Just to play devil's advocate (I am no fan of McCain and think Limbaugh is a hypocritical foghorn but...) many white people who support McCain are automatically being branded as racist hicks because they aren't being "progressive" and voting for "the" black guy. From what I have seen, there are many people who do fit this stereotype supporting McCain but it has been stretched to cover ALL his supporters. There must be people out there who like some of his policies without being racists like Limbaugh. Or am I completely out to lunch? Anyway, my point is that it seems the racism is going both ways in this election and none of it is good.

It is too bad it just can't be about supporting someone because you agree with them. We have seen this mentality of "You're voting for him because you are the same race" also extend to the sexism thing. If you are a woman voting for McCain-Palin, you are just doing it because Palin is a woman. If you aren't voting for them it is because you are the anti-woman (see previous lists of feminist stereotypes on this site).

*sigh*

It should be noted that polls have been done that show Obama receives more good than harm from his race.

Thanks for your words, Samhita.

The fact remains that many prominent white conservatives have come out and endorsed Barack Obama (Christopher Buckley may be the most famous one). Buckley has faced harsh criticism, but it's not the same as what Colin Powell is receiving (being called ungrateful, as if he owes his life to white benevolence).

I'm not exactly sure the "McCain-Palin supporters are bigots" refrain is analogous to what's happening with Powell. That line of thinking isn't being reinforced by national news anchors. It's not as if Limbaugh is the only one who analyzed Powell's endorsement through the lens of race. I don't think you meant to offend, but "white McCain supporters get criticized too" isn't really the issue.

Moreover, I'm not sure the Palin comparison is apt. If a woman says her top issue is equal rights for women (or anything else related to feminism), McCain-Palin isn't the best choice. I'm not saying Obama-Biden is the best choice. But if a woman prizes equality, there's McKinney, Nader, etc. The Republicans aren't fighting for equal pay...

And the "Obama is helped by his race" comment sounds a lot to me like "White people support him out of guilt" or "Black people are overwhelmingly voting for him because he's Black." If Clinton or Edwards were the nominee, they would be garnering lots of support too. Because they're Democrats. A record amount of African-Americans came out to vote for Sen. John Kerry.

For Colin Powell Race Beats Party. Fine. But Hiding behind Palin's Skirt to Justify that position is a Caitiff, Craven, Cowardly Act.

I read the above article yesterday on Femisex.com and must say i agree wholeheartedly. Women have to get a lot tougher if they are going to stamp out sexism!

From the article, here's an excerpt thatI struck home with me:
"And if Powell had been honest about Race over issues then that is great, because at least it is honest: Race beats Party for Mr. Powell.

But… Huge But here folks:
We are not fine with cowardice!
We are not fine with yellow-booted Powell using a female as an excuse for your Race beats Party.
That, Mr. Powell, is pure craven yellow-booted cowardice.
That Powell felt the need to justify his Race beats Party vote by cutting on Palin was just proof that the gloves are off. Powell is greatly concerned that Obama is called unpatriotic but NO concern that Palin is a MILF."

I too found his remark on Palin sad and until i read the post didn't know how to put it into words. but, yeah it was cowardly!

here's a link:
http://www.femisex.com/content/for-colin-powell-race-beats-party-fine-but-hiding-behind-palins-skirt-justify-position-a-cai

Trees, I pretty much agree with you, was just trying to throw a contrary idea out there.

As for the voting on the issues with Palin, my point is that it seems like even if that is what you are doing no one sees it that way. Everyone is turning the issues into a race or gender thing. Even if you are considering the issues and that is all you are doing, it gets ignored or trivialized. That was what I was trying to say.

I don't understand how anyone can truly listen to Colin Powell's announcement and still think he's just voting for "the black guy". He seriously sounds like he's pretty disappointed in his party that they couldn't muster up someone he could believe in.
That said, WIDave, maybe that's because Barack Obama supports policies that benefit the majority of African Americans? Hell, maybe it's because a lot of (not all, certainly, probably not even a majority, but a lot) McCain's supporters wouldn't sound out of place at another kind of rally, one with pointy white robes and an exceptionally tall and well-organized bonfire. Frankly, I wouldn't support someone who turned a blind eye to that as it is, but especially not if I were black.

Comparing injustices is really unnecessary. Sexism and racism are not always mutually exclusive, its myopic to think so. Where does that leave women of color who have to experience both?

I'll believe this crap as soon as the first white man voting for John McCain is called a racist for voting FOR a white man.

No one ever says white men voting for white men are voting their race, why only the opposite (well, I know why...)?

As a white person I wouldn't vote McCain/Palin based on the republican party racism either. Powell had it dead on when he said the party is pushing the idea that Obama is a muslim which is both untrue and more importanly, a non-issue that is made an issue because of racism.

I'd say Anti-racism is trumping party.

Militarily, it is huge that Powell condemed anti-muslim sentiments. We are in the middle of a war against muslim people in the Middle East and much of the fuel that continues the war is our country's racist compliance with muslim deaths and control of muslim lands/resources.

Its so typical for Limbaugh to call a move that condemns racism, racist itsef.

Sherashi, I understand the point you were trying to make. I think the problem with McCain-Palin is many people (average citizens, pundits, journalists, etc.) feel they haven't really shown a command of the issues, regardless of whether you're conservative or liberal. McCain and Palin often contradict each other (and their own selves) in their rallies and interviews. "The fundamentals of our economy are sound" was not an isloated moment. Then you have to factor in that Gov. Palin has done very little press for a VP candidate. I think people are skeptical that anyone could agree with their ticket on the issues (because it's difficult to know what their take on an issue is).

Too right, Samhita. Some perspicacious political commentary.

I can't even begin to refute y'all above me.

*Entrenched* is an apt word in this case though.

cheesegirl says: McCain's supporters wouldn't sound out of place at another kind of rally, one with pointy white robes and an exceptionally tall and well-organized bonfire.
reply:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/21/vo.palin.protesters.kkco

the above link is to protesters acting out against Palin.

next i am happy to send links of show C*nt tee-shirts and to the paintball vandelizing of McCain/Palin bus. and to cars shredded b/c they had McCain stickers on them. to a police report of a Obama suppporter who knock a woman with a Palin sign down, to all the sexist comments of rape and barbie and the like towards Palin. I'm sorry. I hate rascism, but as a white female maybe it is time i start to hate sexism more!

In response to the "sexism is worse" posters: you simply cannot separate sexism and racism. And neither should be elevated above the other. Such a strategy is divisive and useless. Both are forms of oppression which marginalize a section of the population based on color and/or sex, and often work in concert. I lazily sight history as my evidence.

to UnderCobbles who says no comparison for sexism and racism, I send this link:

The Last Rape, a Ted Koppel documentary-- If ONLY!
http://www.femisex.com/content/the-last-rape-a-ted-koppel-documentary-if-only

I a recent convert to this website (FemiSex.com) and am encouraging women to take a look. they really hit hard against sexism. I find it just what i need after what has happene to Hillary and Palin.

@Sadie: That video didn't seem sexist to me. I could imagine it happening as a protest against Bush, for example. I have heard few (and by "few" I mean "no") reports of anyone actually screaming "kill her!" or producing images of her in a noose, (or whatever symbol might be more analogous to an anti-woman hate crime). Certainly, there is sexism against Palin, but so much of it comes from her own party, and I have yet to hear of anyone not voting for McCain-Palin because of the simple fact that Palin is a woman. And while I don't condone vandalizing anyone's property, it's a far cry from even claiming to want someone dead. Although the "Sarah Palin is a cunt" t-shirts do need to stop.

UdderCables, right on. Give oppression Olympics a rest, people. Read Jessica's book.

I-N-T-E-R-S-E-C-T-I-O-N-A-L-I-T-Y

I did a blog piece about how Joe Lieberman is only supporting John McCain & Sarah Palin because they are white. Lieberman's politics include supporting abortion and gay rights and opposition to the Iraq war, not to mention that he's voted with the Democrats most of the time. And how many far-right black Republicans has he ever endorsed? By the "totally about race" logic, it must be because McCain & Palin are white.

I just don't understand the thought that Colin Powell is only supporting Senator Obama because of his race.
In his speech, he lays out several reasons as to why his party allegiance does not matter to him in this election and none of them are about race. He discusses his distaste in the direction that the Republican party has gone and is going. He talks about the campaigns that are both going in different directions and how he cannot respect the direction of the campaign that Senator McCain has chosen to run because it not focused on the issues and is more about show.
His speech has nothing about supporting someone purely based on race. If anything, he discusses the inclusive nature of Obama's campaign as well as the inclusive nature of America itself. We are a melting pot of races and heritages, and we need a president who inspires every one of every background. Gen. Powell says something like this, and it makes an impact.
Also, if it was about race, why wouldn't he have come out and stated his allegiance months ago? Why would he have given a campaign contribution to Senator McCain?
At the same time, one cannot deny Gen. Powell's race. The treatment of Senator Obama by the Republican party as well as by the conservative media is something that they should be ashamed of. As an African-American, I don't think he can ignore that just like as a woman, I cannot ignore when sexism is present on the campaign trail for Sarah Palin.
I sincerely do not believe that this decision was racially motivated. If you listened to the speech once, I think that is clear. However, at the same time I don't that that one can completely ignore the racist treatment of Senator Obama and the divisive nature of Senator McCain's campaign towards the American people. I think subconsciously that could have been a small factor in his decision, but as I stated before that was not the overall reason for switching his support to a Democratic candidate.
In response to what Samhita had to say, I don't think the title of your post was really what was meant to be said. I personally don't feel that people should vote purely based on race, gender, class, religion, or any other irrelevant detail in politics. Politicians should be like blank dolls that come with a list of issues, and the issues are what matter. I was going to respond that voting for someone because of their race isn't a racist thing to do, but I after further contemplation, I think it is just as I think its bigotry to vote for someone of the same religion. I understand the want to identify with the candidate, but as I said before its the issues that matter, and the blind votes based on personal identity details are, in my opinion, a problem (and I mean this inclusively to all candidates at every branch of government).

It's like I said in the last post on this - of course a black person or a woman can't vote for a black person or a woman based on REASONS. I mean, how silly is that, black people and women having REASONS. We just have AFFINITY and IDENTITY that trumps our BRAINS.

Blech.

And I'm completely disappointed to see "my ism is worse than your ism" popping up here. We're better than that, y'all.

Here's what is interesting to me -

When McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, everybody and their brother said that he'd wind up getting the women's vote because he had a woman on his ticket, and all of these crazy feminists who wanted to see Hillary in office would go running right over to the other side. It didn't happen. To every pundit's surprise, it turned out that women had been picking their candidates based on their issues, not their gender.

Despite this, we still aren't able to believe that black voters (many of whom who have been voting Democratic for years) are voting for Obama because he represents the policies that they want. Everyone is convinced that black voters, from ordinary people to Colin Powell, are only voting for Obama because he is black.

It's disgusting to insult people's intelligence this way. Colin Powell, like everyone else, is voting based on the issues. And given his experience in foreign policy and the executive branch, he's probably got a pretty good understanding of the issues (I dare say, he probably knows a thing or two more than Rush Limbaugh).

sadie101,

are you serious? is that femisex column you linked to for real? powell mentioned palin twice in his speech - once to suggest that she's not ready to be president and again to point out that her selection is indicative of a rightward shift in the republican party. neither of these is particularly sexist. neither of these were an example of "using a female as an excuse for your Race beats Party."

nor is, as was pointed out, your cnn video. protesters holding a sign in traffic... not exactly sexist or violent... kind of run-of-the-mill protest stuff if you ask me.

the ridiculous assertions on the femisex column, though, are a pretty wild read. racist, sexist, hate-spewing church? come on. the link with ayers? even mccain suggested that's been blown out of proportion. the idea that taxing the wealthiest 5% of the nation a little more to balance the federal budget is "spreading the wealth around"?

i mean, one would have to completely disregard powell's statement to come to the conclusion that this is a choice based on race. but, hey, what does it matter what a black guy says, right? he is, after all, black, and that's all that matters.

puckalish--

the cnn was to show bad behavior by Obamabots..one thing to protest but to stand in front of a motorcade? that's just nuts and a danger to the candidate. If Obama was in the car same thing.

sorry i'm a huge fan of Femisex these days.
i agree 100 percent that Obama church is "racist, sexist, hate-spewing church"
Hillary ain't never been called a n..word, said Wright, and from Pheger sp? Hillay just an entitled white woman who never had to work twice as hard? makes me sick, esp as Obama is the guy who didn't have to work twice as hard. He and Palin are akin in experience and yet...welll...

spreading the weath around...those are Obama's OWN words and they tell me more about what i may expect from Obama Presidency than his words, words he has so often gone back upon...fisa, campain $, etc, etc.

What the Femisex article on Powell did was show how diametrically opposed Powell has been to what Obama has been. And can anyone recall Powell, the repub endorsing anyone else w so little exp and so very liberal in his lifetime?? Powell Party switch is the thing here. But what i like about FemiSex is that they've endorsed the idea that blacks should vote for the 1st black but they also say women should vote for female 1st as well.

Limbaugh doesn't think anybody cares about anything but skin color when it comes to blacks. Seriously. He said Darfur is about the black vote. As in, "nobody cares about the fact that possibly the worst genocide ever is going on, they are just happy it's happening to black people so they can win the black vote by telling people they care about black people."

I seriously think that Limbaugh just hates people, and has absolutely no trust in them. I'm sorry, I meant people who are not white rich males that vote ultra-conservative. He probably also hates white males that think there is something wrong with racism/sexism/classism/homophobia.

I really have nothing new to say. However, I do like the reaction of Chris Matthews on Hardball. He stated that the endorsement of McCain by Rush was about race.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFcEWgeixco

I'm glad you updated.

And please change that title? Seriously?

Because.

Whoa.

I can't pretend to know exactly where you're coming from as far as personal experience except to say that I think it's bullshit to claim this IS about race. And it's bullshit to say that it's ok to vote for someone based on their race.

Utter. Fucking. Racist. Self destructive. Bullshit.

I say this because I'm from Chicago. I've had the pleasure of voting for Obama already and I saw his opponent - Alan Keyes - first hand.

So by the title's logic... Alan Keyes should be supported by Black Americans over Ralph Nader.

The Palin point is rhetorical. If there were a well qualified woman whose views I respected that was running against an equally qualified man whose views I respected... I'd vote for the lady.

And the same goes for any person of color.

So please, please tell me that I didn't just see a title saying that it's ok to vote for someone solely because of their race (or gender. or religion.)?

Oh and for the record.

His endorsement was pretty well laid out and not once did he mention race.

So to Mr. Limbaugh: I'd guess that when one candidate (McCain) supports the Bush Doctrine (the complete antithesis to the Powell doctrine), and other other candidate (Obama) supports the POWELL Doctrine... it has to do more with foreign policy than anything else.

B/c.

You know.

I'd guess Colin Powell would support the Powell doctrine pretty strictly....

Did anyone else get the idea from Powell that his decision was mostly an emotional one? It's hard to point to certain quotes to support my thesis, but it seemed less of a desicion based upon logic and reasoning.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that. Perhaps there are some bad feelings from when he was in the White House Staff?

WIDave,

Maybe you and I have a different definition of "logical" and "reasoning"

I thought his reasons were logical and displayed...well, reason.

One example:
( "Position X requires Y capacity; the candidate for Position X does not have Y capacity, IMO; thus, I do not endorse the ticket with this candidate on it.")

Seems pretty logical to me.

However, the subtext of your point stands: that there may also be a bit of self-interest in his endorsement--it distances him from the career-darkening debacles of his last years in the Bush II admin.

Has anyone seen the Al Jazeera English piece (either on YouTube or on the network, if you live in the parts of Europe, Asia or Africa that gets it)?

They went to rural Ohio to interview pro-McCain people about their thoughts on Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRqcfqiXCX0

I recommend you check it out.

I just like to bring up the fact that in the Pennsylvania governor's race, Ed Rendell beat out black Republican candidate Lynn Swann amongst black voters. Now some of this is because of Ed Rendell's popularity in Philadelphia as mayor, but also Lynn Swan just refused to speak to black issues. There was no mindless flock of black voters who's voted for Lynn Swan because he was black, just as there won't be a mindless flock of women voters for Palin. I'm tired of these assumptions that we vote with our gender or race. It's demeaning to our individual credibility to assume anyone votes for this reason alone.

Yesterday I landed upon The View in my channel surfing and good ol' Elizabeth was talking about how she thought that Powell's endorsement wasn't "that big of a deal". This topic came up and Whoopi made a comment about how important people who are endorsing McCain aren't endorsing him because he is white but because they believe in his views. It's sad how people, like our favorite Limbaugh, assume that Powell's endorsement was based on race. It's so ignorant and infuriating.

My whole problem with these kinds of statements, that is that people are voting for Obama over white guilt or racial pride is that Obama is not "black". In that his ancestors were not slaves, he was not raised in a traditional black community or black family, but by his white grandparents. He is mixed or to use a more PC term multiracial or a person of color. So the conservative idiots who lump everyone with dark skin together could just as easily accuse white democrats for supporting Obama because his mother is white and he was raised in a white family. How come that never comes up? It is pretty obvious to me those who are against Obama are pushing the issue of his race by using the old Southern standard of one drop of black blood, while ignoring Obama's white mother. At the same time I think some, although not many hold on to the definition of Obama as black or African american because it means to them that a member of their race is so close to reaching the goal of becoming the first black president. Of course rightly, because many members of the black community have family members that are of other backgrounds, including white parents. His race should never have come up as a positive or negative for either side of this campaign. We should be beyond making judgments and definitions based on a skin color that cannot explain an entire ethnic history behind an individual, nor should that history matter to anyone but the individual. If Obama wants to label himself as black that is his choice, but he should also have the choice and opportunity to label himself as white. Or mixed. Or whatever.

I think the last thing on Powell's mind was race when choosing to support Obama. He has aways been a moderate in an increasingly right wing republican party and it only makes sense that he like many other republicans would be supporting Obama. David Brooks, a white conservative columnist recently all but endorsed Obama in his last piece and made harsh criticisms of McCain on McCain's website in the comment section. I've read other republicans supporting Obama after Palin was picked up as VP or after the debates. Some conservatives have even joined Obama's side calling McCain "toast" in this election.

Sadie101, I think yours is a badly thought-through, knee-jerk reaction, and I'm surprised that you still hold it after some time and after reading that article.

From the beginning of his campaign I had always hoped Obama would win. My partner, however, was more ambivalent; he said that even though McCain had voted for or sided with some nasty things, he also has always been unpredictable and should not be seen as just another hateful yee-haw Republican. Since Palin's nomination, however, we both agree that the US would be a shit scary place with her second-in-command. This has nothing whatsoever to do with her gender, and everything to do with the fact that she holds extremist positions in many issues, and what's more, is a complete moron. Christopher Hitchens was absolutely right when he said that we should be very wary of a person who does not read for leisure or edification, which was an expansion of Powell's implication that she lacks intellectual curiosity. To suggest that Powell is being sexist because he did not agree with her nomination is just buying lock, stock, and barrell into the idea espoused by much of the right that you any criticism of Palin is nothing more than sexism. They have hid behind this idiotic assertion and used it to justify not responding to the criticism as well as hiding her from the press for a long time.

I know this could easily be wrong, but I assume that you are socially/politically liberal, because of the things you say about sexism. Well, sorry to break it to you, but you have fallen for this idiotic idea. Isn't it itself sexist to claim that any criticism of a woman is worthless and negligible because "it's sexist"? This inherently dismisses the thought that *gasp* a woman might draw her positions from factors other than her gender, and the thought that a person can disagree with a woman for reasons other that her gender. This is a very limiting and sexist way of viewing the world. Think, Sadie, THINK.

Oh and also, Samhita, why is saying that Powell is "well-spoken" racist? Before watching these videos of him on Meet The Press and then afterwards outside, I hadn't ever seen him speak. (I'm not an ignorant, unread person, just not American.) My overwhelming reaction was "Wow, this man is so well-spoken." The subtext to that was not "...for a black person." If anything, it was "...for a high-up Republican official," but even so, he is extremely articulate and intelligently-spoken no matter what ideas of Republicans one might hold. Correct me if there was more to the "well-spoken" thing than I know of, but I think you might have been seeing racism where there was none.

Rosie, I can see why 'well-spoken' could have racist tones, just like it could have sexist tones. The basic idea it expresses is that it is *remarkable* when a poc, a woman, or a child can speak fluent, Standard (whatever that means - 'white' probably) English.
I mean, you would hear of a woman, poc or child being described in this way, but how many times have you heard anyone who is a white adult male being described as 'well-spoken'? Think about it. E.g. Abraham Lincoln is never described as 'well-spoken' or 'articulate'; no, Lincoln is 'eloquent'. Even though you might think they mean the same thing, 'well-spoken' and 'articulate' merely imply linguistic competency, whilst 'eloquent' means that the speaker is talented.

"Obama's race should never have come up as a positive or negative for either side of this campaign".

It seems many of you desire that race should be discounted and ignored politically and electorally.

Hmm.

In a country SO predicated on the divisions of race (the color line is still the power line, economically, educationally, culturally etc), I don't think we can sit back and act like this election is a smooth, shiny, 21-st century post-race process. Because it's not. It's not post-sexist either. In a utopian future the color of someone's skin should have no bearing on governance etc, but today it does, and to ignore that bearing is myopic, specious and dangerous.

I think Obama's presidential nomination is an opportunity to engage in a much-needed serious discussion of race in this country. Race is an explosive topic which is often ignored precisely because it forces us to confront the tragic facts of poverty and paranoia, despair and distrust which constitute American society.

I'm not saying Obama deserves unconditional support. In fact, I think he should be subject to constant scrutiny and criticism just like any other politician. But, actually, I'm much more concerned about the effects and repercussions of his position right now. I hope that he will act as a jump-start for wider movements, introspections and struggles. Because, seriously, it is an absolute necessity we confront the racial hierarchy and the maldistribution of wealth and power in our nation.

Whew. So I'm actually going to go further than Samhita and supplement her title: 'So what if it is about race? ... So it should be'.

Give it a rest, Sadie. Do you actually have principles or are you just interested in crying "sexism" against any and all criticism of female candidates? You're on a feminist website; you're not fooling anyone. You think Obama's church is racist and sexist? Are you even aware of the things that go on at Palin's church? Or is that off limits since she's white and a lady?

Powell very clearly explained why he supports Obama instead of McCain. You can even read the full transcript or watch the video online! Insisting that his support is based on race or pure emotion is disingenuous, and again: you're not fooling anyone. It may come as a shock to some of you, but there is a tiny minority of Republicans who ARE disgusted by the GOP's actions in the past few years (and during this election). When McCain "reaches across the aisle" he's applauded but when Powell does it he's called a traitor. Funny that.

Samhita,

First off, as I said (in my admittedly long post before) Colin Powell did not endorse Obama because they are both African-Americans.

However, in my opinion, it is racist to vote for a candidate because of the color of their skin (or religion or class or gender). If that is someone's ONLY reason for voting for a candidate, then yes; it is racist. It would be hypocritical of me to say anything else because I have been saying the same thing about people who are blindly voting for McCain because he is white, people who blindly voted for Romney because he is Mormon, people who blindly vote(d) for Sarah Palin or Hilary Clinton because they are women, and numerous others.

Hallidite, I'm aware of the different meanings of "articulate" and "eloquent", and I understand that the former has often been used in a patronising fashion about black people and women. But I would not have chosen eloquent to describe Powell in this interview, because to me this means not only articulate but also pithy and above all stylish. I thought he was *articulate* because he conveyed very logically and intelligently some complex ideas. I would also describe, for example, Biden in this way. I would describe neither as eloquent.

Do you see how it is in fact an accurate description, yet one that, because of its historical and political loadedness, is often avoided? I think choosing a different term for the sake of political correctness - and I'm talking about all sorts of speech here - can only be of detriment to all concerned, because one fails to properly convey what one really means. Sure, it might be good sometimes to try to avoid terms like "shrill" or "hysterical" (for a woman) because doing so reminds one to be conscious of the cultural forces that inform the word's meaning, and forces one to choose a more accurate, less loaded one. But when people who are supposed to *want* to think critically about their world (like Samhita) cry "racism" at the use of "well-spoken" or "articulate" - and subsequently avoid the words - they lose some of the vocabulary necessary for thorough and accurate critical discourse.

Addendum to the first paragraph: Obama on the other hand is very eloquent.

I did a blog piece about how Joe Lieberman is only supporting John McCain & Sarah Palin because they are white. Lieberman's politics include supporting abortion and gay rights and opposition to the Iraq war, not to mention that he's voted with the Democrats most of the time. And how many far-right black Republicans has he ever endorsed? By the "totally about race" logic, it must be because McCain & Palin are white.
Posted by Tiffany | October 21, 2008 4:38 PM

Your blog must be considerably worse informed than this one. Joe Lieberman has been a die hard supporter of the Iraq war.

If Powell's endorsement were "about race" then what good would it be? Everyone already knew they were both black. Should I tell people to vote for Obama because he's the same color as Powell? The powerful reasons Powell gives for endorsing Obama, however, are a tool I can use to persuade. Feministing and Rush Limbaugh do a huge disservice to Powell and Obama and to the concept of intelligent reasoning by injecting race into this.
I'd really rather not conduct elections as demographic censuses, as in Iraq. I don't think you really want that either, since whites are going to be the largest racial/ethnic group in America for a long time.

Samhita,

I for sure do not think that I'm colorblind. It's impossible to be colorblind in America.

Unless you're Stephen Colbert or in a coma.

And after rereading my post it came across as more harsh than intended.

Here's my point:

How can you not think it belittles Colin Powell to suggest that race could be the sole factor for his endorsement? It undermines his rationale and judgment.

My point is that if Powell did not support any of what Obama believed in, he would not vote for him.

Hence the Alan Keyes reference:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Alan_Keyes_Civil_Rights.htm

Now, if your point is that he believes the basic tenants of Obama's philosophy on race and foreign policy, believes it is important for a person of color to be seen in such a position of power and believes that trumps traditional Republican values he holds... that's totally understandable.

This is a guy who literally wrote the script against unnecessary preemptive strikes, then was used by the bush Administration to sell the biggest reversal of his own foreign policy doctrine in recent history.

I think it belittles him for anyone suggest this was more to do with race than what he spent his entire career working towards having a chance at revival.

But if your point is that it is ok to blindly vote for someone that looks like the proverbial "you" - Yes. I'm sorry but that is bullshit and vastly oversimplifying a complex decision.

Which is why I wouldn't have voted for Alan Keyes even if he wasn't running against Obama, and I won't be voting McCain/Palin 08'

If you're so aware, Rosie, and if pithiness and articulation are so important, then why not just say it was 'pithy'? Why not put on your thinking hat and find a synonym? Why not do what the feminists and other groups do and create a word to fit your needs? Why not express solidarity without explicitly referring to the competency of the speaker?
Re-using cliches that have racist undertones isn't what I'd describe as 'necessary for thorough and accurate critical discourse'. (And the word 'hysterical' was especially created to aid the oppression of women; I can't believe you position it as an ordinary word that somehow got caught up in the radical pc fire.) Words exist in relative social-semantic networks, not as islands of meaning. If you can't say what you need to say without being an asshole, don't say it.

The way I look at all these comments of Powell doing it for race, or arguments against it being race is this:

Would you vote for Palin because she's a woman? Are you switching your vote from Obama to McCain because there is a chance she will be the first woman Vice President (or dear god, President)?

No. Of course not. Her gender doesn't change her policy regarding women's rights. Her gender doesn't make her more qualified.

So, would I be more likely to vote for a Black candidate than a White candidate just because of their skin color? It's condescending to think that I would be more likely to vote for a Black person just because of their physical appearance.

I don't see it any different of a situation. Do I think the prospect of a Black President is exciting? Do I think children growing up under a person of color as our commander and chief is a fantastic prospect? Damn straight. But that excitement and that positive aspect of his candidacy doesn't change what my political and moral beliefs demand I see in a candidate.

Amen, April.

That was my Alan Keyes point.

Even if someones vote WERE solely on the issue of race, gender or religion... there are people like Alan Keyes whose views on race would probably hurt most Black Americans. There are people like Palin whose views would hurt most women.

So voting for someone that looks like you IS racist and/or sexist.

It falls under the basic assumption that someone will think like you because they look like you.

I'm not voting for Obama because he's black. He's not even that black. I'm voting for Obama because John McCain is the SECOND WHITEST PERSON ON EARTH, and his running mate is #1.

Magular, I don't think that the label of racist/sexist quite describes the situation you outline. As I understand it, a vote for your fellow oppressed-person may be divisive, it may be racially discriminatory, it may be naive, it may be whatever, but it is not *racist* unless it's backed up by a history of domination-oppression. Whites voting White for the sake of Whiteness are fundamentally different to Blacks voting Black for the sake of Blackness precisely because of this history.
Also I'd suggest that 'voting FOR someone based on their percieved physical similarity to yourself' and 'voting AGAINST someone based on their percieved physical difference from yourself' are two very different things.

Hallidite, please don't patronise me. I think you should read my post again, because you clearly think I said the opposite of what I actually said. I restate:

1st paragraph: Eloquent = articulate, pithy AND stylish. I do not think that Powell in this interview was notably stylish or pithy. This is not to say his speech was coarse or ugly or over-long, it's just that he didn't need to be particularly stylish to easily convey what he wanted to. That's why I didn't use "pithy". Pithy is not a synonym for articulate. They have discrete meanings. Together (to me) they are part of the meaning of "eloquent".

With your "thinking hat" comment you seem to be pressing the point that "articulate" and "eloquent" ARE synonyms, which I disagree with. Is it true that you think that? If yes, well, I think that is unfortunate, being this is already going some way in shrinking one's vocabulary.

2nd paragraph: It is GOOD to avoid terms like "shrill" and "hysterical". These words (unlike "articulate") have SPECIFIC roots that mean that when you use them, you cannot escape the patronising, historically oppressive undertones. I'm glad that you can't believe I would position it as an ordinary word, because I DON'T DO THAT. I am perfectly aware of the social-semantic webs that encase those words, that is why I say it's good to be conscious of their limiting meanings, which hopefully would make one rephrase.

I'm not sure if you think I'm being an an asshole by saying "shrill" and "hysterical" are ordinary words (which you imagined), or by saying that we should NOT push words like "articulate" out of our vocabulary for the sake of pc-ness. If it is the former, fine, I agree. If it is the latter, well, I'm disappointed that you would genuinely think this could be in any way valuable or productive. Either way, I wish you had read my post properly instead of skimming (it seems), before you attacked what you imagined I said and then implied I was being an asshole.