Debate about Obama & Racism


Reporter and Television Anchorman Bob Bowdon, who moderated several Council Election debates in Hoboken last year – has an interesting forum coming up tomorrow in New York City:


Does the Election of Barack Obama Portend the Effective End of American Racism?
Barack Obama’s 2004 Democratic Convention speech made reference to inner city black children with books being mocked by their classmates for “Acting White.” Will these smart children now have a new answer, “Acting White? No, I’m acting like the President!” — laying an inspirational foundation for their better educational outcomes and better futures? Or are the problems of inner city children far too entrenched, with failing schools, gang violence and too few male role models, for the election of a President to materially affect their lives?

And will Barack Obama’s rise to the highest office in the land change how African-Americans see opportunity, spurring more black entrepreneurs into business and increasing the general belief that success in America is possible? Or does that ignore a historical truth — that enthusiasm for any political candidate is inherently fleeting once the rough and tumble of modern Beltway politics takes its inevitable toll — and that Obama’s ability to inspire people might wane, right along with his newness?

The event is free and open to the public, provided an online RSVP has been entered on the Foundation website. For more information, and to RSVP, please visit:

When: Monday, December 1st, 6:30pm Sharp!
Where: Lighthouse Theater; 111 East 59th Street Between Park and Lexington Avenue New York, NY

Leave a Reply

32 Comments on "Debate about Obama & Racism"

Sort by:   newest | oldest

[quote comment=”121171″]
Last I looked our intel about Iraq was and epic failure. There was intel to the contrary, but the White House ignored it. Scott Ritter, and American inspector, emphatically stated that there were no WMD’s or viable programs in Iraq. So don’t give me this bullshit that there was overwhelming evidence to support this farce. They cherry picked it from what info was available and grossly exaggerated it.

Of course you’re forgetting that…

[quote] virtually every western intelligence service reached the very same conclusion. So did all the major media between 1998 and 2001–including the Washington Post , the New York Times, and U.S. News. So did the most senior officials of the Clinton administration. In a conversation I had with President Clinton, just before the Iraq invasion, his concern was not whether or not Saddam had WMD but that a war seeking regime change would provide the pretext for him to use them. Add to this the fact that Saddam had sacrificed over $120 billion in oil revenues to U.N. sanctions, presumably to protect his secret weapons programs.[/quote]

The Economist, those rabid conservatives, didn’t think much of Scott Ritter’s opinion…

Saddam had the history, the means, and the motive. To base your reality of 2003 on what we know in 2008 isn’t really fair – or intellectually honest.

Sorry about dragging out this dead horse to beat it again. But sometimes I’m amazed at what often disappears down the memory hole.


[quote comment=”121144″][quote comment=”121135″][quote comment=”121092″]Imagine what $1 trillion would have bought us in terms of security instead of spending it to invade Iraq.[/quote]
still waiting for all the enlightened comments on what YOU would do to increase security? EE, sky, lowbeam, brian the socialist…please tell me, and the next president for that matter, exactly how you would spend $1trillion to prevent ANY terrorist attacks on US soil over the next 8 years?
we are all waiting for your intelligent rational ideas on how to aaccomplish this.[/quote]

How about we invade… Uruguay?[/quote]

Get real. The entire Uruguan oil reserves wouldn’t get a Hummer from Hoboken to Fort Lee.

[quote comment=”121150″]securing our borders? christ, why didn’t somebody think of that? where is that number for homeland security…had it here somewhere…F’n genius your are boy! wait, what about people how are here in this country illegally? what do you think; catch and release? “attack those responsible for the attacks”. now you just might have something there…ok, i’ll go along with you on this one. ok, who and where? just tell me and i will personally see to it that we only attack “those responsible for the attacks”…except those Saudis that were flying te planes are all dead right? well we can go aftr those that helped them right? ok, let me get a pen…ok shoot, give me the names. come on already! and finally “fund better intelligence and systems to share information.” are you sure you aren’t in the FBI or something cause you sound like you’ve done this before! i’m lost on this funding of better intelligence; do you mean like pay more to all the international govt agenties that we rely on? well, didn’t everyone get mad because we relied on info that turned out to be false? i know, i know, the sitting POTUS is supposed to go out and sma spade it all over the globe to track down these leads but sometimes he get a little lazy and relies on the CIA’s of other countries silly goose. so how do we fund it and how do we make sure it’s accurate? and do we share… Read more »
strand tramp
strand tramp

facts as to the detainees? you mean like they are all still alive? or that i am paying to keep them alive?
i already know too much about them.


[quote comment=”121127″]YS, so i need to do some research…reading court cases…and then i will think like you? holy fucking shit! why didn’t i just do some research? thanks!!
and turder…just STFU.[/quote]

i expected that response. where should i get all my information? i’ve already learned from your comments that you don’t read the economist (which is fine, it’s only one source) and now i’m guessing you really don’t know any facts as to the detainees stories yet somehow anyone who questions that is un American, soft on terrorism, etc which i’m not.