Answer to your question is....NO!

Unless your disgruntlement toward Obama stems from a deep seated lack of self worth extending toward a lack of value invested in him, or a fear of seeing a ''black'' man (and family) in power that might upset the caucasian then no... although its debatable how much good a Texan can do for Black America over seeing a black family in power extolling power and influence over caucasians which is kind of healing in of itself.

Wel i wouldn't call you an Uncle Tom, simply because i think it trivialises the seriousness of the issue at hand.

For someone who comes across as an intelligent, African thinking person to vote for the Republican party is just plain delusional. You cannot separate the Party from its leader. No matter how juicy his so called policies are, the Repubican agenda will always be the priority. And from what i have seen of what this party stands for, i wouldn't vote for anyone running for them....even if it was Malcolm X!

Having watched his so called policies, one could say that had Powell the courage to speak pubicly, they wouldn't be so far off in the way they think.....the question then is, would you have voted for the Republicans if powell was running? The reason i am asking this is that i can sense some kind of "black resistance" from most AA towards Obama. This is a well known disease amongst our people where we tend to resist authority from someone who may "looks" like us or supposed to be representing us. Now, i am not really saying that you should vote for Obama just because he is half of us without finding out anything he stands for.

But it is important that you find out what he actually stands for before running off to vote for whitey because all of a sudden you have turned guluble and starts to believe a word coming out of their cunning mouths.

No, i wouldn't call you an Uncle Tom...i would call you worse if you voted for one the most dispicable party in America...a party thats responsible, via Reagan, for bombarding AA communities with drugs and lawlessness throughout the 80s. Oh and the icing on the cake...Ron actually admires Reagan....is that the kind of politician you want to vote for?

@shems i wouldnt call you an uncle tom. barack obama is not after the black vote. from what i have read and heard him say he can be quite critical of black folk. whereas the clintons always go after the black vote and work hard at getting it. its the one thing they felt let al gore down as he didnt feel he needed to.

not clued up on republicans so cant comment on the guy you mentioned
but
black supporters of obama dont understand why some black folk dont suport him.

voting is all about identifying key points in candidates that you can indentify with. just being the same race as someone is not gaurunteed support.

just do what you feel suits you

I would love to see an African President of the U.S., but it is apparent that no candidate, of African descent or otherwise, will do anything for our people. This statement was resoundingly made when not a single Democratic candidate showed up for the Presidential Debates held by Tavis Smiley, Tom Joyner, and so forth, who organize the State of the Black Union every year in February. People then make excuses for Obama saying he didn't want to risk losing his "broader audience" in speaking specifically on African issues. However, if he can't do it now then he certainly cannot do it once in office.

Our people are simply out of touch with reality when it comes to politics or any tool (human or structural) in a system of White Supremacy. All tools will serve the interests of the system. Within the system all we can do is try to maximize our opportunity, which I only see happening with the policies of Ron Paul and not so much with Barack Obama. Therefore, let's not get caught up in nonsense as if a person with "color" in the White House actually changes anything. As Dr. Carter G. Woodson stated, even if we become successful at imitating Euros, the world will still wonder what the African is good for.

I would argue that both parties are equally as dispicable, which is why I wish they would trash the whole party-system all together. If it came down to Barack Obama and any other candidate head-to-head, I would vote for Obama hands down. However, Ron Paul has been consistent with his political stance for at least the 10 years I have occasionally followed him. He just never won the Republican ticket for me to vote for him.

I find it interesting you villify Republicans only for drugs in the African community of America, when albeit it was brought in under a Republican administration, it was the Clinton administration that instituted the "War on Drugs" which lead to today's shortage of African men in our communities. In America, 80% of all drug users/traffickers/activity is in the suburbs outside of African communities. However, 80% of drug-related arrests are in low-income African-American communities. This accounts for the fact that 73% of all incarcerated African males are in for non-violent drug-related charges. This was an all-out attack to subdue the African male crafted by the Democratic party.

Let me also remind you that for 100 years, it was the Democrats who struck down every "anti-lynching" bill that went to Congress, while the vast majority were proposed by Republicans. The Segregationists, Jim Crow advocates, and Klansmen (or pronounced White Supremacists), were predominantly Democrats. There has been no change in power or economic/political structure since the Civil Rights era, and from looking at our communities here in the States we have undergone just a more sophisticated lynching under Democrats as the vast majority of "urban" areas with predominant African populations have been almost wholely Democratic for almost 40 years.

I don't say this to advocate Republicans over Democrats, but to demonstrate that we have absolutely no security in either party. We must vote for the best candidate that will maximize our opportunity so that (when we make up our minds) we more readily be self-sufficient and self-determined.

Point taken, he wouldn't be able or allowed to do anything different, if anything he'd have to be more cold toward us as African peoples to keep the majority and other politicians happy but the 'face factor', seeing a black family in a position of power would have its own effect both on the caucasians around the world and with certain of us Black African peoples in general... surely a vote with him is better than a vote with a democrat/liberal policy supporting republican. That guy is too weak on issues to win.

Ok..point taken. I guess you guys know whats best for yourselves....good luck.

I hear you about examining Obama's politics.

The presidential elections and the political process here is about picking the lesser of evils. not necessarily finding a candidate who speaks to your issues.

democrats generally are lesser of 2 evils over here.....

Nature of politics , at least here, is about money. The ones who fund you are the ones who control you...not about morality, doing good or helping people...money talks..everything else walks....


When there are more African American lobby groups funded by Black people, our issues will be addressed.

I'm not sure who you mean is weak on issues, but it certainly not Ron Paul. Obama doesn't deal with any issues, which is better I guess:-\. Also, Ron Paul's issues have allowed plenty of gross roots support from your average (poor) American who are donating millions via the internet, while the mass media has pretty much been silent on him compared to the coverage they give Clinton and Obama. Plus with this gross roots support I think there could be more support even after he gets into office against the private tyrannies elites that might block him once it comes to dealing with policies.

If Obama, Clinton somehow gets into office without having dealt with any serious issues in which people would empower them for, then that "somehow" is going to slowly come back into the equation with the people paralyzed and not knowing what they're doing there beside having a big smile and waving a flag. While the elite AIPAC etc have already decided what their plans for the next 4 to 8 year are going to be for the US and Israel.

All I heard was, ''I'm trying to be a leader of the people, not the republican party'' thats not republican talk, along with the rest of his debate he sounds too ''soft'' to get their votes even if Bush has softened them up a little.

A little more than ''I'm trying to be a leader of the people, not the republican party''

Or "Theres going to be real change"

No I don't think anyone would see you as an Uncle Tom beacuse of it, I don't think anyone thought the blacks who muct have voted to give bush his second term were uncle toms, ignorant mayb but not uncle toms, so it's nothing new or ground breaking , the last 2 regimes were republican so would it really be breaking with any norm?
I wonder what great policies bush promised black people to get their vote last election,I know video debates can be clinchers , but I am sure if you REALLY want to you could find Obama's manifesto and compare as you please,see below (took me so lil time);
VentureBeat » Exclusive: Barack Obama to name a “Chief Technology Officer”


but I can say I have noticed the negativity Obama has been getting from black folks because he's mixed , I dread to imagine what would happen had he been full black??
lol!

Even more below;



Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Health Care


Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Education


Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Civil Rights


Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Economy


Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Energy


Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Ethics


Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Faith


Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Family


Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Fiscal


Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Homeland


Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Immigration


Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Iraq


Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Poverty


Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Rural


Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Service


Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Seniors


Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Technology


Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Veterans

For those people who are so fixated on voting for Obama, here's a question:

Can you think of two specific policies - on any issue - which you can remember Obama describing in detail?

For those people who can, fair enough. However, I suspect that there are plenty of folks who, if being honest, can't even think of a single one. That is actually quite a depressing thought. "Obama doesn't have any specific policies.... but he's black.... so he must be a good choice".

I am not dismissing Obama. Personally - I'm undecided between Ron Paul and Obama. Seeing as I'm from the UK, my voice doesn't really matter on this. But there are plenty of AA's who's opinions will matter. They could massively benefit from taking even 5 minutes to figure out what these people actually stand for.




Plenty of style - but he needs to eleborate more on "change". If he gives more details (substance?) he'll beat Hillary. If not, she will exploit her new position as underdog. Either way, we'll know on 'Super Tuesday' (feb 5th) - very exciting.

It's interesting, not to mention condescending and presumptious that so many non AA's assume that AA's who aren't tripping over themselves to automatically vote for Obama, must be suffering from haterism of some kind. I find that there are way more AA's supporting him, blindly, WITHOUT examinng his stance on issues, assuming that because he's Black(and not a dyed in the wool Uncle Tom), he must be the right choice, than are resistant to him because he can conjugate a verb, or whatever other cockamamie nonsense non AA's conjure up in their fertile imaginations.


THe truth is, Obama's command of issues and policy is not what it could or should be, as has already been stated. He actually is more style than substance, so far. More people would know that,if they a. had a command of issues themselves or b. weren't operating from racial emotion(which has it's place). Hillary has him beat on that. SHe is what is known as a policy wonk, and has been for years. She thinks and talks about, and seeks to implement policy stuff for FUN. She's a politcial nerd if there is such a thing. There was a debate Saturday night, before the NH primary, where this was on display,(the effect of that debate has been underestimated,methinks). Where Obama has her beat is in charisma, and being able to connect to and inspire crowds. THe degree to which either of them is able to master the OTHER person's strenghth to any degree, will go a long way towards determining who ultimately wins.

No, you are not an Uncle Tom for voting for Ron Paul. If you are a Tom, then alot of black folks are not only Tom's but house N****s, for blindly giving their vote to the Democrats.

Democrats not only take them for granted, but did everything in their power to derail our advancement since reconstruction. You know the routine, kiss a few black babies and sit on the front row in church and act like they enjoy being there.

Hilary said herself on January, 8th that it took LBJ not MLK to make the Civil rights movement a success.

I have a feeling that Ron Paul will probably turn independent. I know he denies that. For those who are not familiar with him, in short he is a strict constitutionalist.

If you have read his news letters in the past then yes.

If not, then no.

Ron Paul doesnt like you: