Quote:
Originally Posted by Toughy
because I come from white privilege (with or with out consent) I am required to ask myself if I (and anyone else including the press) hold President Obama to a different standard because he is not a white man......
Would the same columns be written about his failures as the focus or would the columns be about his successes. He has accomplished much.....great strides similar to the great junior god Bill Clinton. Why is the focus on what he has NOT done rather than what he HAS done. Bill in spite of cigars and blue dress stains came out smelling like a rose and probably would get elected today if he could run. In terms of policy, there is not the width of a single strand of silk difference between Bill and Barack.
Yet the latte liberals all love Bill and talk shit about Barack failures rather than for his successes..... stinks of white privilege.....
|
Well seems to me that it is not only white people who understand what is going on politically and why. Nor is it only white people who are left of center.
Glen Ford the executive editor of the Black Agenda Report wrote the article
State of Obama: Immunity for Wall Street.
http://blackagendareport.com/?q=blog/101
I don't think you have to be white to see the writing on the wall.
I think Clinton caught a break, if you can call what happened to him a break, because economically the country was in pretty good shape. I think it was the comedian Chris Rock that said something to the effect that since Clinton balanced the budget he deserved a blow job or some such thing.
It's a different financial world. People are hurting. That's the only difference I see. Because Clinton was no different. He was no better. The way the system is set up no president can ignore corporate power. Corporations run the country, hell they run the world. They assert global control. That must be at least somewhat clear at this point.
While race certainly plays into how Obama is viewed and assessed, it doesn't mean he need not be held accountable for his actions.