>  >It is quite simple, Cda, some people think this is the best chance for a
>African American to become the President while others think it is so for a
>woman.  The 'issues' etc are then piled on to justify why one would vote for
>Obama or Clinton and sort of make it look like 'we voters actually do think,
and vote for the best candida



*** If that were to be true,  why would there have been such fiercely 
contested elections of the past where the contenders were all white, 
anglo-saxon, protestant males?













At 3:24 PM -0500 3/9/08, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>  >*** So It must be just like desi-demokrasy then, huh :-)?
>>But not soooo fast!
>>If  issues were not to be involved, then why is there such a divide
>>between the Democrats and Republicans?
>
>Ah! C'da, I should have been a bit nore detailed :)
>
>Yes, it is difficult to choose between two people like Clinton & Obama, and
>yes, there are some differences between the Republicans & the Dems. Issues
>like appointment of Supreme Court judges, 2nd Amendment and abortion and gay
>marriages don't usually affect the lives of common folks.  In this
>discussion, I mistakenly thought we were discussing only the Dems.
>
>The candidates (the Dems in this case) will now concentrate on economic,
>health, environment issues, and lastly the war.
>But if  keenly observed, the voters are more interested in voting their race
>and gender.
>
>In this aspect, at least the "issues" are like desi demokrasy - there it is
>language, caste, and religion, and of course with far fewer sophisticated
>trappings, and here it is largely race and gender and then it filters down
>to issues that hit home like jobs, mortgages and cost of living.
>
>If it wern't so, how else would one explain away the near-cult voting trends
>of 85%-95%? Its almost like voting for actors such as a Amitabh Bachan or
>a Sharuh Khan. Simply saying that voters find these candidates so similar,
>that they tend to bring in race or gender issues is merely wishing it that
>way.
>
>It is quite simple, Cda, some people think this is the best chance for a
>African American to become the President while others think it is so for a
>woman.  The 'issues' etc are then piled on to justify why one would vote for
>Obama or Clinton and sort of make it look like 'we voters actually do think,
>and vote for the best candidate'.
>
>
>--Ram
>
>
>On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>  >  >Quality and 'issues' are hardly the things voters look for when
>>  casting
>>  >their votes for someone running for office - but of course, everything
>>  else
>>  >matters.
>>
>>
>>  *** So It must be just like desi-demokrasy then, huh :-)?
>>
>>
>>  But not soooo fast!
>>
>>
>>  If  issues were not to be involved, then why is there such a divide
>>  between the Democrats and Republicans?
>>
>>
>>  Point is that both Barack and Hillary are almost identical in their
>>  views on the issues the Democrats hold dear.
>>
>>  Therefore to pick THE Democratic candidate, the Democratic  voters in
>>  the PRIMARies do not have
>>  clear-cut , well defined issues that separate the two candidates to
>>  weigh one over the other. As a result the OTHER issues come into
>>  play, more than they deserve to.
>>
>>  That IS the difference.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  At 1:04 PM -0600 3/9/08, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>>  >While, I too agree that religion (like race) ought not to play any part
>>  in a
>>  >US Presidential election, it certainly does every time.
>>  >
>>  >But Obama's religion, IMHO has had very negligible effect this far. Some
>>  >have tried to infuse it into the fray, but with little effect.
>>  >
>>  >However, race seems to be big plus for Obama. With 85% to 95% African
>>  >Americans voting for him in every state, he certainly has had a big
>  > >advantage over Clinton.
>>  >
>>  >Women, on the other hand have voted for Clinton not more than 60% - 65%
>>  in
>>  >any state. African American women have been more true to their race than
>  > >their gender.
>>  >
>>  >Obama seems to now attract younger people (all races), educated, while
>>  >Clinton the less educated and older women.
>>  >
>>  >Quality and 'issues' are hardly the things voters look for when casting
>>  >their votes for someone running for office - but of course, everything
>>  else
>>  >matters.
>>  >
>>  >--Ram
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >On 3/9/08, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>  >>
>>  >>  At 10:52 AM -0700 3/9/08, Dilip/Dil Deka wrote:
>>  >>  >Do you think Obama will have the courage to say, "I am a practising
>>  >>  Christian.
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>  *** It is NOT about COURAGE.
>>  >>
>>  >>  Imagine you or I having to dignify an outrageous
>>  >>  charge or scurrilous innuendo, every time a bigot
>>  >>  or a fool or a charlatan makes it?
>>  >>
>>  >>  Why should an US president's religion be an
>>  >>  election issue? I know it  becomes one, every
>>  >>  time. But that is because candidates succumb to
>>  >>  pressures from religious bigots .
>>  >>
>>  >>  Obama may have to too. But I hope he would NOT.
>>  >>  And if he gets the nomination and gets elected as
>>  >>  the next president, without having to answer to
>>  >>  such questions or charges, just like without
>>  >>  having to wear an US Flag on his lapel or place
>>  >>  his hand over his heart while saying the Pledge
>>  >>  of Allegiance,
>>  >>  it will mark a historic turn of the American
>>  >>  nation to a truly sophisticated one.
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>  >And so what if Hillary Clinton, John McCain or I
>>  >>  >were a Muslim?". If he says it, will he gain
>>  >>  >voters or lose them?
>>  >>  >   Dilip
>>  >>  >   ================================================================
>>  >>  >   From the NYT
>>  >>  >   Op-Ed Columnist
>>  >>  >   Obama and the Bigots      By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  >   Published: March 9, 2008
>>  >>  >     The ugliest prejudices in this campaign
>>  >>  >season are not directly about race. Barack
>>  >>  >Obama's skin color may cost him some
>>  >>  >working-class white voters, but it's also
>>  >>  >winning some votes among blacks and among whites
>>  >>  >eager to signal their open-mindedness.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  >   Sexism seems more of a factor. Americans have
>>  >>  >typically said in polls that they are less
>>  >>  >willing to vote for a woman than a black, and
>>  >>  >Shirley Chisholm (a black woman who ran for
>>  >>  >president in 1972) always said that she
>>  >>  >encountered more prejudice because of her sex
>>  >>  >than her race.
>>  >>  >          Yet the most monstrous bigotry in this
>>  >>  >election isn't about either race or sex. It's
>>  >>  >about religion.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  >   The whispering campaigns allege that Mr. Obama
>>  >>  >is a secret Muslim planning to impose Islamic
>>  >>  >law on the country. Incredibly, he is even
>>  >>  >accused - in earnest! - of being the Antichrist.
>>  >  > >   Proponents of this theory offer detailed
>>  >  > >theological explanations for why he is the
>>  >>  >Antichrist, and the proof is that he claims to
>>  >>  >be Christian - after all, the Antichrist would
>>  >>  >say that, wouldn't he? The rumors circulate
>>  >>  >enough that Glenn Beck of CNN asked the Rev.
>>  >>  >John Hagee, a conservative evangelical, what the
>>  >>  >odds are that Mr. Obama is the Antichrist.
>>  >>  >   These charges are fanatical, America's own
>>  >>  >equivalent of the vicious accusations about Jews
>>  >>  >that circulate in some Muslim countries. They
>>  >>  >are less a swipe at one candidate than a calumny
>>  >>  >against an entire religion. They underscore that
>>  >>  >for many bigoted Americans in the 21st century,
>>  >>  >calling someone a Muslim is still a slur.
>>  >>  >   There is a parallel with presidential
>>  >>  >campaigns in the 19th and early 20th centuries,
>>  >>  >when one of the most common ways to attack a
>>  >>  >candidate was to suggest that he was partly
>>  >>  >black, or at least favored racial intermarriage.
>>  >>  >For example, the Federalists charged that Thomas
>  > >>  >Jefferson was "the son of a half-breed Indian
>>  >>  >squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father." And
>>  >>  >the word "miscegenation" was coined in 1863 and
>  > >>  >1864 in charges that Abraham Lincoln secretly
>>  >>  >plotted for blacks to marry whites, especially
>>  >>  >Irish-Americans.
>>  >>  >   As late as the 1920 presidential campaign, a
>>  >>  >quarter-million letters were sent to voters
>>  >>  >accusing Warren Harding of being descended from
>>  >>  >a "West Indian Negro. ... May God save America
>>  >>  >from international shame and domestic ruin."
>>  >>  >   In looking back at that history, you wish that
>>  >>  >a candidate had responded not only with, "No, I
>>  >>  >don't have any black ancestor," but also with,
>>  >>  >"So what if I did?"
>>  >>  >   Likewise, with countless people today
>>  >>  >spreading scurrilous rumors that Mr. Obama is a
>>  >>  >Muslim, the most appropriate response is a
>>  >>  >denial followed by: And so what if he were?
>>  >>  >   Granted, that's not politically realistic as a
>>  >>  >comeback. A 2007 Gallup poll found that 94
>>  >>  >percent of Americans said they would vote for a
>>  >>  >black candidate for president and 88 percent for
>>  >>  >a woman. In contrast, a Los Angeles Times poll
>>  >>  >in 2006 found that only 34 percent of
>>  >>  >respondents said they could vote for a Muslim
>>  >>  >for president.
>>  >>  >   Even if a prejudice is directed to a matter of
>>  >>  >choice, like religion or long hair, it's still
>>  >>  >prejudice. It's possible to believe that
>>  >>  >Catholics have every right to be president while
>>  >>  >opposing a particular Catholic candidate who
>>  >>  >would ban contraception; likewise, it's possible
>>  >>  >to believe that Muslims have every right to hold
>>  >>  >office without necessarily embracing the
>>  >>  >candidacy of particular Muslims who advocate
>>  >>  >enveloping all women in burkas.
>>  >>  >   To his credit, Mr. Obama has spoken
>>  >>  >respectfully of Islam (he told me last year, on
>>  >>  >the record, that the Muslim call to prayer is
>>  >>  >"one of the prettiest sounds on earth at
>>  >>  >sunset"). If he were to go further - "and so
>>  >>  >what if I were Muslim?" - many Americans would
>>  >>  >see that as confirmation that he is a Sunni
>>  >>  >terrorist agent of Al Qaeda who is part of a
>>  >>  >9/11 backup plan: If you can't reach the White
>>  >>  >House with a hijacked plane, then storm the Oval
>>  >>  >Office through the ballot box.
>>  >>  >   This is a case where Hillary Rodham Clinton
>>  >>  >and John McCain should take the initiative and
>>  >>  >denounce the fear-mongering about Mr. Obama as
>>  >>  >hate speech. The wink-wink references to "Barack
>>  >>  >Hussein Obama" and lies about his going to a
>>  >>  >madrassa are the religious equivalent of racial
>>  >>  >slurs, and Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton should
>>  >>  >denounce them in the strongest terms. This is
>>  >>  >their chance to show leadership.
>>  >>  >   When Mrs. Clinton was asked in a television
>>  >>  >interview a week ago whether Mr. Obama is a
>>  >>  >Muslim, she denied it firmly - but then added,
>>  >>  >most unfortunately, "as far as I know." To his
>>  >>  >credit, Mr. McCain scolded a radio host who
>>  >>  >repeatedly referred to "Barack Hussein Obama"
>>  >>  >and later called him a Manchurian candidate.
>>  >>  >   Martin Luther wasn't a model of tolerance but
>>  >>  >even he took the position that, "I'd rather be
>>  >  > >ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian."
>>  >  > >In this presidential campaign, we should at
>>  >>  >least aspire to be as open-minded as
>>  >>  >16th-century Germans.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  >_______________________________________________
>>  >>  >assam mailing list
>>  >>  >[email protected]
>>  >>  >http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>  _______________________________________________
>>  >>  assam mailing list
>>  >>  [email protected]
>>  >>  http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>>  >>
>>  >_______________________________________________
>>  >assam mailing list
>>  >[email protected]
>>  >http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>  > assam mailing list
>>  [email protected]
>>  http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>>
>_______________________________________________
>assam mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org


_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org

Reply via email to