Talk:Harold Ford, Jr.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Harold Ford, Jr. is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category."
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low."
??? This article has not yet been assigned a subject.
The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."
Tennessee
Portal
Harold Ford, Jr. is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member.
[Watch Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Template Usage]
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.

Possibly someone should mention that he was one of People Magazine's 50 mos beautiful people one year? Only Congressperson to ever achieve that, although it means absolutely nothing and I hate People, as it's not really literature; it's like TV on paper, only more crappy. Still, it's something.

Contents

[edit] Pro-growth?

Certainly one can argue that the "Blue Dogs" and the "New Democrats" are pro-growth, but how can anyone attach desription that to the Congressional Black Caucus? What have they ever done to show themselves to be "pro-growth"? Rlquall 02:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What exactly does "pro-growth" mean, anyway? Would you say that the black caucus is "anti-growth" or "pro-stagnation"? - Jersyko talk 01:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Ford: A Liberal?

The part about Ford's moderate voting record, in spite of charges that he is a liberal, is misworded IMO. The dominant consensus is that Ford is a moderate or 'centrist', as opposed to a doctrinaire liberal democrat. Indeed, his prominence in organizations with a reputation for moderation and centrism, such as the "New Democrat" & "Blue Dog" coalitions would give cover to this assertion. Charges of liberalism would be heterodox to the consensus; and should be framed that way.

The entry should be changed to something that states that Ford is considered a moderate in his party, and indeed he belongs to several coalitions within the supposed moderate or centrist wing of the party; although some charge that his voting record is little different from those of his more avowedly liberal colleagues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustin Ridgeway (talk • contribs)

The New American's Conservative Index ranks him a little higher than the average congressman.[1] The ranking for the most recent review gave him a 44 with a overall congressional average of 36. --Kalmia 08:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
To quote a recent Time Magazine article: "The Congressman who is running to replace retiring Bill Frist as Senator from Tennessee has voted to outlaw gay marriage and to repeal the estate tax, and wants to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning. He supports getting rid of the handgun ban in the nation's capital and says the Ten Commandments should be posted in courtrooms around his state. He favors school prayer, argues that more troops should have been sent to Iraq and wants to seal the border with Mexico." [2]. That doesn't sound like a liberal to me. -- Sholom 04:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
He's certainly not a liberal. But, with Tennessee now somewhat strongly red, it's rather unsurprising. One thing is certain, however—Ford is more of a moderate than his 2006 Senate opponent. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Possibly because his opponent is a complete right-wing nutjob. Whoops! --Ademska 05:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Seems like only yesterday Corker was a lilly-livered moderate running against two staunch conservatives for the GOP nomination, eh? Danthemankhan 02:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Blogs as Factual Reference

The Rasmussen poll regarding a percentage of people who say their family or friends would voted for Ford because of race is hearsay. It's poll of hearsay. Smacks of propaganda.

The www.fancyford.com reference should be kept, no argument there, but RNC didn't fund the site--a GOP senate committee did--could be a matter of semantics.

"which critics have derided as racist" is a lie. You site two sources, both of which are blogs, one blog is quoted below, the other blog make no reference to racism whatsoever.


"Elizabeth Dole is a racist Posted by Jesse on March 10, 2006

Check out FancyFord.com, a racist attack site created by the National Republican Senatorial Committee to oppose Rep. Harold Ford, Jr., who’s running for Senate in Tennessee.

What’s the message behind this site? The line of white women on the front page, the fact that it highlights his attendance at NBA All Star events featuring Biz Markie, the emphasis on opulence all combine to portray Ford as a pimp. The site tries to be subtle in its racism, but it fails.

Elizabeth Dole is the chair of the NRSC. If this is the kind of trash she’s pushing in her tenure, then she should be forced out of the Senate. It’s disgusting."


Blogs are not valid reference material and neither is the poll reference to hearsay.

Please edit today or I will, thanks. Scribner 18:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  • When one of the blogs in question is hosted and written by writers for The New Republic, however, you're not dealing with a run-of-the-mill blog. After reading the post again, while there is not explicit charge of racism, TNR does say the following: "the NRSC is basically portraying Ford as a black pimp. The picture of the Playboy playmates--all of whom, natch, are white--is a particularly nasty touch." It seems clear that TNR is, at the least, pointing out that NRSC (National Republican Senate Committee) is playing the race card. Perhaps the wording should be changed from "racist," but I think the sentence should stay. Rasmussen, if I'm not mistaken, is a somewhat well-respected polling organization. Yes, I agree the polling method was probably flawed, but the result mentioned in the article was mentioned in the poll's published results. - Jersyko·talk 21:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Your reference is not to the TRN, it's to a blog called, "The Plank". The Plank does not say "the NRSC is basically portraying Ford as a black pimp" as you claim. The Plank does say, "As Jesse Berney (whose post I found via Atrios) points out, the NRSC is basically portraying Ford as a black pimp."

You're using two left wing blogs and a Rasmussen poll of what people think other people think as a claim of racism and slander (black pimp). No way. Also, Ford did visit the Playboy mansion and the vast majority of Playmates are white. I'm white and "black pimp" never crossed my mind.

What did cross my mind is exactly what the GOP senate claims on the site's front page, "Makes you wonder what the folks back in TN think."

It's mudslinging politics, I'll agree with both blogs on that note.Scribner 00:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


  • But "The Plank" is The New Republic's blog, see the magazine's homepage and the link to the blog on the right. The New Republic's logo is also in the top left corner on the post's permalink page. Regardless of whether the thought of Ford as "black pimp" based on the pictures crossed your mind, it's absolutely clear that (1) it crossed the non-notable blogger's mind (Jesse whatever) and (2) it is agreed to by The New Republic writer. Also, regardless of whether the TNR writer got the idea from the non-notable blogger or not, it's obvious that he agrees with the sentiment. I completely agree that the website is mudslinging and is most likely designed to, in part, get some rednecks here in TN (I'm a Tennesseean myself) riled up about Ford, either as "black pimp", lavish spender, closet homosexual, or some other unknown slander. It's completely ridiculous mudslinging. But it is notable enough to (1) mention the website here and (2) mention the reaction of at least one notable writer to the website. Finally, the Rasmussen poll information was in the article before anything about fancyford.com was added. I don't really see that there's supposed to be a connection between the poll results and the website in the article. To minimize this, perhaps a different paragraph could be written to describe the Rasmussen results, which are actually more varied and interesting than the one "13%" result. Thoughts? - Jersyko·talk 23:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


The poll was in the same paragraph--which begins: "The subject of race comes into play in the election, with a Rasmussen poll..." I've never seen a "he said she thinks poll", never. Subjective and unscientific--if there is race in the election a poll didn't introduce it, it's 100% subjective.
With regard to the "black pimp", lavish spender, closet homosexual", items-- all I saw was lavish spender. Most politicians are. Ford comes from a wealthy family. That was the target of the smear, and there was something about a pedicure (whatever in my book). More mud yes, but not racist, nor black pimp.
Anyway, the DSCC has responded with this site and that's an update from Jesse whatevers blog. Mud begets mud.
The blogs are biased for use of a claim of racism, or implied racism (black pimp).
Why not call it what it is, mudslinging started by the GOP senators, which will likely backfire because Americans are tired of petty politics...can't debate the issues...etc.Scribner 00:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Race Poll Justifiable

First off, the poll was done by Rasmussen, which predicted the 2004 presidential election to within .5% of the vote. It is a very reliable and trustworthy pollster which is generally considered conservative leaning, if anything. It asked a simple question and got a simple answer. How is it unscientific? And how are you to decide that? Wikipedia article clearly use rasmussen's polls, proven by the fact that the polls are used when discussing the senate election itself. So we can only use the ones you like but not the ones you don't? What's your criteria for using a poll. It's scientific by Rasmussen sometimes but not other times?

Not your job to decide. It goes back in. --69.249.195.232 08:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 9th district race

As an anon has said, this doesn't belong in an article about Ford. It should all go in the district's article. Harro5 04:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ideally there should be an article about each congressional (400+) race, every even year. Given that the articles on 34 U.S. Senate seats being contested this year are not exactly robust, it's probably unrealistic to expect articles on 400+ House races in 2006. Maybe in 2008 when there are two or three or four times as many wikipedia editors.
I've shortened the section, but I think it should stay in. Otherwise, the information isn't in wikipedia at all. John Broughton 12:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'll write the article this afternoon.  :) - Jersyko·talk 14:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Harro5 about the placement of the information. There should also be mention of Joe Ford, Jr. Scribner 23:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I wrote a brief article on the 9th and merged the information on the election that was in this article into that one. - Jersyko·talk 00:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seat history

Blueboy96 noted "Added seat history, since it looks like it can't be done on district pages". [[User:Jersyko|Jersyko}} removed it, saying "who says it can't be done on district pages? isn't there already a 9th District article with this information?".

My response? I took the info from Blueboy96's revision, and put it into the Tennessee's 9th congressional district's article. I think it's a nice touch, actually. -- Sholom 18:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Blueboy96 had that information on the Tennessee's 9th congressional district page as the only history of that district so I edited it to reflect the actual history of the 9th district which is not always in Memphis due to redistricting. I've been trying to standardize the district pages and the general consensus has been to follow the history of the district as it was numbered regardless of where it existed geographically. I hadn't thought of putting both sets of information on the same page but I think for now it'll work so long as it's clear which list of representatives refers to the 9th district throughout time and which refers to Memphis' district throughout time though I think a split into two different pages is ideal in the long run. - Bjoel5785 15:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family History

A brief history of Congressman Ford's family is warranted in this article, at best. The family legal problems are not the cause of Harold Ford, Jr. and shouldn't be adressed in his article. If it's decided to keep the family legal problems in his artcle, then let's keep the history factual and watch NPOV--Ophelia Ford was not stripped of her seat. (large can of worms with that statement) The election was voided. End of story.--Scribner 19:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed for the most part. I don't have a problem with mentioning the family's legal woes in this article, but you're right in pointing out that they shouldn't be hashed out here. Big red herring, imo. - Jersyko·talk 20:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interviews with Harold Ford, Jr.

Below are links to radio interviews with Harold Ford, Jr. on local Tennessee radio shows. http://www.southernrootsradio.com/sounds/ford2-23-06.mp3 http://www.eddieconner.net/sounds/HF02-13-06.mp3 http://www.southernrootsradio.com/sounds/HFord3-23-06.mp3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.83.130.158 (talk • contribs) .

If you would like to include a link in the article, please provide a link to the website page(s) on which the links to these interviews appear. I think users would appreciate that link more than they would a simple list of MP3s with little to no context. Thanks! · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 20:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikiracism continues,...

mine:

The latter commercial has a series of people pretending to be average Americans, average Tennesseeans, mockingly complimenting Mr. Ford, with what are obviously actually insults. This version has been presented by Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!, & by Chris Matthews, MSNBC; both of these have described this version as very racist. The Playboy party woman, very blond Aryan in appearance, is shown twice from shoulders-up, no visible clothes. The second time she says "Harold, call me," as she pantomimes a telephone receiver. Many people interpret these images to Jump Jim Crow. Mr. Matthews has mentioned the Southern strategy, and how this alludes to Southerners' historical terror that "white women" might perceive "black men" as attractive, potentially leading to "race mixing".

someone else':

Ford later admitted he was at the party, saying that he likes "football and girls" and makes no apology for either.[3] Corker condemned the second RNC ad, calling it "tacky" and stating that his campaign has asked to have it pulled.[4]

mine:

Mr. Matthews has challenged Mr. Corker, as well as Tony Snow, to act to have the Playboy reference commercial cancelled; he has posited that Ken Mehlman has engineered these images.

Comments about handicappism, other racism, tend to get deleted, w/ no reason, no explanation.

I have learned much from wikipedia through the past few years; however, the racism is thick & plentiful.

Humanity is doing a rather bad job running itself, unless it's trying to run itself into the ground.

I do wonder which racism is worse. Despite my ambivalence, I do want each to end.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 06:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand the racism charges, whomever they're leveled against. Regardless, we need sources for claims in our aritlces. I live in Memphis, so I've seen the damn Playboy ad more than a dozen times now. But in order to describe it in the way you have, we need a reliable source to cite to in the article text. For example, the phrase "Many people interpret these images to Jump Jim Crow" is uncited. If many people do so, shouldn't it be easy to cite a newspaper article or the like doing just that? The problem is prevalent throughout the paragraph. Just cite your sources and the paragraph will be fine. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


"aritlce"?

"...damn Playboy ad,..." Such diminishment of the racism concept; you really do not comprehend the complaint {??}.

Where I use "quotation-marks", I, generally, usually, would have a "direct-quote" available. Where I don't, I'm likely paraphrasing. Learn paraphrase.

However, even quotes can be used to paraphrase, where the context implies that the usage is very individualized, not generally accepted, & where it is emphasized.

However, in either case, I'm certain that Amy Goodman & Chris Matthews had employed various derivatives of "race", "racial", "racism", "racist", et al. That, I can absolutely guarantee.

Mr. Matthews' expressions exhibited a, likely, physical pain during this discussion. I do not know why; but, this was very close to his most emotional display, on either of his shows, yet. This time, it was him, not a panelist, individually, visibly, demonstrating the emotion.

One of a very few more emotional shows had been in 2004; however, in that case, it was not Chris individually. Then, it had been Sen. Zell Miller's veins & arteries bulging as he had described duelism {not dualism; although he, obviously, believes in this even moreso}.

If you sincerely do not comprehend racism, then that is a partial explanation as to why you do not comprehend Jim Crow as a synonym. That, further, exemplifies weaklypædia's thus far incapability to confront racism, nor its subset, handicappism. It, as well, exemplifies the similar of humanity. I could, certainly, conceive as macaca emerging as not merely a racist accusation, but, also, a "racism" synonym, as macacaism.

Mr. Corker has a radio commercial with "jungle music", as well {i. e.: "Tarzan"}.

How can that refer to anything other than Africa? Do you think that he's referring to South America?

Claire McCaskill has an advertizement starring Michael Andrew Fox; Jim Talent has responded with several celebrities, including Patricia Helen Heaton. Chris has said that he has "no idea" who that is. That does cause me to wonder whether his television can tune cbs. There is much that I do like about her; but, I do dispute her insinuation in this commercial.

So, I have a complaint [each] about Mr. Matthews, as well as Ms. Heaton, both arising today.

Rush Limbaugh's comments about this have been very handicappist.

wikipedia : Reliable_sources:

"...not set in stone and should be treated with common sense,..."

Is it weaklypædia policy that television is irrelevant? That Judith_Miller_(journalist) or New York Times must certify everything?

Everything there happened on msnbc & worldlink.

Thank You.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 02:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you'd be better served by being a bit more brief in your comments here and not using so many wikilinks. Aside from that, my point is that the text you added was not referenced. No, TV is not irrelevant, but claims made in our articles must be referenced such that a reader can easily determine what the sources of those claims are. The added text contained no such references. See WP:CITE for more. But perhaps most important is the fact that this paragraph no longer exists in this article, as it really exploded in national media, and it is now in the TN 2006 Senate election article. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

an editor commented: "the source doesn't say anything about a "distastefully lavish lifestyle", only endorsements from people in L.A.; and i'm not sure wiki should be cataloguing every repub attack as a "criticism" of ford)"

You might want to check out the Corker article and see if you have the same reaction about Dem attacks being catalogued on Wikipedia. As for the reverted bit about Ford Sr.'s use of a racist term, it certainly belongs in the article due to the issue made of race during the campaign. I'll find a suitable source & reinsert. Dubc0724 22:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Did he say cracker or tracker? Good luck putting your pov in the article. Jasper23 22:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Everyone knows he said "cracker". I suppose you also believe that George Allen thought "macaca" and "mohawk" were the same word? Dubc0724 13:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, everyone "knows". Good call on that one. Jasper23 19:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
But the controversy section in the Corker article is sourced entirely to newspaper articles, and it's not even stuff that has been discussed, as far as I know, in Dem advertisements. In other words, it's possible but doubtful that the Dems originated the criticism. The "fancy ford" criticism did not originate in news reports, but rather in a political ad (the RSCC website). That's the relevant distinction, I think (the origin of the criticism), and why I said that Wikipedia shouldn't be cataloguing attack ads by Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter). If we did, we'd have to include every innuendo contained in numerous advertisements in both Ford and Corker's articles, wouldn't we? Finally, we need a reliable source to include the Ford Sr. comment in this article. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment above.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 02:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopædia should be a "newspaper", but, from a more historical perspective,.... therefore, a more longterm view.

Certainly, it should endeavor to be, to te extent feasible:

True, factual;

Fair, to various opponents, on any relevant issue;

Balanced, in that the various perspectives should be given as much space as feasible. It is improbable to completely avoid value judgement. Claiming to be objective does not make it true; people who claim objectivity, generally are not. Where an author recognizes subjectivity she/he should admit it. Weaklypædia rarely admits that truth.

It has dipped its toe into campaign advertizing all the way up to its forehead. When someone wants to kill something that they do not agree with, they often jump to objectivity, or some other such rule. For me, the objectivity should rely heavily on balance.

Has this website suddenly run-out of space?

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 03:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're advocating. Are you saying that Wikipedia should, in fact, discuss each and every political advertisement attack ad in articles about political candidates? · j e r s y k o talk · 03:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
No, but it should not ignore criticism of one candidate while trumpeting the criticism of another. Dubc0724 13:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 :::Thank You. That does support some of what I've written. Also, not having so much tendency to employ wikiregulation to kill mention of racism. &, learning "Jim Crow", & "handicappism {although that word is not relevant on this specific debate about commercials;

it, however, is one of the consistent battles in which I engage, on this website. Handicappism is a subset of racism}".

Thank You.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 13:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This edit conflict program frequently halts my writing, then, I'm not certain what to do.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 13:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


The controversy section in Corker's article is thoroughly sourced, and the controversy section in this article as it stands is as well. We have to source criticism properly. Do you disagree? · j e r s y k o talk · 13:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment...not directed at anyone. An observation. I find it fascinating that, almost without exception, Republican candidates always tend to have more in the "controversies" section. While they may be sourced, and accurate, I don't believe relative completeness (thus fairness) is given to both sides. Some will probably claim "That's because all Republicans are corrupt!" or rubbish like that. Wikipedia does have an intrinsic bias, and I'm not sure yet if it's liberal or not. But it's there. This bias seems to cause more people to update the Republican controversies than Democrat ones. I will say that on national, presidential races, the coverage is probably more fair, as in the case of Kerry and Bush. Doctorcherokee 22:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I recently heard that there is a racist political advertisement against Harold Ford, Jr., run by Bob Corker. That is ridiculous! I am strong opponent of racism. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 07:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Senate Race

The text states "If elected, Ford would be the first African-American Senator from the South since Reconstruction and the first popularly elected in United States history." Actually, Edward Brooke of Massachusetts was the first popularly elected African-American senator, in 1966, followed by Carol Moseley Braun, in 1992. If the intent is that Ford is the first African-American elected as a Senator from the South, the line is misleading and needs to be rewritten. J5cochran 06:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"From the South" is the relevant qualifier, I think, though I didn't add that particular sentence. It should probably be reworded for clarity. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


I must say how important that "fact" is. It really deserves to be in the article, because that's all that really matters. Any person that is not white, we have to give their racial makeup (which usually isn't the right classification if I might say so myself *not sarcasm*) and unneeded qualifiers. /sarcasm 216.229.196.116 17:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The claim that Ford would be the first black senator popularly elected

I have to take issue with that.

Barack Obama --GoHawks4 06:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the wording (somewhat sloppily) says that he will be the first ever black senator popularly elected from the Southern United States, which is what the sentence refers to. I'll tweak the wording unless this is incorrect. Harro5 07:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Please add Harold Ford, Jr. to a Chrstian politican category. Harold Ford, Jr. is a very devout Christian and his political stances on inspired by Jesus Christ. 75.2.250.145 03:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If elected

I suggest that this highly uneeded (and inaccurate in my opinion) qualifier not be added in the first paragraph.

  • If elected, Ford would be the first African-American Senator from the South since the end of Reconstruction, and the first such Senator popularly elected in United States history. Shakam 06:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the qualifier "would" implies that it is not certain, and "If elected" is indeed irrelevant. Stealthound 06:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Not what I was aiming for, but uhmm.... Well, I was talking about attributing his "African-Americaness" achievement to Senator. (that qualifier) Shakam 07:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been widely reported and repeated in media. What do you find incorrect about the statement? · j e r s y k o talk · 14:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "african american"?

he's not really black. is he multiracial or something? Joeyramoney 01:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

He is, but people get ticky when you try to change things dealing with African-American identified multiracials. Just take a look at the Barack Obama talk page (the archived section as well. Shakam 06:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

if he is biracial it is innacurate and biased to only mention his black heritage. 67.172.61.222 21:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debate?

The page says this "NBC's Meet the Press extended an invitation for the candidates to debate on the nationally-televised show in January 2006"

Why would there be a candidate debate in January? That must be wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eric.thomas (talk • contribs).

The open invitation was extended in Jan. 2006. The debate was to happen anytime thereafter. I'll change the wording accordingly. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organization

In order to be effective, the House of Representatives section needs to be categorized via year since the subject of the article has served for ten years. Real96 01:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minute Details

The grammar is a little wordy in this article. Maybe if the sentences were to be cut short as well as correct tense structure, then the article would be fine. Also, some of the references don't work. The original author should have cited the references via date, instead of placing "just links." Real96 08:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)