PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.











As Obama himself said in Claudia’s clip, sure some people will not vote for him because he is of the color of his skin and based on “Implicit bias” (as also noted in this clip). Percentages aside, the same goes for McCain and the color of his skin.
That’s pretty clear. But the most annoying part of this presidential race now, is that some are tying Obama’s associations with Acorn, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers (a white guy), et al. and through subtle means, very weakly take these legitimate questions and the media repackages them as “race” related questions. After hearing some of this propaganda, and I don’t know if it is just me, but you start to question weather you feel safe asking these questions, (gee, are my criticisms of Obama associations now off limits? Will I be labeled as a “racist” if I continue asking these legitimate questions?)
Why is it so much for the direct questions to be answered by Obama? McCain has done it with the Keating 5 association. So has Palin with her Daughter (and she didn’t have to in my opinion, that is a family matter) If Obama has nothing to hide, and the American people have the chance to actually list to his answers, and can reasonably conclude that all these associations are really just a coincidence then we would see it is much ado about nothing, and I think Obama would actually gather a lot more votes by just laying all his cards on the table, and just coming clean once and for all. Maybe that is what he is doing in that 30 minute piece he plans on doing, I’m not sure) As James T. Harris says in this clip. We know more about Palin’s pregant Daughter, than we know about Obama and the above associations. From 8:21 on in Claudia’s clip, that pretty much sums it up for me, but first I need to hear Obama’s answers to all these associations.
I think Jay_C is absolutely correct- race is being used as a shield. It was said that Reagan was the teflon president, but it seems that black is the new teflon.
And the left likes to complain about conservatives using ‘dog whistles’ to drum up racial fears- but can someone explain to me how Obama’s riff about “Hoodwinkin’” and “Bamboozlin” is any different (other than that it stirs up fears of racism rather than fears of someone who is black?)
On a related note, I saw a guy on Fox this am named James T Harris. He’s a black conservative talk show host in Milwaukee and apparently he appeared at a recent rally there with McCain/Palin.
I thought he made some interesting comments so I googled to see if he had a blog- turns out he does but it’s not updated frequently…the last real entry was in June. However, it looks like his appearance at the rally instigated an avalanche of comments to that blog post, and what I read there shocked me.
I knew that black conservatives take a lot of heat, but this is ridiculous- 136 comments, and almost every single one is a hate filled screed along the “Uncle Tom” lines but in much more vitriolic terms. Take a look.
thanks C Stanley,
The other thing going on is thtat the media will cover some of these stories /accusations, but only from the questioning standpoint of “Is it ok / productive that these accusations are being made?” rather than from a “Hmm, good question, let’s look into that..” standpoint That drives me nuts.
Actually I’d say it’s even worse than that, Jay_C, because anything that could be considered an inflammatory accusation that comes from the GOP side is looked at one way (”How dangerous that they’re stirring up this racial anger!”), while anything that comes from the other side is handled the other way (downplayed as just, “well, these accusations are being made, that’s kind of interesting”)
Good point.