The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Oprah + Obama aka Why Melanin Matters

The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hopRegistered User regular
edited December 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
So a fortunate side effect of my recent employment is that I have plenty of time to listen to the radio, but an unfortunate side effect of my perpetually sunny nature is that for some reason I use this opportunity to listen to talk radio.

In my listening today I heard some talk about the fact that Oprah for the first time has rather aggressively thrown her hat into the political ring and is choosing to endorse Barack Obama. As the clever businesswoman that she is, she's had the sense to stay out of politics up to this point, so her endorsement in this matter is no small thing. Everyone is eager to speculate as to what exactly has so inspired her, after years of political neutrality, to back Obama.

But I mean -- this is really pretty easy, isn't it? -- it's because he's black. Does anyone doubt it's for any reason besides the fact that he's black? But when I heard people talking on the talk radio they seemed to hem and haw and tapdance around it and then finally spit it out like it's some terrible admission and regrettable thing that Oprah should choose to back a black candidate for president.

Which -- really -- makes no sense to me. So she's backing a black candidate, why is that a bad thing? Why are we reluctant to admit that? I don't know if you guys have done your history on the previous 43 US Presidents, but a cursory glance at their pictures lined up on your history classroom wall should tell you all you really need to know about this issue, so why are people upset? What is so terrible about Oprah choosing to back a black candidate? Why does this make people uncomfortable? Honestly, I don't get it.

And I suppose further, in a more general sense, what makes people so uncomfortable if a minority chooses a candidate simply because they're a minority like them? Is that really such a travesty? For all the various reasons Americans choose a candidate, I really don't see this as the worst of them.

So anyway -- Oprah is backing Obama because he's black. I said it, I think it's pretty clearly true, and what's the problem with that?

The Green Eyed Monster on
«13456713

Posts

  • GreeperGreeper Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The problem is it's racist.

    Backing someone just cause he's black is racist.

    It's not really that racist though so who cares.

    Greeper on
  • dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    does this so called 'oprah effect' work in politics as well?
    we shall see

    dlinfiniti on
    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Greeper wrote: »
    The problem is it's racist.

    Backing someone just cause he's black is racist.

    It's not really that racist though so who cares.
    How is it racist? I'm serious. For all the Christians who only choose to vote for Christian candidates, should we be similarly ashamed of them? Or all the whites who only vote for whites, etc.

    He has plenty of other credentials, but I mean clearly the one that separates him for Oprah is his similar melanin count. Also, considering that nothing besides a white male has held the office in the entire history of the nation, how is it really racist because Oprah wants to see another member of her historically discriminated against social group achieve an important first?

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    celery77 wrote: »
    and what's the problem with that?
    Well, I mean, would it be a problem if I didn't back him just because he's black? It sure as hell would be. And is there really much of a difference between the two?

    deadonthestreet on
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    celery77 wrote: »
    And I suppose further, in a more general sense, what makes people so uncomfortable if a minority chooses a candidate simply because they're a minority like them?

    Because that's really really stupid and racist.

    Okay that's not the reason why people find it to be strange but it really should be.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    celery77 wrote: »
    and what's the problem with that?
    Well, I mean, would it be a problem if I didn't back him just because he's black? It sure as hell would be. And is there really much of a difference between the two?
    43 US Presidents, every single last one a white man. So yes, I feel there is a difference between wanting to see an important milestone achieved by a member of a historically (and in many ways currently) disenfranchised group v. maintaining the same prejudices which created the 43 hit streak in the first place.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I'm not that worried about the melanin thing. I mean I would probably back a gay candidate if he had a snowball's chance in hell. 'cause he's one of my kind. People always back people that are similar to them - in this case it's race. In other case it's been similar ideology or just general personality.

    I'm curious to see the weight of Oprah's opinion. Her single comment about beef brought about disasterous consequences for the beef industry, and she can turn an unknown book or company into a hit overnight. I wonder if the same applies to a politician.

    Also, there have been black candidates in the past that Oprah hasn't backed. Maybe it's because Obama is one of the few (only?) that has had a fighting chance?

    Casual Eddy on
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    celery77 wrote: »
    Greeper wrote: »
    The problem is it's racist.

    Backing someone just cause he's black is racist.

    It's not really that racist though so who cares.
    How is it racist? I'm serious. For all the Christians who only choose to vote for Christian candidates, should we be similarly ashamed of them? Or all the whites who only vote for whites, etc.

    Uh, yes?

    Are you really saying that you think someone who wouldn't vote for Obama solely because he's black isn't a racist?

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • basinobasino Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I don't really find it racist but I could see why people would have a problem with someone picking the president based on their race rather than their actual ability.

    basino on
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    You all realize that you're justifying an entirely irrational and culturally damaging behavior, right?

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    You have to ask yourself, would Oprah back Colin Powell if he was running for President? Even if he was running as a Republican? No, probably not. Maybe Oprah is backing Obama because he possesses special qualities, in addition to his blackness. Or maybe Oprah is backing Obama because of those special qualities (such as character and policy), and he's black.

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Wow... just, wow.

    Is it so impossible to believe that Oprah might be supporting Obama because of his policies and not their shared minority status? Hey, we've never had a woman president before, and there's one running this year with a pretty good chance. Oprah's a woman. Why isn't she supporting Clinton because of her vagina?

    KalTorak on
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Yeah, you have to give oprah some credit. She's a pretty smart woman as far as I can see.

    Casual Eddy on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Why is it that it is obviously because they are both black?

    I mean, Oprah and Hillary are both women. If Oprah had come down for Hillary would that have been the automatic reason.

    Or is this woman who built herself into an incredibly powerful media tycoon from nothing perhaps capable of reasoning at a slightly higher level than the nucleotides of her DNA?

    Shinto on
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I have such a deep fear for the future of America.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Oprah is rich so she should obviously have supported George Bush and whoever the richest candidate in the race is. Why can't she like him for the reasons a ton of white men, black men, and white women like him?

    Couscous on
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    Is it racist? In the strictest sense of the word, yes. Is it wrong? No. It's no more wrong than all the Mormons that will be voting for Romney. You vote for people that share your values and will represent you in the public forum. Her ancestry is obviously a very important thing to Oprah, and Obama is the only viable candidate that shares that ancestry.

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Greeper wrote: »
    The problem is it's racist.

    Backing someone just cause he's black is racist.

    It's not really that racist though so who cares.

    it's not just cause he black.

    Black, chance to win, shares similar ideology, cute enough to get her on some more magazine covers(and not hated by 48% of the country) and maybe she just really wants to him win over the alternatives too.

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Why is it that it is obviously because they are both black?

    I mean, Oprah and Hillary are both women. If Oprah had come down for Hillary would that have been the automatic reason.

    Or is this woman who built herself into an incredibly powerful media tycoon from nothing perhaps capable of reasoning at a slightly higher level than the nucleotides of her DNA?
    I think the fact that she has broken her track record of avoiding politics to endorse him is notable. There is of course the Chicago connection as well, but I mean honestly, if it was another candidate from Chicago with similar ideologies and credentials, only he was white, do you really think Oprah would break her track record to back him?

    As far as the Clinton thing, who knows what might have happened if Obama wasn't in the race, but I really don't think it's a stretch to say that skin color was the ultimately deciding factor to earn Oprah's endorsement.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • NavocNavoc Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    You all realize that you're justifying an entirely irrational and culturally damaging behavior, right?

    This keeps being brought up, that voting for Obama because he is black (or Clinton because she is a woman, I suppose) is as bad as not voting for someone because they are black/etc. I don't see how this is true. I'm actually reminded of an article that was linked a while ago:
    What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it’s central to an effective war strategy. The war on Islamist terror, after all, is two-pronged: a function of both hard power and soft power. We have seen the potential of hard power in removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We have also seen its inherent weaknesses in Iraq, and its profound limitations in winning a long war against radical Islam. The next president has to create a sophisticated and supple blend of soft and hard power to isolate the enemy, to fight where necessary, but also to create an ideological template that works to the West’s advantage over the long haul. There is simply no other candidate with the potential of Obama to do this. Which is where his face comes in.

    Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.

    I think the passage does a decent job of demonstrating the fact that there is more to a politician than only their policies. Is it racist to acknowledge the historical (and not so historical) discrimination faced by minorities, and to believe that having such a person elected president would change the way the United States is viewed (both domestically and abroad)?

    I can see disagreement over specifics, but to call it "entirely irrational and culturally damaging" strikes me as unfair.

    Navoc on
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Is it racist? In the strictest sense of the word, yes. Is it wrong? No. It's no more wrong than all the Mormons that will be voting for Romney. You vote for people that share your values and will represent you in the public forum. Her ancestry is obviously a very important thing to Oprah, and Obama is the only viable candidate that shares that ancestry.

    Right, and melanin is a value.

    It's not racist to acknowledge discrimination. However furthering discrimination by alienating other candidates solely based on race is racist.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Is it racist? In the strictest sense of the word, yes. Is it wrong? No. It's no more wrong than all the Mormons that will be voting for Romney. You vote for people that share your values and will represent you in the public forum. Her ancestry is obviously a very important thing to Oprah, and Obama is the only viable candidate that shares that ancestry.
    This is what I'm saying -- people do this in subtle ways all the time, but because it's a black person backing a black person, suddenly everyone hems and haws and looks down on it and gets upset and acts like this is somehow inappropriate. Maybe if everyone hemmed and hawed the same way when Christians supported bible-thumpers or when Mormons supported Romney or when people from the same locality supported people from the same locality etc. I'd give more credence to it, but it seems like a pretty natural, pretty harmless preference on Oprah's part.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • ClevingerClevinger Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    celery77 wrote: »
    Greeper wrote: »
    The problem is it's racist.

    Backing someone just cause he's black is racist.

    It's not really that racist though so who cares.
    How is it racist? I'm serious. For all the Christians who only choose to vote for Christian candidates, should we be similarly ashamed of them? Or all the whites who only vote for whites, etc.

    Yes, of course we should...

    I'm also somewhat ashamed of myself because I'm glad all the idiots who will follow Oprah wherever she leads will likely now vote for Obama, pretty much for the sole reason that she endorsed him.

    edit: Also,
    This is what I'm saying -- people do this in subtle ways all the time, but because it's a black person backing a black person, suddenly everyone hems and haws and looks down on it and gets upset and acts like this is somehow inappropriate.

    It would be appropriate if that was the sole reason why she's endorsing him and Obama was a horrible candidate. But he's not, and there's likely more to it than just race. Of course it's a big factor, though.

    Clevinger on
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    celery77 wrote: »
    Is it racist? In the strictest sense of the word, yes. Is it wrong? No. It's no more wrong than all the Mormons that will be voting for Romney. You vote for people that share your values and will represent you in the public forum. Her ancestry is obviously a very important thing to Oprah, and Obama is the only viable candidate that shares that ancestry.
    This is what I'm saying -- people do this in subtle ways all the time, but because it's a black person backing a black person, suddenly everyone hems and haws and looks down on it and gets upset and acts like this is somehow inappropriate. Maybe if everyone hemmed and hawed the same way when Christians supported bible-thumpers or when Mormons supported Romney or when people from the same locality supported people from the same locality etc. I'd give more credence to it, but it seems like a pretty natural, pretty harmless preference on Oprah's part.

    You're making an arguement against yourself. Being Christian is (for the most part) a choice. It's a matter of personal ideology. Race has nothing to do with ideology or view points. Everyone should be looked down upon for doing something as brash as voting or not voting for a person solely based on ethnicity.

    It is logical that a Mormon would vote for a Mormon candidate. They subscribe to the same ideology. On the other hand when presented with two individuals of differing ethnicities, It does not make sense to vote for one because their skin color is akin to yours.

    That's like voting for a guy in a red tie because you happen to be wearing a red tie.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    celery77 wrote: »
    Is it racist? In the strictest sense of the word, yes. Is it wrong? No. It's no more wrong than all the Mormons that will be voting for Romney. You vote for people that share your values and will represent you in the public forum. Her ancestry is obviously a very important thing to Oprah, and Obama is the only viable candidate that shares that ancestry.
    This is what I'm saying -- people do this in subtle ways all the time, but because it's a black person backing a black person, suddenly everyone hems and haws and looks down on it and gets upset and acts like this is somehow inappropriate. Maybe if everyone hemmed and hawed the same way when Christians supported bible-thumpers or when Mormons supported Romney or when people from the same locality supported people from the same locality etc. I'd give more credence to it, but it seems like a pretty natural, pretty harmless preference on Oprah's part.

    You're making an arguement against yourself. Being Christian is (for the most part) a choice. It's a matter of personal ideology. Race has nothing to do with ideology or view points. Everyone should be looked down upon for doing something as brash as voting or not voting for a person solely based on ethnicity.

    It is logical that a Mormon would vote for a Mormon candidate. They subscribe to the same ideology. On the other hand when presented with two individuals of differing ethnicities, It does not make sense to vote for one because their skin color is akin to yours.

    That's like voting for a guy in a red tie because you happen to be wearing a red tie.
    But wearing ties is a choice! I'd say it's like voting for a guy b/c he's got brown hair and you've got brown hair.

    KalTorak on
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    You're making an arguement against yourself. Being Christian is (for the most part) a choice. It's a matter of personal ideology. Race has nothing to do with ideology or view points. Everyone should be looked down upon for doing something as brash as voting or not voting for a person solely based on ethnicity.

    It is logical that a Mormon would vote for a Mormon candidate. They subscribe to the same ideology. On the other hand when presented with two individuals of differing ethnicities, It does not make sense to vote for one because their skin color is akin to yours.

    That's like voting for a guy in a red tie because you happen to be wearing a red tie.
    But they have the shared experience of facing discrimination because of their skin color in the United States, which one assumes would lead to some shared values. By being the same minority in the US, they do have a shared experience, and faced with the choice of having a white person represent her and her values v. a black person with the shared experience of fighting against discrimination in America, Oprah has decided that the black person would best represent her viewpoint -- what she wants, what she needs, and what she would like to see done.

    There's also the matter of the historic first, which is still something you're conveniently ignoring. There are walls facing people of color like Oprah, and she's done an awful lot in her lifetime to break many of them down herself. Why is it problematic when she desires for even more to fall?

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    KalTorak wrote: »
    But wearing ties is a choice! I'd say it's like voting for a guy b/c he's got brown hair and you've got brown hair.
    But (1) people with brown hair have never been discriminated against as a group in the US and (2) people with brown hair have been President before.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    celery77 wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    But wearing ties is a choice! I'd say it's like voting for a guy b/c he's got brown hair and you've got brown hair.
    But (1) people with brown hair have never been discriminated against as a group in the US and (2) people with brown hair have been President before.

    So why not Hilary? Women have (and still are) discriminated against as a group and have never held the Presidency.

    KalTorak on
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    Is it racist? In the strictest sense of the word, yes. Is it wrong? No. It's no more wrong than all the Mormons that will be voting for Romney. You vote for people that share your values and will represent you in the public forum. Her ancestry is obviously a very important thing to Oprah, and Obama is the only viable candidate that shares that ancestry.

    Right, and melanin is a value.

    Oh fuck off with your strawman.

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    KalTorak wrote: »
    celery77 wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    But wearing ties is a choice! I'd say it's like voting for a guy b/c he's got brown hair and you've got brown hair.
    But (1) people with brown hair have never been discriminated against as a group in the US and (2) people with brown hair have been President before.

    So why not Hilary? Women have (and still are) discriminated against as a group and have never held the Presidency.
    Because Obama's in the same race and you can only pick one?

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    celery77 wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    celery77 wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    But wearing ties is a choice! I'd say it's like voting for a guy b/c he's got brown hair and you've got brown hair.
    But (1) people with brown hair have never been discriminated against as a group in the US and (2) people with brown hair have been President before.

    So why not Hilary? Women have (and still are) discriminated against as a group and have never held the Presidency.
    Because Obama's in the same race and you can only pick one?

    Yeah, so why'd she pick Obama?

    KalTorak on
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    KalTorak wrote: »
    celery77 wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    celery77 wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    But wearing ties is a choice! I'd say it's like voting for a guy b/c he's got brown hair and you've got brown hair.
    But (1) people with brown hair have never been discriminated against as a group in the US and (2) people with brown hair have been President before.

    So why not Hilary? Women have (and still are) discriminated against as a group and have never held the Presidency.
    Because Obama's in the same race and you can only pick one?

    Yeah, so why'd she pick Obama?
    Because he's black?

    I thought I made my opinions on that pretty clear in the first post.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    KalTorak wrote: »
    celery77 wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    But wearing ties is a choice! I'd say it's like voting for a guy b/c he's got brown hair and you've got brown hair.
    But (1) people with brown hair have never been discriminated against as a group in the US and (2) people with brown hair have been President before.

    So why not Hilary? Women have (and still are) discriminated against as a group and have never held the Presidency.

    That's a fair question that's already been raised, and people would probably still be bitching for exactly that reason if Oprah had backed her instead of Obama. But it's an impossible situation to what-if. For the first time in history, we not only have a viable black candidate, but a viable woman candidate as well.

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited December 2007
    It'd be great to finally get over the non-white president guy hurdle. And since Hillary is making herself more unappealing as time moves on, Obama it is for me.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    Elki wrote: »
    It'd be great to finally get over the non-white president guy hurdle. And since Hillary is making herself more unappealing as time moves on, Obama it is for me.

    You're just saying that 'cause you're black.

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    celery77 wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    celery77 wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    celery77 wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    But wearing ties is a choice! I'd say it's like voting for a guy b/c he's got brown hair and you've got brown hair.
    But (1) people with brown hair have never been discriminated against as a group in the US and (2) people with brown hair have been President before.

    So why not Hilary? Women have (and still are) discriminated against as a group and have never held the Presidency.
    Because Obama's in the same race and you can only pick one?

    Yeah, so why'd she pick Obama?
    Because he's black?

    I thought I made my opinions on that pretty clear in the first post.

    You're missing the point. According to you, Oprah decided to break her career-long streak of not endorsing candidates to come out on Obama's side. She did this purely for reasons of race - she the same race as Obama, and black people have been historically discriminated against and have never held the presidency.

    Now, take that and replace with Clinton.

    "According to you, Oprah decided to break her career-long streak of not endorsing candidates to come out on Hillary's side. She did this purely for reasons of gender - she the same gender as Hillary, and women have been historically discriminated against and have never held the presidency."

    You're saying that Oprah is only supporting Obama for those reasons, when the exact same reasons apply to an equally viable candidate. There must be some other reason that tipped Oprah over to Obama instead of Hillary.

    KalTorak on
  • edited December 2007
    This content has been removed.

  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    celery77 wrote: »
    You're making an arguement against yourself. Being Christian is (for the most part) a choice. It's a matter of personal ideology. Race has nothing to do with ideology or view points. Everyone should be looked down upon for doing something as brash as voting or not voting for a person solely based on ethnicity.

    It is logical that a Mormon would vote for a Mormon candidate. They subscribe to the same ideology. On the other hand when presented with two individuals of differing ethnicities, It does not make sense to vote for one because their skin color is akin to yours.

    That's like voting for a guy in a red tie because you happen to be wearing a red tie.
    But they have the shared experience of facing discrimination because of their skin color in the United States, which one assumes would lead to some shared values. By being the same minority in the US, they do have a shared experience, and faced with the choice of having a white person represent her and her values v. a black person with the shared experience of fighting against discrimination in America, Oprah has decided that the black person would best represent her viewpoint -- what she wants, what she needs, and what she would like to see done.

    There's also the matter of the historic first, which is still something you're conveniently ignoring. There are walls facing people of color like Oprah, and she's done an awful lot in her lifetime to break many of them down herself. Why is it problematic when she desires for even more to fall?
    That's a really stupid assumption.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    KalTorak wrote: »
    You're saying that Oprah is only supporting Obama for those reasons, when the exact same reasons apply to an equally viable candidate. There must be some other reason that tipped Oprah over to Obama instead of Hillary.
    I'm not saying she's only supporting him because he's black -- there's plenty of other reasons to support Barack Obama which I can only assume Oprah endorses as well -- I'm just saying that given the entire field of candidates and Oprah's history of not endorsing politicians, my feeling is that the final straw which got her to come out in support of Obama is that he's a viable black candidate with a platform she supports. I think if all things considered, but now Obama was a progressive presidential candidate from the state of Illinois who was white, no I don't think Oprah would come out to endorse him.

    There's plenty of non-race related reasons Oprah supports Barack Obama, but I think the ultimately deciding factor in her endorsement is his race. I then don't see why that's so upsetting to some people.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    That's a really stupid assumption.
    So all people who assume that similar experiences will lead to similar viewpoints are "really stupid" then? So like -- for example -- all military men who support a candidate with military experience are "really stupid"?

    The Green Eyed Monster on
Sign In or Register to comment.