes (with Jeb) are ready to resume their alternating reign in 2012.

[John Simkin]

Aren't U.S. presidential candidates always something of a joke overseas?

Usually, but we do take Obama seriously. We are suckers for intelligence and good speakers.

[Don Jeffries]

It's hard to take seriously anyone who uses the word "retard" like that on television. This word, as recently as ten years ago, was absolutely considered beyond the pale, at least for anyone over the age of 12. Now, we see the allegedly "coolest" celebrities sprinkling it in their conversation as freely as they use garden-variety profanity.

Leaving this guy's ignorant, childish language aside, what does an entertainment awards show have to do with electing a president? Why do these Hollywood idiots, who are usually incapable of managing their own lives in spite of resources virtually no one else in America has, always have to be so sanctimonious? Why do they assume anyone cares what they think about politics?

I object to the notion that America is or isn't "ready" to elect "a black president." That makes Obama, or any other black candidate, more of a thing than an individual person. That's probably why about 95% of black voters support Obama. They are, in effect, electing his skin color and not his platform. I don't understand this mentality; I'm a Catholic and I can't believe I would ever support a candidate just because of his religion. It wouldn't even be an issue (and, of course, the only Catholic ever elected president was JFK; only one other Catholic was ever even nominated- Al Smith in 1928).

As I've said before, I'm afraid the powers that be will use Obama's "difference" (i.e., his half-black racial background) in order to trumpet what a great advance his election represents.

He will also not have to propose much, if any, real reform, because people will keep seeing how different he looks, and the media will certainly remind us about that, lest we forget for one moment. Thus, I doubt if Obama could accomplish much, even if his intentions are honorable. With all the references to the historic nature of his election, and the idea that Americans had done something profoundly good in electing him, who's going to notice if he continues business as usual in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at home?

[Ron Ecker]

Obama was campaigning on change, so now McCain is campaigning on change too. This is going to make the American people terribly confused. And terribly disappointed, no matter who they vote for, when nothing changes.

[Len Colby]

I object to the notion that America is or isn't "ready" to elect "a black president." That makes Obama, or any other black candidate, more of a thing than an individual person.

I'm not sure of how big of a factor this is but it is hard to imagine that Obama's "problem" with older and working class white voters has nothing to do with his skin color. Even if only 10 - 20 of the ones who support McCain or an independent or will opt to stay home are doing soforthat reason that is enough to shift the election.

That's probably why about 95% of black voters support Obama. They are, in effect, electing his skin color and not his platform.

Is this a real statistic you saw some where? I've only seen statewide numbers showing Obama leading McCain 8?% to 12% in Georgia and 85% to 7% in Florida among African-American voters. That is close to the historic rate at which black voters support the Democratic candidate. I imagine if the GOP ran a black candidate it would be a very different story.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/05/20/po...support-mccain/

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/polls...a-08-22-08.html

Democrat John Kerry leads President George W. Bush by a margin of about 8 to 1 among African American voters in a heads-up matchup. African Americans have historically supported Democratic candidates by large margins; in 2000, 90% of black voters cast their ballot for Al Gore, and 9% voted for George W. Bush.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/21/...ain630986.shtml

But like you I question how much of a change he would be if elected though he is certainly better than McCain (or Bush)

[Don Jeffries]

Len,

I've heard the 90+% figure on several television news shows, quoting various polls. Of course, since I so often declare that the mainstream media can't be trusted, I suppose it's only fair to say that these figures come from what I believe to be less than reliable sources.

Still, as you mention, other recent Democratic presidential candidates received close to that amount of black support in elections, so it stands to reason that the first black candidate should logically increase that percentage.

[John Geraghty]

Brand is well known for his leftist leanings, writing for the guardian (albeit the football section) and describing himself as a 'social revolutionary'. His phrasing may have been tactless, but the message is spot on. While I don't endorse Obama in many ways, I'll take him for now. If I were a die hard revolutionary I would be hoping for a McCain victory, as an Obama victory would be an appeasement towards progressives, socialists and others of revolutionary spirit. Linking in with John's thread on Fannie and Bernie, a McCain presidency would send the economy into further tailspin.

Brand presented a documentary about the BNP in which he followed the organisations youth leader around for a few weeks. Brand openly called him a fascist and verbally tore him apart in a pub. The documentary is available on youtube.

Similar available documentaries include 'BNP: the secret agent' and 'Young, nazi and proud' with David Modell. Off topic, but interesting.

[John Simkin]

Brand is well known for his leftist leanings, writing for the guardian (albeit the football section) and describing himself as a 'social revolutionary'. His phrasing may have been tactless, but the message is spot on.

Brand is not only a social revolutionary he is a West Ham supporter. He is also very good at gaining publicity. He went too far when he described Bush as a "retard". However, as a former teacher, Bush's expression when asked a question, does remind me a great deal of students who I taught with "special needs". It is one of the reasons why I cannot take this man seriously as a politician. I don't like the majority of politicians in the UK, but they are all capable of appearing fairly intelligent.

[David G. Healy]

Obama was campaigning on change, so now McCain is campaigning on change too. This is going to make the American people terribly confused. And terribly disappointed, no matter who they vote for, when nothing changes.

and recently John McCain's campaign has focused on the "most" serious issue confronting we Americans this day: "lipstick and pitbulls"! Is the Karl Rove smell ALL over this campaign, another one? Which means the GOP dumbing down of America is moving ahead at full throttle.... there's plenty of room under that-thar GOP bus...

The Dem's just need to focus on the issues, hammer the simple fact home: the cowards are hiding from the issues. Appeal to the electorate (and the media) to pay attention, raise their own questions, and hold their nose till the debates.... simple as that! Whining about the GOP goes no where, as we've seen for the past 8 years....

Welcome to the campaign Karl... wasn't that you I saw on the tube, you're a FOX-TV Commentator, too?

[Len Colby]

Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

By RON FOURNIER and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) — Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.

The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 — about two and one-half percentage points.

Certainly, Republican John McCain has his own obstacles: He's an ally of an unpopular president and would be the nation's oldest first-term president. But Obama faces this: 40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents.

More than a third of all white Democrats and independents — voters Obama can't win the White House without — agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views.

[....]

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-p...ulse-obama-race

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Were Obama white he would be losing or winning by he unacceptable amount right now also. ( I mean if he had said the exact same nothing)

The difference?

The corporate Wall Street Democrats would not be able to isolate the race-trace and point to it on all the channels as the reason why he lost.

Same with the other FURTHEST RIGHT DEMOCRAT HILLARY AND THE POTENTIAL ISOLATION ON GENDER-AS-EXCUSE-NEVER MIND THAT THEY DID NOT FUNDAMENTALLY AGREE WITH ANY OF THE MOST EXTREMIST PRESIDENT IN HISORYS POLICIES OR MAKE AN ISSUE OF THEM IN THE CAMPAIGN.

Edited September 20, 2008 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer