Bring It On!

Bill might have been the first “black” president

February 27th, 2007 | by Craig R. Harmon |

but Hillary might not be the second, at least, not if these trends hold up. Of course, it’s early yet and there’s lots of time for shifts in support from this or that constituency.

  1. 8 Responses to “Bill might have been the first “black” president”

  2. By tos on Feb 27, 2007 | Reply

    I thought balck people said Obama wasn’t black enough.

  3. By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 27, 2007 | Reply

    Well, while Barak is genuinely African-American (his father being from Africa and him being American), he’s not, I guess, considered to be African-American in the sense that he traces back to slavery days…he’s not descended from slaves so I guess that means to some that he doesn’t fully understand the black experience — as if he hasn’t experienced being black in America.

    That’s one I can’t quite wrap my mind around unless that’s not really the problem. There are many things about politics that I genuinely do not get. This is one of those things, I guess. 

  4. By tos on Feb 27, 2007 | Reply

    I guess it depends on who they target during the campaings. Hillary is targeting black people right now.

  5. By Jet Netwal on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply

    I think the only people who think Obama isn’t black enough is the vapid media. The man is black. He’s also brilliant. I think we can all agree what’s more important.

  6. By Jersey McJones on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply

    Well, I think there is some genuine concern among the African Amercian working class demographic that Obama lacks an understanding of their lot in America.  It’s a fair point.


  7. By Charlie on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply

    Frankly, I say shame on the media for acting as if there are only two candidates in the running.  There are as many as nine that I know of, yet they hardly talk about the rest.  

     There reasoning seems to be tied entirely to money.  I guess we have proved again that we have the best democracy money can buy.

  8. By Jersey McJones on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply

    Well, Charlie, we could fix that in a heart beat, but the sleazy cons have packed the federal courts with sleazy cons who equate money with speech - and so we can’t seem to reign it in.  If we had a ten dollar cap on all contributions and a rule that said that only individuals can give, and only once, and if they collude to do more, they get arrested, that would fix this whole problem in one fell swoop.


  9. By SteveIL on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply


    Since you brought it up, two of the Justices who shared the opinion of the so-called “sleazy cons” regarding McCain-Feingold were the Clinton-appointed Breyer and Ginsburg.  And those Justices who usually have joined in opinions with Breyer and Ginsburg were O’Connor, and are Kennedy, Souter, and Stevens.  All of them are considered judicial activists, not constructionists, even the ones that were appointed by Republican Presidents.  And that’s all I’ll say about that.

    Personally, I love watching the Dems wreck themselves over who is the most “black”. 

Post a Comment