The Whitewashing of Bobby Jindal

by Rishi Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:25 am

When minorities in America break racial, ethnic or religious barriers it is assumed that they pave the way for future generations. Their communities celebrate their victories, believing that they too will be the beneficiaries of those accomplishments. In the case of Jindal, however, it's dawned on our community that it is we who are being "stupid" for supporting him. For one, Jindal never loses an opportunity to downplay and deny his Indian and Hindu roots, unlike African-Americans or Hispanics who upon entering powerful positions remain fully anchored to their respective communities, crediting those communities for the nurturing they provided. It is indeed amazing that many Indian-Americans continue to applaud and support Jindal, imagining that he opens doors for us.

My blog last week talked about the way many Indians in the West allay their "difference anxiety" (as minorities) by assuming a "whitewashed" identity where differences are minimized. America's history is the story of new waves of immigrants struggling to enter whiteness, which denotes not race alone but the status of full-fledged insiders in the power structure. The definition of who is white has changed over time. The Irish, Poles, Greeks, Italians and Jews "became white" after much struggle.

Whiteness may have expanded in scope over time, but rejects those, like Hindu-Americans who fall outside the Judeo-Christian religious group. Can the Hindu-American remain a Hindu and "become white"? To address this question, Khyati Joshi's book, "New roots in America's Sacred Ground", provides empirical data to prove that there is religious bias facing Indian-Americans on account of being Hindu. In other words, Hinduism is seen by most Americans as a marker of non-white ethnicity. This should be enough impetus for Indian-Americans (the vast majority of whom are Hindu) to claim a separate identity that is distinct, not white or black, not Judeo-Christian, and yet wholly American.

The example of Jindal demonstrates the pressure to capitulate for the sake of political ambition. Jindal couldn't change his color, but he converted his religion to become less different from the dominant white Christians of his party. His personal narrative amplifies his conversion to Roman Catholicism, even though he was raised Hindu by immigrant parents who were very active leaders in the local Hindu temple in Louisiana. He feels no qualms in making statements hurtful to the sentiments of the community from which he derives his "minority" card. In a piece some years ago, he said when asked about his conversion: "the motivation behind my conversion, however, was my belief in one, objectively true faith (Christianity). If Christianity is merely one of many equally valid religions, then the sacrifices I made, including the loss of my family's peace, were senseless". Presumably the conversion of his Hindu Punjabi wife to Roman Catholicism some years later occurred by her having coincidentally the exact same epiphany as he did.

To those of us Indian-Americans who are unwilling to obliterate our identity and get "digested" into the whitestream, Jindal is no trailblazer. He does not speak for us and merely uses his Indian-American status to gain leverage with Republicans who must now present a more inclusive face in order to remain relevant. His life underscores the fact that America has a long way to go before Indians and Hindus can project openly and without negative consequences the full range of their cultural and religious identity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/bobby-jindal-race_b_2588700.html

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:43 am

Absolutely correct. I am realizing now that more a person has these
qualities more the chances of getting into to the "power" structure

Judeo-Christian is a NECESSARY condition but not sufficient

The Sufficient factors are

Non-opposition to the power structure

AND

White white

male

Converted Chinks, Indians (as Associate Members only)

females (Associate Members only)

If you are a Hindu and stisfy all other criteria you are still out.

Jindal at best has a VP Chance as he needs a Christian to drag him into the White house.

I
am rooting for that California Attorney General Kamala to go to the TOP
in 20 to 30 years. She has Blackness (American) in her which just might
compensate for her hinduness.

Anyday, I would prefer her to Nikki - the Female Jindal (a lot worse and fakier).

by Idéfix Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:47 am

My problems with Jindal are different from those of Malhotra. I have no respect for either of those guys. I simply do not view Jindal as an "Indian" in any sense that I am familiar with. He has spent his entire career running away from his ethnic origin. We "Indians" ought to let him run away. Let him be the wannabe-white Catholic he wants to be, and that's that.

by Kris Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:06 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Absolutely correct. I am realizing now that more a person has these
qualities more the chances of getting into to the "power" structure

Judeo-Christian is a NECESSARY condition but not sufficient

The Sufficient factors are

Non-opposition to the power structure

AND

White white

male

Converted Chinks, Indians (as Associate Members only)

females (Associate Members only)

If you are a Hindu and stisfy all other criteria you are still out.

Jindal at best has a VP Chance as he needs a Christian to drag him into the White house.

I
am rooting for that California Attorney General Kamala to go to the TOP
in 20 to 30 years. She has Blackness (American) in her which just might
compensate for her hinduness.

Anyday, I would prefer her to Nikki - the Female Jindal (a lot worse and fakier).

>>>> My prediction: Jindal will make it to the White House within the next 3 terms. His conversion to Christianity, even if it was a ploy, is of course going to help. I have seem him distance himself from his roots, but in fairness, I have also seen him being questioned pointedly about it. He has been in politics long enough to know it comes with the territory. Of course, the other choice would have been to stay out of politics altogether. Here is another prediction, within the next 3 decades, religion will not be an issue for a shrewd politician. This country crossed the race barrier, it will cross the religion barrier as well, in our lifetime. What will remain though is the ability to get in front of the parade i.e. money. May not make for the best candidate, but that is going to be a crucial factor.

by Idéfix Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:09 am

Kris wrote:This country crossed the race barrier, it will cross the religion barrier as well, in our lifetime.

That is a bold prediction, and I hope you are right. I would love to see an openly atheistic person be president. I don't think Bill Clinton is anything but an atheist, but he wasn't open about it. I have my doubts about Obama as well. I just wish to see a day when people don't have to hide their true feelings about religion.

by Kris Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:16 am

panini press wrote:My problems with Jindal are different from those of Malhotra. I have no respect for either of those guys. I simply do not view Jindal as an "Indian" in any sense that I am familiar with. He has spent his entire career running away from his ethnic origin. We "Indians" ought to let him run away. Let him be the wannabe-white Catholic he wants to be, and that's that.

>>>I have corresponded with Rajiv Malhotra in the past and he comes from a certain perspective. I am open to listening to Jindal, but have a feeling I may not like a good portion of his platform. That being said, if he is playing the system, that is his prerogative, although the indian community shouldn't allow itself to be played for fools after pitching in the donations.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:17 am

Kris wrote:

>>>> My prediction: Jindal will make it to the White House within the next 3 terms. His conversion to Christianity, even if it was a ploy, is of course going to help. I have seem him distance himself from his roots, but in fairness, I have also seen him being questioned pointedly about it. He has been in politics long enough to know it comes with the territory. Of course, the other choice would have been to stay out of politics altogether. Here is another prediction, within the next 3 decades, religion will not be an issue for a shrewd politician. This country crossed the race barrier, it will cross the religion barrier as well, in our lifetime. What will remain though is the ability to get in front of the parade i.e. money. May not make for the best candidate, but that is going to be a crucial factor.

1. He will never make it. he might have had a slight chance in the democratic party. But, the republicans so badly in shape, it HAS to rely on the hispanics to climb back - if at all. 3 terms ??? He will be just another Jack Kemp.

2. Christians will control. why? bcz the hispanic population will grow and have you seen the hispanics - they are not fanatics like the midwestern whites, but the hispanics are seriously religious. This country will become catholic majority and it still will play a role - a major role.

by Kris Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:23 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Kris wrote:

>>>> My prediction: Jindal will make it to the White House within the next 3 terms. His conversion to Christianity, even if it was a ploy, is of course going to help. I have seem him distance himself from his roots, but in fairness, I have also seen him being questioned pointedly about it. He has been in politics long enough to know it comes with the territory. Of course, the other choice would have been to stay out of politics altogether. Here is another prediction, within the next 3 decades, religion will not be an issue for a shrewd politician. This country crossed the race barrier, it will cross the religion barrier as well, in our lifetime. What will remain though is the ability to get in front of the parade i.e. money. May not make for the best candidate, but that is going to be a crucial factor.

1. He will never make it. he might have had a slight chance in the democratic party. But, the republicans so badly in shape, it HAS to rely on the hispanics to climb back - if at all. 3 terms ??? He will be just another Jack Kemp.

2. Christians will control. why? bcz the hispanic population will grow and have you seen the hispanics - they are not fanatics like the midwestern whites, but the hispanics are seriously religious. This country will become catholic majority and it still will play a role - a major role.

1) Repubs will try to reinvent themselves, with the changing demographics.
2) 20 years ago, no one would have predicted a black president. In terms of religion, there is a shift and the nonsense about 'god fearing america etc etc' doesn't play that well any more.

by Kris Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:55 am

panini press wrote:
Kris wrote:This country crossed the race barrier, it will cross the religion barrier as well, in our lifetime.
That is a bold prediction, and I hope you are right. I would love to see an openly atheistic person be president. I don't think Bill Clinton is anything but an atheist, but he wasn't open about it. I have my doubts about Obama as well. I just wish to see a day when people don't have to hide their true feelings about religion.

>>> I think they way this will unfold is that religion will become pretty much a non-issue, but I do think an explicit anti-religion stance will hurt.

by truthbetold Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:29 am

Rajiv m. Is an excellent researcher and writer. Unlike fanatical rss sympathetic writers he takes a more fact based approach to hindu cultural identity. His major contribution is to expose jaundiced view of hinduism by western intellectuals and their lackeys in the east.

Rajiv was active on sulekha several years ago. Rudra, arjun bhagat, and many others used to write lot of interesting articles. That whole hindu cultural warriors left and started some other blog. I am not aware of its current status.

Like them or not this group presented some really well researched evidence based articles that were followed by very spirited discussions that helped sulekha.

by truthbetold Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:37 am

Pp,
why are you doubting clinton and obamas views of religion. Many scientists hold highly materialistic world view but go to church. In most cases religion is a culture you grow up with and you like it because it is part of you.

The mistake of atheism is that it attacks the cultural aspects of religion as well as philosophical side of it. It loses the battle on the cultural front.

by truthbetold Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:51 am

I do not know if jindal is faking his religious beliefs. If he is, then he is the best cheater in the world. He may have bought into that belief.
Is it possible that many indian american hindus (including rajiv) think that jindals rejection is fake to satisfy their own belief system is still superior and jindal is a selfish power monger.

Uppiliji,
your prediction of jindal ending up like jack kemp is probably closest to my expectation of future. Religion, color of skin etc are all part of that equation, the biggest draw back for
jindal is his lack luster speaking ability at this time. He can debate well but is a second rate public speaker.

by truthbetold Sun Feb 10, 2013 8:05 am

Rajiv complains about jindal hitting upon indian american community for money and says jindal somehow does not fulfil his obligation to them. Who is contributing to jindal? I am not aware of any grass root temple to temple collection for the saviour. Most of the donors are republican donors who contributed to younger bush anyway. None of them probably ever spent more than a minute to think of indian american community. Each of them is seeking access for their own future needs.
jindal is a politician who is using all his attributes for hissuccess. He is already successful for an immigrant.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:07 am

panini press wrote:My problems with Jindal are different from those of Malhotra. I have no respect for either of those guys. I simply do not view Jindal as an "Indian" in any sense that I am familiar with. He has spent his entire career running away from his ethnic origin. We "Indians" ought to let him run away. Let him be the wannabe-white Catholic he wants to be, and that's that.

i think it is healthy for the hindu american community to engage with the academic community whose primary subject of inquiry is hinduism. to that extent i am supportive of rajiv malhotra. i don't think it serves any purpose to cry foul and attempt to shut the academics down when what they say is unpalatable to hindus, but it is healthy to engage in a vigorous debate with them in the public sphere outside the confines of academia. hindus naturally have an interest in being engaged in conversations about how their religion is represented by non-practitioners whose interest is academic.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:16 am

good article by malhotra by the way. but my main reason for not ever wanting to vote for bobby piyush jindal is that my politics are very different than his.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:43 am

btw, malhotra mentions homi bhaba in the article. malhotra is a better man that i am. i cannot understand for the life of me what homi bhaba is on about.

by Maria S Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:04 am

truthbetold wrote:Pp,
why are you doubting clinton and obamas views of religion. Many scientists hold highly materialistic world view but go to church. In most cases religion is a culture you grow up with and you like it because it is part of you.

The mistake of atheism is that it attacks the cultural aspects of religion as well as philosophical side of it. It loses the battle on the cultural front.

Could not agree with you more TBT!

Goodness..Obama and Clinton are deeply faith-oriented. I would never question anyone's personal connection with God/NO connection with God. the person who does that- looks weak and immature.

*If they use their faith to divide people or hurt people from other groups..that's a different issue..and Pres. Clinton and Pres. Obama..have not done that and if anything tried to build bridges with other group- multiracial, multiethnic- and "interfaith" coalitions.

*Pres. Clinton never missed a Sunday Service- Bible in hand (like a good Southern Baptist)..and always spoke about the scriptures..in fact, when he made his final confession about Monica..the first group of people as he called it.."first responders who brought the water- and put out the fire" were Black Clergy..esp. Rev. Bernice King (daughter of Rev. Dr. MLK) who stepped in made that famous public outburst during the visit of Mandela.. "leave my President alone" (helped him a great deal) by comparing him to King David..and calmed down a lot of "self-righteous" Christians/Pastors down and spoke up about human weaknesses and forgiveness.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/09/22/clinton.mandela/

*Pres. Obama..where I do I begin..at least I was born into a Christian family..his mother was an agnostic..he took it upon himself- to learn about the Bible..took the "immersion/public baptism" to become a Christian which is a tedious process (one does not have to do that to convert for namesake)..*before he became a politician..and more importantly "walked the walk" of service..worked as a community organizer..for Catholic Charities..for a few years..for very little money before he went to Harvard..the way he talks about falling on the knees and praying all the time..I want to do it myself..which I should this morning:) Seriously, his personal faith is inspiring to me to be more humble..and it is great to hear him talk about certain scriptures..with grandeur- poetry and all:)

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:12 pm

i am cynical about all politicians who wear their religious faith on their sleeve, on both sides of the political divide. it's just that with bobby piyush jindal, his indian (hindu) american upbringing is overlaid on his religious and political positions and so we in the community talk about it.

by Maria S Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:51 pm

Fine.

I look at it differently.

Children who are born/raised in Indian American families..have all kinds of influences..internal and external. For example they may be raised as Christians, but choose to convert to other religions (as they do) or become atheists. *Have NO problem whatsoever with it.

Jindal was raised in Louisiana- predominantly in the Southern culture and converted as a teenager- am sure there were a lot of influences. His parents were apparently skeptical at first, but accepted it. He changed his name to Bobby..after the character in Brady Brunch..now that is funny to me!

Anyways..he is a politician..and anyone can scrutinize him- politics..faith (I disagree) he is "BORING"- hypocrite when it comes to Public Policies-I am NOT voting him..even if he is a Southern Christian Brother:)

Rajiv and I have had a lot of interesting interactions /exchanges (kind of delightful and cordial, although we disagreed!) Hindus have every right to fight back..when people like Wendy Doniger blatantly disrespect/mock what is sacred and holy to them.

It was nice to see him on MSNBC after a long time..he looked well/healthy.

by confuzzled dude Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:13 pm

Maria S wrote:
Goodness..Obama and Clinton are deeply faith-oriented. I would never question anyone's personal connection with God/NO connection with God. the person who does that- looks weak and immature.

How are you so sure! Your opinion is only as valid as PP's, just an opinion, no more, no less.

by Idéfix Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:13 pm

Kris wrote:
panini press wrote:
Kris wrote:This country crossed the race barrier, it will cross the religion barrier as well, in our lifetime.
That is a bold prediction, and I hope you are right. I would love to see an openly atheistic person be president. I don't think Bill Clinton is anything but an atheist, but he wasn't open about it. I have my doubts about Obama as well. I just wish to see a day when people don't have to hide their true feelings about religion.

>>> I think they way this will unfold is that religion will become pretty much a non-issue, but I do think an explicit anti-religion stance will hurt.

I agree. I don't expect anti-religion activists to win high political office. I do hope that non-believers who don't go out of their way to attack religion do get better represented in politics.

by Idéfix Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:17 pm

truthbetold wrote:Pp,
why are you doubting clinton and obamas views of religion. Many scientists hold highly materialistic world view but go to church. In most cases religion is a culture you grow up with and you like it because it is part of you.

The mistake of atheism is that it attacks the cultural aspects of religion as well as philosophical side of it. It loses the battle on the cultural front.

I am not attacking any religion. I am only stating my hope that an atheist can get elected to high office. For Bill Clinton in particular, I just don't believe in his belief. I don't have any data points to back up my belief, beyond the fact that he regularly and happily violated the requirements of the faith he professed. Obama may be a true believer; what made me entertain doubts was his time in Rev. Wright's church. If he was selective in what he absorbed from the pastor while regularly attending service, I wonder if he was also selective in the purpose of his attendance: social or cultural rather than spiritual.

by Idéfix Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:20 pm

Maria S wrote:Goodness..Obama and Clinton are deeply faith-oriented. I would never question anyone's personal connection with God/NO connection with God. the person who does that- looks weak and immature.

I would never question Clinton or Obama on their faith if I met them in person. My view on this is is that each person makes up his/her own mind about this, and in my personal interactions, I take faith claims at face value. My speculation on Clinton and Obama is only because they are public figures with political lives. Like I said to TBT, this is just my opinion, and there's not a lot of factual evidence backing it up.

by Kris Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:24 pm

panini press wrote:
Kris wrote:
panini press wrote:
Kris wrote:This country crossed the race barrier, it will cross the religion barrier as well, in our lifetime.
That is a bold prediction, and I hope you are right. I would love to see an openly atheistic person be president. I don't think Bill Clinton is anything but an atheist, but he wasn't open about it. I have my doubts about Obama as well. I just wish to see a day when people don't have to hide their true feelings about religion.

>>> I think they way this will unfold is that religion will become pretty much a non-issue, but I do think an explicit anti-religion stance will hurt.
I agree. I don't expect anti-religion activists to win high political office. I do hope that non-believers who don't go out of their way to attack religion do get better represented in politics.

>>>>I was thinking about Obama's race strategy this morning. I guess it was triggered by this thread. Obama, being the shrewd strategist that he is, refused to be drawn into race-based discussions as it pertains to him. This put his opponents in a tough spot. The end result was the idiots having to resort to questioning his nationality which didn't help and may have possibly hurt their cause of defeating him.

by Idéfix Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:27 pm

Kris wrote:
panini press wrote:
Kris wrote:
panini press wrote:
Kris wrote:This country crossed the race barrier, it will cross the religion barrier as well, in our lifetime.
That is a bold prediction, and I hope you are right. I would love to see an openly atheistic person be president. I don't think Bill Clinton is anything but an atheist, but he wasn't open about it. I have my doubts about Obama as well. I just wish to see a day when people don't have to hide their true feelings about religion.

>>> I think they way this will unfold is that religion will become pretty much a non-issue, but I do think an explicit anti-religion stance will hurt.
I agree. I don't expect anti-religion activists to win high political office. I do hope that non-believers who don't go out of their way to attack religion do get better represented in politics.

>>>>I was thinking about Obama's race strategy this morning. I guess it was triggered by this thread. Obama, being the shrewd strategist that he is, refused to be drawn into race-based discussions as it pertains to him. This put his opponents in a tough spot. The end result was the idiots having to resort to questioning his nationality which didn't help and may have possibly hurt their cause of defeating him.

Good point. He did a good job of not engaging on the race issue at all. In the first campaign he made just one big speech on the issue, and throughout the four years carefully avoided getting into that area. That sort of model might work for a non-believer on the matter of religion in the distant future. I would love to see that happen in my lifetime, but I am not optimistic.

by confuzzled dude Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:36 pm

Kris wrote:
panini press wrote:
>>>>I was thinking about Obama's race strategy this morning. I guess it was triggered by this thread. Obama, being the shrewd strategist that he is, refused to be drawn into race-based discussions as it pertains to him. This put his opponents in a tough spot. The end result was the idiots having to resort to questioning his nationality which didn't help and may have possibly hurt their cause of defeating him.
Good point. He did a good job of not engaging on the race issue at all. In the first campaign he made just one big speech on the issue, and throughout the four years carefully avoided getting into that area. That sort of model might work for a non-believer on the matter of religion in the distant future. I would love to see that happen in my lifetime, but I am not optimistic.

C'mon guys! first time around it was all about RACE nothing but RACE and his blackness, he probably would not have won had he not been a black.

by Kris Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:36 pm

panini press wrote:
Kris wrote:
panini press wrote:
Kris wrote:
panini press wrote:That is a bold prediction, and I hope you are right. I would love to see an openly atheistic person be president. I don't think Bill Clinton is anything but an atheist, but he wasn't open about it. I have my doubts about Obama as well. I just wish to see a day when people don't have to hide their true feelings about religion.

>>> I think they way this will unfold is that religion will become pretty much a non-issue, but I do think an explicit anti-religion stance will hurt.
I agree. I don't expect anti-religion activists to win high political office. I do hope that non-believers who don't go out of their way to attack religion do get better represented in politics.

>>>>I was thinking about Obama's race strategy this morning. I guess it was triggered by this thread. Obama, being the shrewd strategist that he is, refused to be drawn into race-based discussions as it pertains to him. This put his opponents in a tough spot. The end result was the idiots having to resort to questioning his nationality which didn't help and may have possibly hurt their cause of defeating him.
Good point. He did a good job of not engaging on the race issue at all. In the first campaign he made just one big speech on the issue, and throughout the four years carefully avoided getting into that area. That sort of model might work for a non-believer on the matter of religion in the distant future. I would love to see that happen in my lifetime, but I am not optimistic.

>>>>The other aspect to this is economics taking center stage as the issue on which these elections turn. As the country grapples with the an ascendant Asia and internal capabilities diminish (I am thinking about STEM education here), economics is going to a source of anxiety in the foreseeable future. With this on the forefront, other issues become peripheral.

by Idéfix Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:39 pm

I think that's quite a stretch. He won the first time round because of W and Lehman-AIG. His campaign carefully avoided the race thing. There was talk about exit poll biases when black candidates are on the ballot, but apart from that I don't recall the campaign as being about race.

by confuzzled dude Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:43 pm

panini press wrote:I think that's quite a stretch. He won the first time round because of W and Lehman-AIG. His campaign carefully avoided the race thing. There was talk about exit poll biases when black candidates are on the ballot, but apart from that I don't recall the campaign as being about race.

His campaign may not have pronounced it explicitly but they knew all along it was all about electing a BLACK president, no two ways about it.

by Kris Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:52 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
panini press wrote:I think that's quite a stretch. He won the first time round because of W and Lehman-AIG. His campaign carefully avoided the race thing. There was talk about exit poll biases when black candidates are on the ballot, but apart from that I don't recall the campaign as being about race.

His campaign may not have pronounced it explicitly but they knew all along it was all about electing a BLACK president, no two ways about it.

>>> The issue turned on the economy. If his blackness had been the issue, he would have lost.

by truthbetold Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:57 pm

Cd and pp,
Obama avoided race related comments in 2008 cycle. To his credit mccain also did not play on race card. Other republicans did but american voters defeated those attempts.
Race was used by obama where it matters, in democratic primaries. He drained other candidate ie h clinton's base . Bill clinton in his frustration said lot of nasty things and fanned some white backlash. I think south carolina and penn state were case of black and white race politics with in dem party.

by Idéfix Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:00 pm

True, I remember Bill Clinton dismissing Obama's SC win, and Obama shooting himself in the foot with comments to San Francisco donors about rural voters "clinging" to guns and religion. So, yes, race did play a role in the Democratic primaries. In the general, you are right in crediting McCain with not playing the race card.

by confuzzled dude Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:13 pm

Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
panini press wrote:I think that's quite a stretch. He won the first time round because of W and Lehman-AIG. His campaign carefully avoided the race thing. There was talk about exit poll biases when black candidates are on the ballot, but apart from that I don't recall the campaign as being about race.

His campaign may not have pronounced it explicitly but they knew all along it was all about electing a BLACK president, no two ways about it.

>>> The issue turned on the economy. If his blackness had been the issue, he would have lost.

That was for the second term. In '08, John McCain was holding his own until the whole country was caught up with the first black president mania, notwithstanding Palin's pick of course. I would say "The Change" platform was a clever ploy by Obama's campaign, served both purposes i.e. race and policies front. Nonetheless, RACE played a huge huge role in my opinion.

by Idéfix Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:22 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
panini press wrote:I think that's quite a stretch. He won the first time round because of W and Lehman-AIG. His campaign carefully avoided the race thing. There was talk about exit poll biases when black candidates are on the ballot, but apart from that I don't recall the campaign as being about race.

His campaign may not have pronounced it explicitly but they knew all along it was all about electing a BLACK president, no two ways about it.

>>> The issue turned on the economy. If his blackness had been the issue, he would have lost.

That was for the second term. In '08, John McCain was holding his own until the whole country was caught up with the first black president mania, notwithstanding Palin's pick of course. I would say "The Change" platform was a clever ploy by Obama's campaign, served both purposes i.e. race and policies front. Nonetheless, RACE played a huge huge role in my opinion.

The economy was a big factor in 2008. They ran in a dead heat until mid-September. Then Lehman and AIG happened. And McCain's comment that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" hurt him.

Here is the RCP national average of the Obama-McCain race. As you can see, the gap opened up in mid-September. Lehman went under on Sep 15. AIG was bailed out on Sep 16. McCain never recovered after that; Sep 17 is the date on the chart where the blue and red lines cross for the last time. The Whitewashing of Bobby Jindal Captur10

The Whitewashing of Bobby Jindal Captur10

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#chart

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:24 pm

Maria S wrote:
Could not agree with you more TBT!

Goodness..Obama and Clinton are deeply faith-oriented. I would never question anyone's personal connection with God/NO connection with God. the person who does that- looks weak and immature.

Obama is the only one who MAY be faith-oriented. Clinton is at best a showman when it comes to faith.

What good is it if he goes to Church every week, talks about the Glory of God all the time, while not following anything that faith stands for? Most of the people who claim to be faith-oriented and religious are hypocrites to a very large extent, when they betray the very same faith for 6 1/2 days a week.

That is one reason why I get turned off when anyone runs to God to justify his views.

by confuzzled dude Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:47 pm

panini press wrote:
Here is the RCP national average of the Obama-McCain race. As you can see, the gap opened up in mid-September. Lehman went under on Sep 15. AIG was bailed out on Sep 16. McCain never recovered after that; Sep 17 is the date on the chart where the blue and red lines cross for the last time.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#chart

True. I do remember that wall street collapse and it was a significant turning factor but all this would have amounted to nothing had he not been a black

1. Black voter turnout wouldn't have been as high (he would've lost Pennsylvania for sure without those black voters from Philly )

2. Young whites voters wouldn't have been as fascinated/energized by the notion of historic election

by Maria S Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:28 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Maria S wrote:
Goodness..Obama and Clinton are deeply faith-oriented. I would never question anyone's personal connection with God/NO connection with God. the person who does that- looks weak and immature.

How are you so sure! Your opinion is only as valid as PP's, just an opinion, no more, no less.

Did I ever say..my views are are "more valid" than anyone else's views? They are different.

*Personal Religion/Faith is an explosive topic. Some things about faith..no one can explain. As a Christian - shaped by "my religious culture" faith is powerful influence for me- and how I see other Christians express their faith- I have said enough..will leave it at that. It's totally futile on my part to say anything more..and will be a waste of time for others to read. And it will make more sense-relatable to others who are from similar religious background/environments to me.

Moving on to white-washing, politics, money, food, movies, sports..and other more "relatable" issues and having good time- conversations:)

by ashaNirasha Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:47 pm

I think Obama started the ground work for his run long before he ran for Office, and it began with his faith. I think he is a closet atheist.

I also wonder about Michelle Obama. There was a book by his white ex-girlfriend who mentions how introspective, and self-absorbed he was. It just makes me think if he planned his life from the perspective of a possible run for public office - be it a senator or president. Not a bad thing at all, and we are better served by his policies than Jindal's any day.

by confuzzled dude Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:13 pm

Maria S wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Maria S wrote:
Goodness..Obama and Clinton are deeply faith-oriented. I would never question anyone's personal connection with God/NO connection with God. the person who does that- looks weak and immature.

How are you so sure! Your opinion is only as valid as PP's, just an opinion, no more, no less.

Did I ever say..my views are are "more valid" than anyone else's views? They are different.

*Personal Religion/Faith is an explosive topic. Some things about faith..no one can explain. As a Christian - shaped by "my religious culture" faith is powerful influence for me- and how I see other Christians express their faith- I have said enough..will leave it at that. It's totally futile on my part to say anything more..and will be a waste of time for others to read. And it will make more sense-relatable to others who are from similar religious background/environments to me.

Moving on to white-washing, politics, money, food, movies, sports..and other more "relatable" issues and having good time- conversations:)

The problem is you expect everyone to look at Christianity though your eyes but I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. In fact, PP's argument can be extended to each of the American presidents, since faith is one of the key selling points for the job they're applying for. I can't for the life of me understand the need to get so defensive at the hint of Christianity speak. People here on SuCh routinely say worst things about other religions except for that gentleman Marathadi of course.

Speaking of relatable religious backgrounds, what do you think of those Christians that routinely engage in slandering Islam. I suspect you wouldn't want to discuss with me as I do not come from similar religious background.

by Maria S Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:29 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:

The problem is you expect everyone to look at Christianity though your eyes but I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. In fact, PP's argument can be extended to each of the American presidents, since faith is one of the key selling points for the job they're applying for. I can't for the life of me understand the need to get so defensive at the hint of Christianity speak. People here on SuCh routinely say worst things about other religions except for that gentleman Marathadi of course.

Speaking of relatable religious backgrounds, what do you think of those Christians that routinely engage in slandering Islam. I suspect you wouldn't want to discuss with me as I do not come from similar religious background.

There is no problem.. you are absolutely right when you say that you for the life you don't understand why the way I respond to so-called "Christianity speak".

*I absolutely know that it will work for NO ONE- if they try to ask people to see things their way..esp. when it comes to faith. That's why I said what I say is futile on this topic.

*Your suspicion is completely wrong. I think Christians who engage in slandering Islam- should be ashamed of themselves..and I think (again in my view) that is very un-Christianlike behavior.

I would like to see Muslims- who practice their faith..came and post their views here. I wish Christians - practicing Christians come here do the same..unfortunately my voice was a lone Indian Christian woman voice for years in Sulekha - in religious discussions..and it's still the same here. It can be extremely frustrating and most people don't want to bother with that (who would want to!)..may be I am getting wiser too:)

by confuzzled dude Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:46 pm

Maria S wrote:
There is no problem.. you are absolutely right when you say that you for the life you don't understand why the way I respond to so-called "Christianity speak".

*I absolutely know that it will work for NO ONE- if they try to ask people to see things their way..esp. when it comes to faith. That's why I said what I say is futile on this topic.

*Your suspicion is completely wrong. I think Christians who engage in slandering Islam- should be ashamed of themselves..and I think (again in my view) that is very un-Christianlike behavior.

I would like to see Muslims- who practice their faith..came and post their views here. I wish Christians - practicing Christians come here do the same..unfortunately my voice was a lone Indian Christian woman voice for years in Sulekha - in religious discussions..and it's still the same here. It can be extremely frustrating and most people don't want to bother with that (who would want to!)..may be I am getting wiser too:)

Hmm.. I meant at the reference of Christianity (or anything remotely pertinent to Christianity), PP wasn't exactly discussing Bible Verses or badmouthing.

by Guest Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:28 pm

"Clinton and Obama are deeply faith-oriented." What does that statement mean? That they believe that the biblical God is the one and only true god and that Jesus is the only way to reach Him? That's the view held by most conservative christians.
OR
Do they believe in a higher power/god (common noun, not proper noun) and that god can be called by any name, that there are many paths to reach Him, not just christianity and that no religion has exclusive rights on god.....the view held by liberal christians and of course, hindus?

by Sponsored content