大象传媒

Ford is a DiNO - Democrat in Name Only. I feel very conflicted because of course I want him to win as a Democrat, but I want conservatives to lose...and he's both. Ugh.

I agree with Shawn 100%. A vote for Corker is a vote for Bush and I am not sold on Ford. At this point the only reason I will vote for Ford is to help the Democrats win control of the Senate. I consider myself a liberal democrat. I want to like Ford, I really do, but his politics are more moderate Right than left.

He also a lifetime politician, at least Corker has some experience with life, family and business. I think that is important life experience that Ford is lacking.

Your last comment hit the nail on the head Claire, and that is why I will probably vote for him.

I am a bit confused. What is it that qualifies a candidate as black? What percentage of one has to be white to be called white and equally what percentage does one have to be black to be called black? Does a speck of black means one is black? I find this interesting - referring to somebody as Black Democrat. Well big deal! Nearly 93% of Black Americans are democrats, and just a few are republicans.

Americans don't say, "too right."

I can't help but laugh at the "a vote for Bush" comment that Mike wrote. Is it honestly always a comparison with Bush whenever a conservative runs?

So silly.

Claire, I enjoy listening to you but as a native Bostonian who lived in Nashville TN for 4 years, I have to question a Tennessee native using the term "too right". This is an Brit expression. But using semi true anectodes to make a point, make one wonder what other twists you may be making to the facts. Please don't contribute to the culture of urban myth that put Mr. Bush back in the Whitehouse in the first place.

An interesting character, this Harold Ford guy. Tonight I had an argument with one of my Introduction to the Principles of Journalism class, with the student, a serviceman-in-training insisting that Mr. Ford was a Republican because my student, apparently, could not differentiate Mr. Ford's agenda from that of the largely "anti-Black Republicans.'"

Politics, indeed, makes such strange bed-fellows! Could really contradict that?

Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Garden City, New York.

First, liberal Democrats do not exist in Tennessee. No doubt they will invade sooner or later, but right now they are not here in large numbers. So who cares what they think? I also find it amazing how bbcnews has failed to mention that our conservative governor Phil Bredeson is a Democrat and is leading 57% over Bryson's 37%.

Second, the CNN poll I just saw shows Corker at 52% to Ford's 44% among likely voters. An huge jump in Corker's lead since last week. I guess that means a few liberal media lapdogs opinions don't count for much here.

Third, if Mike and Shawn thinks that Ford comes off as a Republican, then it is because the Democratic party has left Ford, not the other way around. The same thing that has caused many Democrats to find a home in the Republican party with John McCain.

Well, I guess Mr Ford is as much a Democrat as he is black. Still better than nothing.

Harold Ford comes from a fairly suspect political family in Memphis, the rough end of this state. He is too glib by far, despite his populist statements in what is a very conservative state. The danger of a vote for Ford is that the Democrats will win the Senate as well as the House. Who wants Howard Dean and John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi dictating the governing of this country? Only a fool. Corker, however has an enviable track record in Chattanooga and is honest.

I was actually one of the lucky 100 or so students who were able to attend the the final senatorial debate. I must admit that I came into the debate in favor of Corker, as I consider him the lesser of two evils. Ford is clearly the more charismatic of the two, and the better speaker. But, I was disappointed with his performance. Claire said that the woman would probably vote for Ford to bolster the Democratic presence within Congress. However, this is precisely one of the problems that I see- people no longer look at the candidates as an individual, rather only which party they would be representing. Ford constantly made jabs at Corker for being a member of the Republican party, never adequately discussing the candidate himself. I found a problem with this.

To respond to Confused in Clerendon: The big deal is that Ford would be the first Black Southerner elected to the Senate since Reconstruction, which to many is a big deal. Ford's race excites many people's, just as Barack Obama's does in Illinois. But as for the fact that most blacks are Democrats, I would like to point out something amusing: right before the debate, at the rally before the debate in support of Corker, there was a black man, an Al Roker look-alike, leading many of the cheers. It made me smile :-)

"3. At 10:49 PM on 31 Oct 2006, Confused in Clarendon wrote:
I am a bit confused. What is it that qualifies a candidate as black?"

It's all to do with the One-drop theory. If you have one drop of black blood in you, you're black. The minority ethnicity always supercedes the majority.

It's in liberals' interest to maintain a black constituency, because as you point out, the majority of black people vote Democrat. So this is why they are strong proponents of the one-drop theory.

Opponents would argue that it's just another form of segregation. Keep a certain section of society seperate, tell them that they're victims and tell them it's the GOPs fault.

I've never understood how this switch happened. Martin Luther King Jnr was Republican, a lot of Black people were back then. JFK would never have been able to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act if it wasn't for the Republicans. Eighty percent of Reps that voted said Aye, only 60% of Dems said Aye, and this was when the Dems held the House 60/40.

Why do reports like this always have to point out that the person is BLACK? Does the reporter have an issue with the color of the person? Why is it so important to mention?

As regard to Ford, anyone who votes for someone who supports Bush's view on how to treat terror suspects is a traitor to the United States Constitution.

I hope each one who votes for him one day finds themselves locked in a jail without any access to a lawyer or a court to review their case.

I voted for a Democratic majority, not for Harold Ford. I had to hold my nose, since both are pandering to conservatives.

To answer Rob's question: Yes.

Sean wrote: ...if Mike and Shawn thinks that Ford comes off as a Republican, then it is because the Democratic party has left Ford, not the other way around.

Yes, Sean. It's true that many in the Democratic party have moved on from the 1950s.

USLexicon: "Who wants Howard Dean and John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi dictating the governing of this country? Only a fool."

I would rather be thought a fool by fools than to abandon rational thought to become one.

Re DJM #14 on MLKing : you have blindly parrotted a junk ad from National Black Republican Association and the latest slimy GOP INFOTWISTING : anyone can check the facts with a few cliks 鈥� Bush hasn鈥檛 deprived us of that YET.

Here鈥檚 the link to 10/19/06 WAPO article dbunking this (and by inference, the rest of your KKKkooky theory):
Brief pertinent excerpt:
Assertion About Civil Rights Leader Angers Liberals -- and Conservatives
鈥�"To suggest that Martin could identify with a party that affirms preemptive, predatory war, and whose religious partners hint that God affirms war and favors the rich at the expense of the poor, is to revile Martin," said the Rev. Joseph Lowery, the former president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which the slain civil rights leader helped establish.鈥�
鈥淭he younger King voted for Kennedy, and for Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson four years later. In that election, King publicly denounced the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater.鈥�

The historical reason for Black Republicanism is that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, a newly formed party that splintered from the Whigs.
Back then, Republicans were, well..."Lincolnesque", if you will. They were the liberals.
But times change. And party ideologies change with them. By the '50s, Republicans had turned into a bunch of self serving control freaks, epitomized by the likes of Joe McCarthy, Little Rock, Nixon, and so on. Lincolnesque? NOT.
Meanwhile, the Democrats had morphed into the liberal people's party iconized by the Kennedys and Johnson (Okay, LBJ was a control freak, too, but at least he understood the human condition, and served it as best he could). Because of their efforts for civil rights, Blacks jumped ship en masse to embrace this new political fresh air and have never looked back.
Any attempt to associate MLK Jr with 21st century Republicanism is manipulative, absurd and an affront to both decency and intellect.
The Democratic party has morphed as well in those years, and has become, lately, almost as insufferable as Republicans. But until such time as a more unifying ideology appears over this great land, I grudgingly believe the democrats have a better chance of pulling this country out of its nosedive than the republicans either can or will.

Ford will lose. Reason: He's Black. Note: Ford's numbers dropped after the Republicans ran the ad implying that Ford will sleep with white women. Tenn. still has more than enough bigots(most Republicans and more than a few Dems) that will NOT vote for a Black no matter where they stand on the issues. period. end of story. I don't think your 大象传媒 reporter is very familiar with rural America.

I have followed this debate with much interest, after having lived in Memphis, TN for 10.5 years. And as always it did not take long -starting with the third (!) comment, the debate turned to race. It exemplifies the one thing that has always struck me - for as long as we still focus on race (any race) as a major political focal point in Tennessee there will be no progress. In a state in which every debate is ruled by race issues there will be no advance.
How about debating the degrading and nauseating (anti-Ford) ad launched by the Republicans? How about debating Hendrik Hertzberg's comments on Ford in the latest The New Yorker issue?

I used to despise the narrowness of debate and how it limits everything and everyone - today, as I have moved away, I feel sorry for Tennessee.