CNN does a disservice to black bloggers, JJP specifically!

I’m shocked!

This is CNN.

Remember when CNN used to be the most trusted name in news?

Now who trusts CNN?

Nothing because they are all on-line identities.

No one in their right mind would use their real names or their real email address because they wouldn’t want to receive hate mail from Obama supporters calling them handkerchief heads.

This has happened to me.

From now on, if I can post anonymously I will.

He/She has not taken a name because the deliberate act of not taking a name is the cyberspace equivalent to klansmen wearing hoods. It’s similar to a criminal wearing a mask..they are up to dastardly deeds an don’t want to be known. It’s also a psychological tactic intended to disorient and instill fear.

Enough of a difference that — in weighing options — you make a conscious decision not to use one. Your statement makes it clear you’re not like some posters here who weren’t aware they could choose an identity.

I’m with Christian. Own your opinions. Brand them with a handle of your choosing. But since you have chosen not to, may I ask why you have not?

What is the moral to be found in this story?

As long as they are allowed to cry racism, the black establishment is allowed to flourish and suck the life out of our community. These people would love it if we never had a barack, a cory booker, or anyone else. It highlights their own shortcomings as politicians, and would awaken their constituents in such a way that they could be voted straight out of office.

“Be careful not to “cry wolf” one too many times.”

-Gee, Anonymous, would you say Hillary is as pure as the driven snow?

Hillary started the racial dog-whistling.

And speaking of “wolf”, stop trying to sell wolf tickets here.
Nobody’s buying.

I really appreciate JJP because I have a chance to read about issues I care about and share my thoughts with others who understand where I am coming from.

This too shall pass. This is a new era and people are no longer falling for the oki-doke. Sure it may take work to set the record straight, but the fact that CNN knows we are here also tells me we can’t be ignored.

“No, the more serious issue that we’ve repeatedly been all over here at JJP is that black superdelegates who continue to support Clinton also support her nasty, divisive, race-baiting campaign tactics”.

It’s not just the fact that they still support her, and it’s not just a matter of them being complicit through their silence about her tactics. When Clinton says words to the effect that it’s not and shouldn’t be about race, while at the same time having surrogates like Tubbs-Jones going on TV and proclaiming that Obama “can’t run away from the issue of race”, you know that they are fully-complicit, willing participants in this disgusting racist strategy, and are every bit as guilty as Clinton herself.

Listen, what these CBC members are doing is a far cry from the usual “black conservatives making a living by telling whites what they want to hear” kind of thing. These people have to answer to their black constituients, and their continued employment as federal legislators depends on those BLACK constituients.

It’s alright, y’all…this is an OPPORTUNITY:).

Do you believe that ‘most people are racist?’

Other readers, do you hold this view?

Will the viewpoint that ‘most people are racist’ have an impact on Obama’s nomination? Has it already? How will this viewpoint help Obama become President of the United States of America?

The issue of race has clearly divided Democrats. When Clinton loses the nomination, how will the viewpoint expressed on JJP, that ‘Clinton supporters are racist’ unite the party?

In the general election, when Obama’s judgment is called into question through his association with Rev. Wright, will McCain supporters be assumed to be racist as well? Will other criticisms of Obama’s positions or ideology be viewed as racist as well? Will this assumption help or harm Obama’s chance to become President?

I contend that if ‘most people are racist’ is the dominant viewpoint of Obama supporters, he will not be elected President.

Additionally, you have done nothing but regurgitate your earlier posts and innuendo. We asked you several times to provides facts that this blog engages in race-baiting tactics. Even after Mervyn from Color of Change posted a clarification to the position of the organization, and which is consistent with the politics advocated here, you continue to insist that JJP is engaging in race-baiting.

Race-baiting, which has been pointed out to you at least three times on this thread, WAS STARTED BY THE CLINTONS.

You have the right to stand by your previous posts, but we also reserve the right to call BS, especially when the evidence has been presented to you.

If a judge ignored evidence to render a verdict contrary to proof, he’d be disbarred and thrown off the bench. Fortunately for you, all we can do is ignore your unfounded and illogical blasts into the blogsphere.

Race baiting is the term for an act of using racially derisive language, actions or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or groups of people, or to make those persons behave in ways that are inimical to their personal or group interests. This can also be accomplished by implying that there is an underlying race based motive in the actions of others towards the group baited, where none in fact exists.

Calling Obama a ‘kid’ and that his consistent opposition to the war is a ‘fairytale’ contains absolutely no racially divisive language. It may be disputible and innacurate information but it is not racial.

Many people who practice race baiting often believe in racism, or have an interest in making the group believe that racism is what motivates the actions of others.

Again, my assertion here is that ‘most people here at JJP believe that most people are racist.’

I also maintain that this assertion, if widely held by Obama supporters, will harm his candidacy.

That is my argument. You have done nothing to address it. BTW I am an Obama supporter.

ColorOfChange was contacted by CNN on Thursday evening and we got back to them on Friday morning. By that time, it was too late. We then sent them a statement that they asked for.

Unfortunately, they did not read that statement, and viewers were left to think that ColorOfChange members were asking superdelegates to vote for Obama because he is Black.

I think you’re hitting the point spot on: instead of allowing for a more complete version of events, Black superdelegates were allowed to frame the issue entirely, without any opposing viewpoint besides the cursory narration of the story. What makes this more problematic, is that CBC members continue to push a narrative that equates advocacy with threats and arm-twisting. It’s irresponsible and disrespectful to the people who go out of their way to send CBC members their informed concerns about how they are acting as superdelegates.

Finally, here’s our statement in full:

ColorOfChange.org uses the internet to empower our members to make government more responsive to the concerns of Black Americans and to bring about positive political and social change for everyone.

Our petition to pressure superdelegates is not about who wins the nomination; it’s about who gets to decide – we think the people’s voice should be decisive. Because we saw the possibility of Black elected officials using their votes as superdelegates to undermine the will of voters, we called on them to make clear they would not choose that course. The Congressional Black Caucus has long defended voting rights in Congress and our members insist that they maintain that commitment.

Along with 26,559 petition signatures, we have received thousands of comments from our members – they are critical, but fair and focused on a powerful message: ‘do not undermine the choice of the voters who put you in office’.

“Crying ‘RACE!’ indiscriminately, diminshes the true, serious incidents of racism. Crying “RACE!” to avoid criticism and stifle debate are counterproductive.”

Introducing race in the manner in which the Clintons and MSM have and even you in your pathetic attempt to counsel us here at JJP also stifles debate and is counterproductive.

But I’m sure you know that!

That Clinton Attacks Obama wikipedia blog was started because the Clintons put out a pattern that facilitates racial discrimination.

No one wanted to be crying “racism” without having evidence. There was a pattern of race-baiting being introduced and facilitated by the Clintons themselves; a pattern so blatant even white progressives like Keith Olbermann and even a wingbot like Chris Wallace over on Fox News, called out their own peers over it.

So, where does JJP engage in race-baiting politics when the Clintons themselves introduced the concept in the campaign and we decided to keep track of the so-called “coincidences”, “Misspeaks” and “out of context” statements that were happening too frequently to be considered “coincidental”.

That many “coincidences” leads to a pattern which usually adds up to either bigotry or discrimination.

My career is in EEO/Civil Rights/Diversity/Affirmative Action, sir/madam. The U. S. Government sent me to school and trained me how to identify and prove episodes of race, gender discrimination and bigotry by first learning how to identify a pattern of behavior.

Everything you cited as an example of what you believe JJP engaging in race politics merely reinforced the suspicion that the Clintons were trying to play on the fears and bigotry of America by trying to recreate Obama as the Scary Black Man in order to win this election and the nomination because they believe they’re entitled to it.

You call it race baiting; we call it a pattern of bigotry and discrimination.

BTW, if you’re a Hillary supporter, or worse, a McCain supporter, I wish you’d come forth and say so and stop arguing with us here. I continue to blow holes in your argument because I take your own words and demonstrate the pattern of bigotry the Clintons started and now are crying foul because the kitchen they cooked this crap up in got too hot.

You may object to the comments based on the belief that Obama in NOT an inexperienced ‘kid’ and that his consistent opposition to the war is NOT a fairytale. These points can be argued without using race AT ALL. But that’s not what happened here at JJP is it?

There are more posts and comments on this blog devoted to real and perceived incidents of race-baiting and racism against Obama than any other topic. Even more than on the candidate himself.

The post I was responding to is outraged because the media is refusing to acknowledge in their report that black superdelegates are being pressured to move from Clinton because of the ‘nasty, divisive, race-baiting campaign tactics’ of her campaign.

JJP maintains that blacks who support Clinton are ‘are complicit in defining a roadmap that will be used to undermine future black candidates.’

This argument is based purely on race. No discussion of the issues, judgment, leadership. No persuasive argument to switch to Obama for any reason other than race.

No one here will even acknowledge that Wright’s comments and Obama’s association with him are legitimate areas of concern as it relates to Obama’s judgment and beliefs. Most here agree with and defend Wright.

I stand by my assertion that JJP and commenters operate from the viewpoint that ‘most people are racist.’

This viewpoint will ultimately doom Obama. Soon JJP will start a mccainandtheracistrethugsattackobama wiki.

Crying ‘RACE!’ indiscriminately, diminshes the true, serious incidents of racism. Crying “RACE!” to avoid criticism and stifle debate are counterproductive.

It has become all to tempting to see race. All too easy to assume that most people are racist.

This is going to be a long campaign. Many important differences exist between McCain and Obama. Voters deserve to see a constructive,substantive campaign based on the issues, leadership and judgment. I don’t want the campaign to be all about race.

Cry wolf my behind!

LOL!