The Pennsylvania Democratic Debate
| AR Articles on Elections |
|---|
| Nationalist Politics in America (Part I) (Sep. 2002) |
| Nationalist Politics in America (Part II) (Oct. 2002) |
| It’s Race, Stupid (Jan. 2001) |
| Republican or Third Party? (Dec. 1999) |
| We Should Not Support Patrick Buchanan (Feb 2000) |
| Search AmRen.com for Elections |
| More news stories on Elections |
PARTICIPANTS:
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA
MODERATORS:
CHARLIE GIBSON, ABC NEWS
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS
LOCATION: THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER, PHILADELPHIA
{snip}
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, last May we talked about affirmative action, ad you said at the time that affluent African Americans like your daughters should probably be treated as pretty advantaged when they apply to college, and that poor white children—kids—should get special consideration, affirmative action.
So, as president, how specifically would you recommend changing affirmative action policies so that affluent African Americans are not given advantages, and poor, less affluent whites are?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, I think that the basic principle that should guide discussions not just on affirmative action but how we are admitting young people to college generally is, how do we make sure that we’re providing ladders of opportunity for people? How do we make sure that every child in America has a decent shot in pursuing their dreams?
And race is still a factor in our society. And I think that for universities and other institutions to say, you know, we’re going to take into account the hardships that somebody has experienced because they’re black or Latino or because they’re women—
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Even if they’re wealthy?
SENATOR OBAMA: I think that’s something that they can take into account, but it can only be in the context of looking at the whole situation of the young person. So if they look at my child and they say, you know, Malia and Sasha, they’ve had a pretty good deal, then that shouldn’t be factored in. On the other hand, if there’s a young white person who has been working hard, struggling, and has overcome great odds, that’s something that should be taken into account.
So I still believe in affirmative action as a means of overcoming both historic and potentially current discrimination, but I think that it can’t be a quota system and it can’t be something that is simply applied without looking at the whole person, whether that person is black or white or Hispanic, male or female.
What we want to do is make sure that people who have been locked out of opportunity are going to be able to walk through those doors of opportunity in the future.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, would you agree to that kind of change?
SENATOR CLINTON: Well, here’s the way I’d prefer to think about it.
I think we’ve got to have affirmative action generally to try to give more opportunities to young people from disadvantaged backgrounds—whoever they are. That’s why I’m a strong supporter of early childhood education and universal pre-kindergarten.
That’s why I’m against No Child Left Behind as it is currently operating. And I would end it, because we can do so much better to have an education system that really focuses in on kids who need extra help.
That’s why I’m in favor of much more college aid, not these outrageous predatory student loan rates that are charging people I’ve met, across Pennsylvania, 20, 25, 28 percent interest rates. Let’s make college affordable again.
See, I think we have to look at what we’re trying to achieve here somewhat differently. We do have a real gap. We have a gap in achievement. We have a gap in income. But we don’t have a potential gap.
I think our job should be to try to create the conditions that enable people to live up to their God-given potential. And that means health care for everyone—no exceptions, nobody left out. And it means taking a hard look at what we need to do to compete and win in the global economy.
So that’s how I prefer to think about it. You know, let’s affirmatively invest in our young people and make it possible for them to have a good middle-class life in today’s much more competitive economy.
{snip}
(Posted on April 17, 2008)
Comments
Both gave convoluted answers to a direct question.
Obama is now pretending he would give affirmative action to a poor white kid. Well, Mr. Obama we don’t want affirmative action, we want to be judged on merit. Poor white kids can be best helped by removing affirmative action.
Hillary completely dodged the question.
Posted by at 6:29 PM on April 17
I’m glad I didn’t listen to that. Neither one of them is on the level. Their both garbage.
Don’t think I like that other bum though. McCain is garbage too.
Tom Iron…
Posted by Tom Iron... at 6:34 PM on April 17
you know, we’re going to take into account the hardships that somebody has experienced because they’re black or Latino or because they’re women—
How about taking scholastic aptitude into account . Also, notice how he omits the white male. This is the type of simple analysis we can expect from the Democratic pandering candidates.
Posted by at 6:36 PM on April 17
It’s obvious to anyone with a brain — both Hillary and Obama would continue affirmative action, and do nothing to stop it.
Obama:
So I still believe in affirmative action as a means of overcoming both historic and potentially current discrimination, but I think that it can’t be a quota system and it can’t be something that is simply applied without looking at the whole person, whether that person is black or white or Hispanic, male or female.
Given the Hobson’s Choice, I would rather have hard quotas than affirmative action. At least with hard quotas, some white people get. With affirmative action, whites don’t have to get anything.
I think that’s something that they can take into account, but it can only be in the context of looking at the whole situation of the young person. So if they look at my child and they say, you know, Malia and Sasha, they’ve had a pretty good deal, then that shouldn’t be factored in. On the other hand, if there’s a young white person who has been working hard, struggling, and has overcome great odds, that’s something that should be taken into account.
The affirmative action he supports hurts the non-rich whites he claims he has sympathy toward. Ceteris paribus, Malia and Sasha will get over your kids.
Hillary:
That’s why I’m in favor of much more college aid, not these outrageous predatory student loan rates that are charging people I’ve met, across Pennsylvania, 20, 25, 28 percent interest rates. Let’s make college affordable again.
All this “aid” is why college is so expensive. More Federal grants and lower student loan rates give colleges virtual permission to raise tuition, in order to funnel more money through the veins of Democrat-loving Higher Education. And that’s the point, and HRC’s goal here. A big earmark, if you will.
Posted by Question Diversity at 6:38 PM on April 17
So I still believe in affirmative action as a means of overcoming both historic and potentially current discrimination,………. Well in that case whites who suffer from potentially current discrimination deserve affirmative action since they are suffering from affirmative action when applied the way it is toward Blacks and Hispanics.Talk about catch 22.
Posted by Tony Soprano at 6:55 PM on April 17
Sorry Clinton, we do have a potential gap. IQ studies prove it beyond all doubt.
Posted by Diamed at 7:57 PM on April 17
“let’s affirmatively invest in our young people and make it possible for them to have a good middle-class life….”
Why stop at the middle class, can’t we all be rich like the Clintons. By the way if the entire low class moves up to middle class then there’s no low class, and if there’s no low class how can there be a middle class?
I say we elect dippy Hilary president. She consistently shows how incompetent she is, which means she won’t successfully enact her harmful programs.
Posted by P Noctura at 8:15 PM on April 17
When I went to college in California in the late 80s, I paid my entire way. I lived in a sleeping room for five years, never owned a car, worked 25 hours per week for about $10,000 per year, both my parents were dead, carried a 3.8 GPA in a math major, was on the Deans List every semester, and I couldn’t apply for a single grant nor scholarship because every single one had a race or gender based exclusion policy that excluded white males from every single available grant and scholarship available at my college. I would go to class with women and minorities that were inferior students to me who had so much money in grants and scholarships that they didn’t have to work, had families, cars, and apartments. It was absolutely disgusting. 10 years after graduating Magna Cum Laude, my alma mater had the nerve to call me back asking for a donation. I told them they would get the same amount of money out of me that they made eligible for me when I was in school, $0.
Posted by AvgDude at 9:09 PM on April 17
“So I still believe in affirmative action as a means of overcoming both historic and potentially current discrimination, but I think that it can’t be a quota system”
It can’t NOT be a quota system. OF COURSE it’s a quota system. Affirmative Action is never anything BUT a quota system — of one sort or another.
And someone so danged “brilliant” as we’re constantly told Obama is, ought to know that. I’m sure he DOES know it — he also knows he must never ever SAY it.
So I will:
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION = JUGGLING RACIAL NUMBERS TO SERVE SOME THEORETICAL IDEAL = QUOTA SYSTEM.
One other thing: the “historic discrimination” against blacks that AA is supposedly required to counteract, ceased an awfully long time ago. And “current discrimination” has been reduced to the point of barely existing. If blacks STILL aren’t getting ahead, it is NOT because the white man is holding them down.
And until we’re all allowed to say that in public, the “national dialog on race” that Obama claims to want will amount to nothing more than pompous pronouncements and the same old liberal mush. Oh, and quota systems.
Posted by The Incredible Shrinking White Man at 9:21 PM on April 17
That we are not given a better selection of candidates speaks to the dismal depths this political system in this country has degenerated to. All the voters have ever gotten was a choice between two political hacks who are candidates designated by corrupt back room demagogues, so the selection we have been constantly forced to make is predicated on which candidate will take us on the slowest road to hell. We’ve always been forced to select the lesser of two evils.
This is true also of Congress and of nearly all elected offices.
One of the basic features on which this country was founded concerned getting citizen legislatures and other office seekers to serve short terms in office, then return to the private sector. It has turned into a nightmare where only elitists who have no grounding in the real world can be nominated and who are basically out of touch with reality. The system is broken, and it doesn’t work as it should, and it hasn’t for quite some time now.
This country should no longer exist in its present form and, thankfully, it will not continue on for very much longer. It is slowly going the way of all the other empires in the past, hurried along toward oblivion, these last several years, by the corruption of multiculturalism, which Roosevelt warned us about when he cautioned that by taking in the riff raff of the world we would amount to no more than a boarding house of squabbling nationalities.
But it has become more than that. It is a nation that has no legitimate way to offer political positions to average Americans, and it is being quickly torn assunder by contentious races and other divisive factors that will lead to armed conflict.
And if the conflict leads to a break up into ethnic/racial partitioning it will be a good thing. Only then could we, as a homogeneous entity, expect to carry on for any appreciable length of time.
Posted by skeptical at 9:39 PM on April 17
AvgDude, your story is similar to mine. I went to college while working about 25 hours a week. I mopped floors, washed dishes, and had other misc. jobs. I attended a community college and then went on to graduate from a four year college. I drove an old car or took the bus and never had any spending money and had loans, which I paid back. I was never bitter about anything, I just took it in stride. In my neighborhood everyone had to work. But I do get angry when I see Hillary and Obama arrogantly supporting affirmative action.
Posted by at 10:29 PM on April 17
Obama is like a slick spider weaving a web of deceit - Hillary is a Black Widow who’ll bite your head off. Poor Whites do not need affirmative action! Poor Whites need financial assistance. A big reason they need it is because undeserving Blacks get all the financial aid, which in effect denies poor Whites aid because of their race. Poor Whites have the reading and math skills, the work ethic, the intellectual depth and imagination, and the abilities to concentrate - Blacks do not - if they did, we wouldn’t be having this discussion to begin with.
So I still believe in affirmative action as a means of overcoming both historic and potentially current discrimination
Obama defines “discrimination” as something out of Orwell’s 1984. By discrimination, he means evaluating Blacks on the same standards as anyone else. Blacks were never discriminated against in the North, in let’s say, the 50’s and 60’s. If they had been, none of them would have been allowed to go to those colleges - but many in fact did. What happened is they were admitted according to their abilities, and they didn’t have as much ability by any objective measure. Likewise, when Obama mentions “potentially current” discrimination, he means the results of Blacks who are so academically deficient that even massive preferential treatment can’t lift them to the level of non-Blacks.
Posted by Doppelgangbanger at 10:46 PM on April 17
Yes, Obama and Hillary are slugging it out. They’re slugging it out as window dressing for the inevitable; that is, for when the convention comes and Obama and Clinton run on the same ticket. What’s that you say? ‘That won’t happen.’ Yes it will. This is the media’s wet dream, a Black man and a blond-haired White woman running - TOGETHER. Wait and see.
Posted by Awakened at 11:03 PM on April 17
Around 50 years ago, The Reader’s Digest published an article about affirmative action in college admissions. There was no mention of race or sex, just an explanation of the willingness of colleges to look beyond grades. In particular I recall the C student who drove up to his interview in a hot rod he’d built himself. The Dean of Engineering personally intervened to get him admitted. If there was a pool of overlooked but capable students out there, of any color, the colleges would find them without quotas. They’ve been seeking them for years. But there is no such pool of untapped talent, unless it’s White boys, who are better off avoiding college anyway.
Posted by Schoolteacher at 11:58 PM on April 17
I’ve noticed that whenever Obama is sidetracked from his prepared recitations, his fluency goes out the window and we are treated to a deluge of rambling apologiae “It isn’t the first time I’ve mangled my words and it won’t be the last.”
In an interview with Michael Smirconish last week, when questioned on some of his gaffs, he kept referring Smirconish back to various speeches he had made. MIke seems to have drunk the Obamade and is supporting him.
I’m beginning to suspect that Obama is nothing but a marionette whose strings are being manipulated by someone whose identity is yet to be revealed. Has anyone heard from George Soros lately?
Back in the sixties there was a new craze in language instruction called the Audio-Lingual method which, for the most part, consisted in students memorizing series of dialogs and then presenting them. They sounded very impressive until one injected an original utterance that wasn’t contained in the dialog. The kids were then stymied. BHO is beginning to remind me of those seemingly fluent kids.
Does anyone remember the old Danny Thomas story about his Uncle Tenouse and the “Apple pie and coffee”?
Posted by Taurus689 at 12:32 AM on April 18
They can’t get rid of Affirmative Action now. That would mean that they’d have to ease up on the anti-white brainwashing. Which is certainly not going to happen.
No way! Not a chance.
If anything the racist anti-white indoctrination is only going to become more intense. Especially as we start to see higher levels of resource competition among the races.
Our wonderful “leaders” will be forced to do this if they want to maintain control of power.
Posted by Sean O'Casey at 1:36 AM on April 18
from the article - (Hillary quote)”We do have a real gap. We have a gap in achievement. We have a gap in income. But we don’t have a potential gap.”
So IQ is irrelevant to ones potential? Mrs. Clinton needs to get a better less liberally biased education.
Posted by Robert at 7:49 AM on April 18
It would certainly look good on Hillary if she lost to a Black, after spending her whole life promoting programs that were basically harmful to Whites. I wonder what she and the, “First Black president,” think when they see the Black support going to the Black candidate?
Posted by Louis from Montreal at 7:57 AM on April 18
All this “aid” is why college is so expensive.
Balderdash. Harvard is no doubt atypical, but let’s use it as an example anyway; Harvard could set tuition at $0 and still make far more per student per year than it needed to cover expenses, because of its titanic endowment. I doubt this is an isolated example, either.
Posted by Svigor at 10:43 AM on April 18
The Occidental Observer has a good column on this debate. It’s essentially white pressure by proxy coming to bear on Obama.
Posted by Hugh Lincoln at 2:24 PM on April 18
“This country should no longer exist in its present form”
This GOVERNMENT should no longer exist in its present form
Is a country the same as the government?
Posted by talululullah bankhead at 2:40 PM on April 18
Just read it:
http://paleoconservatist.blogspot.com/2008/05/technology-misconstruct-saving-americas.html
^Don’t argue just read it.
Posted by Unemployed WASP at 3:17 PM on April 18
With Obama’s ties to black racists, Million Man Marches, white crooks, and white terrorists, how can one trust ANYTHING that comes from his mouth. I like him as I like all three candidates, but trust Obama - NO WAY.
Posted by Elrey Jones at 6:28 PM on April 18
I understand that there are voters who actually think
that Obama would end racial preferences if he were elected.
What nonsense!
Posted by Larry at 10:52 PM on April 18
Both are elitists, snobs with a Communist/Socialist agenda for the rest of us. And John McCain is not that far behind. It is absolutely conscionable that this is all we have to chose from for candidates for the highest office in this country. THIS IS IT!!! A half black, with a serious hate whitey chip on his shoulder, a woman who lies everytime she opens her mouth and an elderly, illegal immigrant loving bafoon, who happened to spend 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton.
Two avowed Socialists and one would be Socialist, all living the highlife off the over taxed legal citizens of this country, spouting their propaganda over and over and over.
As much as I hate to admit, it I am seriously thinking about either sitting this November election out or going into the voting booth and writing in a name. I CANNOT cast my precious vote for a Communist or a Communist or a Communist.
Posted by Gayle Sollenberger at 11:08 AM on April 19
There is an obvious trend that shows the efforts of liberals, socialists, and egalitarians have repeatedly backfired over the last 40+ years.
In the first place, the great social experiment, dubbed “the civil rights movement”, which was embraced whole-heartedly by White liberals and socialists in the 60s, backfired. Result? Their children paid an enormous price by having to endure a lifetime of forced desegregation, mandatory affirmative action, and pressured participation in a steadily declining society that was reduced to its lowest common denominators; namely Blacks, third-world immigrants, and illegal invaders.
Secondly, socialists like Hillary Rodham Clinton helped to advance numerous laws and policies that created artificial parity between the races by solidifying multiculturalism and diversity as the religion of Liberal Democrats. Result? Their efforts backfired by producing an artificial climate in which a lesser man like Barack Obama stands on the verge of defeating the very person who advanced and championed his unnatural rise to relevancy.
Finally, Corporate America and the U.S. government have worked tirelessly for over 40 years to produce an artificial climate where wealth is systematically redistributed from responsible, White taxpayers, through the hands of minorities, and into the hands of Corporate America and politicians. Result? Their efforts have backfired and many of the corporations, along with the government and our society, stand on the precipice of social and financial ruin as America degrades and Balkanizes into a third-world sewer.
The message is abundantly clear. Every metric in existence confirms that multiculturalism does not work, diversity is a weakness, not a strength, and responsible Whites have been forced to participate in a failed social experiment spanning over 40 years.
Posted by at 11:48 PM on April 19
Unemployed Wasp, Paleo-Conservative: Good website.
The one, most important thing that will be “qualified” eventually is that the innovation of whites will never be matched by any other race. Asians are highly qualified immitators but they are not innovators. Big difference, and unfortunately, what this little gem of a planet needs now is not several billion immitators but more innovators—else, in all my pessimism, it is the “end of the world as we know it”. Case closed.
Posted by at 12:19 PM on April 20