Am I the only one who thinks putting a woman or a black man in for our

[Sperk]

candidate in 2008 would be a huge mistake? I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I don't think the country is willing (not yet anyway) to have a black person or a woman for President. I think it would be a huge hurdle to have to overcome and I think DIEBOLD and their switch voting software is enough of a problem without adding another.

flame away?

BTW I'm a white woman in my 40's and would have NO problem voting for either one of them but.....I don't think a lot of Americans are there yet.

[kimmerspixelated]

1. We would've been there if the clock and progress

and our constitution hadn't been set back say 40 years or so by the Neocons!!!

[fooj]

2. If we don't win the 2006 Election we may not have to worry about 2008.

Focus on the prize. That's 2006.

[napi21]

3. I think we should let anyone who wants to run vie in the Primary,

and let the voters decide. So far, I honestly think the top communicators we've seen so far to express interest in running as a Dem has been Hillary and Barack.

It's too soon to tell who is going to run, let alone how they are going to do on the campaign trail.

Calm down. Wait and see what happens over the next 6 to 12 months.

The 06 elections are 2 weeks away! Let's WIN THEN first!

[Clark2008]

67. The problem is that voters in Dem primaries ARE more

enlightened and won't see the mistake their enlightenment has wrought until the general election - when MORE Americans foot off to the polls than they do in primaries.

There are tons of people who would vote Democratic if it were a white male, but not for a female or a person of color.

How sad - isn't it?

[hlthe2b]

4. After the sheer incompetency of this crowd of white males?

I'd say the public might well be primed for major changes-- if the candidate exudes intelligence, competency, vision, character, etc...

[Sperk]

12. logic does not seem to work in our favor.

n/t

[Demit]

5. Maybe you're wrong. You are presuming to speak for an awfully lot of people

There has to be a time eventually. If you are always afraid, change doesn't happen.

[Sperk]

13. of course I could be wrong. I just think as humans we sometimes forget

that a lot of people don't think like we do, i.e. "judge a man(woman) by the content of his(her) character"

[unpossibles]

6. I say let the people decide

I do think that bigotry still strongly exists (sadly - I mean, look how much Hillary and Pelosi scare them!). I do think the most interesting Presidential race would be Hillary vs. Condi - imagine freeper heads exploding all over the country as they try to decide who they'd vote for. Yeah, they'd pick Condi because she's an incompetent evil liar, which makes her the perfect R candidate, but... I bet a lot of them would stay home or vote Libertarian.

[Catchawave]

7. P.R.I.M.A.R.I.E.S.

Let the people decide. :hi:

[Stand and Fight]

8. I'm getting sick of this crap on this board...

Every several days lately someone posts their thinly disguised opinions on this matter, and as a black male in my late 20's it has gotten old fast. As usual, it is followed by the words, "would have no problem voting for...but...".

Why not just precede such statements with, "I'm not a racist or anything, but..."? This is sickening and very tiresome. Has anyone of the so-called progressives who post this drivel ever heard of elections? You know blacks are going to get tired of being treated as election day tools by this party! It is beyond time for a change.

EDIT: To spell check...

[Sperk]

11. I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's true. I would not have a problem

voting for a minority. You'll just have to take my word for that, seeing as you don't know me. But I still think the reality of the situation is that it would be a disadvantage.

[Stand and Fight]

15. Well....

You don't overcome a disadvantage or challenge by avoiding it. You overcome such things by confronting them straight on, and going up against it again-and-again until you are victorious. Perhaps the goal is not for a woman or minority to be elected right away, but to make the path all the less riddled with obstacles for future FIGHTERS.

Good grief... Thank God some of you folks weren't around during the Civil Rights era. That would have been a whopping failure for sure.

[Sperk]

21. I agree about how change must come about....but I think your forgetting

my original post about how we have a huge strike against us already with having to win by a HUGE margin to over come Repug repulsive tactics. That's all.

[Der Blaue Engel]

22. Please don't assume the OP is speaking for the rest of us

It would be a shame if such divisive posts succeeded in dividing us. Some of "those folks" actually were around during the Civil Rights, but thank goodness there were so many of the rest of the folks who "got it."

[Skittles]

47. hey Sperk

women and minorities ARE THE MAJORITY

[beaconess]

24. Hear hear

I notice that this argument only seems to come up when a Black or female candidate seems poised to actually make it into the serious ranks. I didn't hear much discussion about whether America was ready for a Black president when Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Doug Wilder, Alan Keyes, Liddy Dole, Carol Moseley Braun or Al Sharpton ran for president - I think it's because they were not considered serious contenders. Yet when two potential candidates who are generally seen as formidable and viable stick their toes in the water, folks start wringing their hands about whether "America" (never themselves) is "ready." The very fact that they are being taken seriously should be proof that maybe America IS ready - or at least can be made ready in time to elect one of them.

[Sperk]

29. that's only because the others were not really considered to be able

to win the primaries, so people would didn't get worried about losing too many votes in the general election.

[Poll_Blind]

27. I'm not even a minority and I'm getting sick of it too. (WARNING)

It's kind of ironic to see things like "Hey, I'd vote for a black person or woman...but I don't think the rest of America is ready for it."

Number 1: I think it's interesting, the level of certainty that some of the posters have that America "wouldn't be ready for it"

Number 2: Since when is anyone supposed to influence others on some shady, nebulous, "understanding" of what other Americans are or are not ready to accept. In a free country, you vote for damn well who you want. The reason this upsets me is what if the best candidate is black or a woman...but America's not ready for their skin color or gender in a position of ultimate executive power yet? Should that mean...anything?

Number 3: I grew up in New Orleans, just south of New Orleans in a very poor area. I know what racism is. I watched it growing up. This bullshit about "America not being ready..." is like...you know...it's like "Well, I am ready for a Jewish member of this country club but I really don't think the rest of the members are ready for it". And it continues on (silently) with "...so maybe we should put them on hold, Biff, till we're all ready for them." And that's pure racist. It ain't beating people with a baseball bat and it ain't cross-burning but it's just as bad.

Number 4: America wasn't ready for a fascist regime to take charge and mouth-fuck Liberty while shitting all over The Constitution, either, but here we goddamn are.

God forbid that a black man or woman or white woman should ever get the nomination for the Democratic party because then we'll know we're going to lose the election, eh? :sarcasm:

It's just sick and it makes me really angry. It's fucking skin folks!

PB

[Sperk]

31. So, are you telling me that if there was a Dem candidate (white male

-lets say from the south-lets say moderate to liberal who would appeal to some so called Independents or swing voters, you would not be worried about a gay man or minority or woman or gay woman getting the nomination. Would would NOT think it decreaced your chances of your party taking back the white house?

I'm sorry but I disagree, I DONT LIKE IT!!! Forchrissakes, I think woman and especially BLACK woman should be running the friggin world. But that's for another post. Let the white males have at me then.

[Poll_Blind]

32. I don't think ANYONE's skin or gender makes them a better...

...candidate for "running the friggin world". I believe that a person should "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

PB

[beaconess]

33. You're talking about someone's political stance, not their skin color

A candidate's political philosophy is directly relevant - their race should not be.

[LostinVA]

73. Oh, so now you're throwing us gays into this, too

Boy oh boy --

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

80. Geez, you should've gone for the trifecta: GAY BLACK woman.

Honestly, I don't see why you would prefer the world to be in the hands of women, especially black women, if those things purportedly don't matter to you. How about having the most qualified person running it, regardless of their race, sex, or sexual orientation?

Your message just smacks of "the lady doth protest too much" to me.

[BoneDaddy]

51. I think you are dead wrong

and I am really surprised you can't see the reality of the situation, especially as a black man living in republican dominated america.

If pointing out political realities makes someone a racist, well I really don't know how to respond to such an irrational statement and I think it does nothing for the conversation by not addressing the elephant in the living room...racism and sexism, both of which are still alive and well in America.

[LostinVA]

71. As a white woman, I agree

[FrenchieCat]

9. I don't get why this is such a pressing issue

Right now.

It seems we have plenty of time to discuss it, so why discuss it now? Personally, I'm starting to hide these threats. I consider them distracting considering how much time we have to save our nation. I'm not talking about 2008 either, I'm talking about right now.

This will be an excellent topic for discussion after November 7th. I'll see you then.

[Sperk]

14. I understand. I only brought it up because I see so many Hillary/Obama threads here.

See you in a few weeks!

[angstlessk]

10. My thought was not if the country was ready, but what the winner had to

deal with, and of COURSE it will not be fixed in 4 OR 8 years, and the 'first' woman OR black..will be blamed and the focus would be on the gender or race rather than the unsurmountable problems left by bush*!.

I say it needs to be a pink, bald, white, Democratic, man first..THEN after he cleans as much as HE can..and we are closer to a REAL AMERICA...like it used to be...we do a FIRST!

[KurtNYC]

16. Isn't there a rule about posting flamebait?

I mean you admit this is flame bait. You offer no polls or stats to back up your assertion that America isn't ready or whatever. Perhaps you hadn't seen the numbers for Colin Powell in 2000:

These results assume Colin Powell is not a candidate; if he is included he still leads everyone else by a wide margin. These are the findings of a nationwide Harris Poll of 1,011 adults (including 279 Republicans and 327 Independents) surveyed between July 17 - 21. 1998.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=168

You're entitled to your opinion but it is grossly uninformed.

[Sperk]

20. I really didn't think it was flame material but I thought some others might

take it that way. I don't think asking if there is still a level of predjudice in America significat enough to prevent a minority from becoming POTUS should be flame material. And no one really has
flamed me, so I guess it isn't. Yes, it is an opinion (that there is still too much prejudice in the country for a minority or a woman to get elected POTUS) and if I am proven wrong, I will be thrilled!

And as far as statistics go, no I don't have any...but I don't think taking a poll on this would be very accurate. Most people don't admit to their prejudices.

[KurtNYC]

63. I give up - you wrote "flame away" but claim you didnt think it was

and now want to ignore the statistics that I posted and pretend that there are no such stats (eg "I don't think taking a poll on this would be very accurate").

[Imagevision]

17. After Bush? - you could run a giraffe!!! but I'm greatful for Obama!!

[OzarkDem]

60. "After Bush?" sums it up

No one can credibly make a case against a presidential candidate after seeing the incompetence and corruption of the blivet. No one has divided the country so much in recent history. No candidate can compare to the divisiveness generated by Bush, based on gender or racial background.

[pretzel4gore]

18. but what do the gopigs win, if they win?

they aren't gonna face justice anyway-the problems any post gopig government will face will be so huge it will consume all their attention, and notice NO ONE has mentioned the 800 pound bushevik gorilla dancing around the room (among us chickens...) ie the gopig media? if the gopigs win, they will pissoff a helluva lot of former republicans, who can see the conjob which is the bush/gopig ONLY area of expertise. ANd one can't run a country using the big lie only....alot of people want to live, and don't want to be forced to trust a government/political gang with a proven track record of outright lying, thus there must be a democratic takeover ....
here's the crux of the matter. the busheviks desperately NEED to lose power, but if they do, they run the risk of criminal prosecution, so they MUST try to steal the election, but they dare not cuz that just deepens the hole they're already in, so they MUST NOT STEAL the '06 midterms - if they do, they'll KILL THE GOLDEN GOOSE, which is too badly hurt already!
these loathesome bastards are in a quandry, and regardless what they do, they loose.....they have been ruining the mix, shittiong in the soup, poisoning the common well since regan was selected in 1980...the democratic party just has to say to them, 'give it to us on a platter, and we MAY NOT put yall in jail'
it may well be a true 'yellow dog' election year(?)

[Der Blaue Engel]

19. I'm a white woman in my 40s as well

and I find this kind of "speculation" disgusting. I'm sure you believe that you're simply stating the truth, as you see it, but what on Earth would be the point of posting this, even if you were right? What are you trying to accomplish?

There will be candidates in the primary. We will vote. We will nominate someone. And if that someone is strong enough to get the majority vote of the Democratic Party, they will have a more than decent chance of kicking the shit out of whatever meally-mouthed lying sack of shit the 'pubs put up. Yes, of course I am talking about in a non-rigged election, but don't fool yourself. In a rigged one, it could be a redneck, racist piece of crap on the Dem ticket and they would STILL steal it. Let's leave ourselves some small shred of integrity before we hand them their mysogynistic, racist victory on a platter, shall we?

Hmm, maybe we should think twice before considering candidates who are queer, or support same-sex marriage, or who are pro-choice, or who aren't Protestant, because you know those are all working against us, too, right? :sarcasm:

[Sperk]

28. My point in posting this was that so many people were posting about

Hillary or Obama in 2008 and I think it is stupid to ignore that predjudice is still a factor. I'm sorry it is, but it is. If I said one of them was divorced 3 times and I thought it would be a strike against them, would you feel the same way? I'm just trying to look at this objectively.

And as far as "still stealing the election no matter who it is", I agree, but many think that we can win, even if it's rigged as long as we win by a wide margin (too many to steal). I don't know which is true.

If you think the DNC would support an openly gay person for the nomination for the POTUS, you are not being realistic. That does NOT mean that I don't think an openly gay person could make a fantastic president. I don't understand why we cannot have a discussion about this.

If you said, no I think you are wrong, America is ready for a woman or a black, hispanic or some other minority for Pres. that would be a more appropriate response.

Perhaps it is I who should have phrased the question better. Perhaps I should have just asked if people thought we were ready and/or if so, is this the best time to test our theory. But we still would have had some people answer no (I presume) so we would have been right back here, I guess.

[Der Blaue Engel]

30. What I'm saying is: It doesn't matter

It's a very poor reason to reject a candidate. I'm not going to let the bigotry of others be part of my decision when choosing the best candidate.

[beaconess]

79. There's a difference between considering prejudice as a factor

and saying someone shouldn't run because of that prejudice.

When prejudice is a factor, you work on ways to either overcome it or counterbalance it. But to assume that the existence of the prejudice means that a Black person will never have a chance and therefore shouldn't even try and that Democrats shouldn't get behind them is self-defeating - and will mean that we will NEVER advance beyond where we are now, since prejudice does not eradicate itself without a push from without.

[LostinVA]

74. As a white woman in MY 40's -- good post!

[beaconess]

23. When WILL America be ready? And how will we know?

Will we get a signal?

Or will we find out only when we actually run a Black or female candidate? And, in so doing, won't we MAKE America ready?

I am quite sure that American has NEVER been ready for any of the changes we've seen - that only when the changes were actually forced on the country did America actually accept them. If we had waited around for America to get ready to end slavery or desegregate the schools or guarantee voting rights for Blacks and women or have a Black or female Supreme Court justice or have a female or Black Secretary of State or any of the other steps we've taken toward a more inclusive society.

There may be reasons for Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton not to run for president or for people not to vote for them. But "America isn't ready" is not, in my view, a valid one.

[LostinVA]

75. I think America IS ready now, imo

Women and minorities are the MAJORITY in the United States.

[Imagevision]

25. Time is an asset to Obama, I believe his popularity will only snowball...

as time goes by.

[Little Star]

26. We won't know if we never nominate a minority.

I'm friggin ready!!!! But JRE is still my boy for the primaries.

[joeygirl]

34. I think that putting up a quality candidate should be the

priority. I think that America is hungry for a candidate that they can vote for, not against.

I think that if we get a quality candidate that happens to be black or a woman, that just makes a better package. But I don't think that it should be the central focus. I think that we need to be open to the person who is able to communicate our vision for the 21st century the best.

On the other side, Elizabeth Dole decided to run in 2000, but she didn't get very far because she had nothing, except I'm a female conservative. That's great if you want to get married to a male conservative, but there wasn't much below the surface and being a female doesn't automatically qualify you for being president. You have to give people a reason to get beyond the novelty of "this is the woman candidate" "this is the black candidate".

[Imagevision]

35. NO,you are not the only one who thinks putting a woman or a black man

in for our candidate in 2008 would be a huge mistake? and by the looks of other posts we're not alone...

[beaconess]

36. No - you're not alone. How sad.

Let's just back burner the women and minorities a little while longer before we can fully participate in the process. We'll just sit tight and stay out of the way until America notifies white Democrats that it's finally ready for us. Meanwhile, we'll watch and keep our mouths shut as mediocre White men who did nothing to earn their place other than be born into the right race continue stepping up to the plate with nary a complaint from anyone since America IS ready for them.

God forbid that we mess it up for the rest of you.

[MrSlayer]

37. No, I feel the same.

You want to see a landslide of epic proportions? Run a woman or minority in the top spot. It will be slightly less in the second spot. Things just are what they are.

[beaconess]

38. You're buying into one of the oldest excuses in the book for keeping Blacks

and women from advancing.

"It's not ME, of course. I don't have anything against them. But I can't (hire) (admit) (sell to) (nominate) one because (my clients) (the other students) (my neighbors) (the voters) just won't accept them and they'll turn against me.

This is the very essence of institutional racism - society installs a racist system that becomes self-executing so that discrimination can continue to perpetuate itself without any need for individuals to take any overt racist action. Unfortunately, even some of the most well-intentioned, non-racist people get caught in this trap. It sounds like you have.

[MrSlayer]

42. Well try it and see what happens.

I would vote for anyone I thought was the right person. I just suspect that my perception is correct.

[LostinVA]

77. And I suspect MY perception is correct

[LostinVA]

76. How do you know that -- You don't...

[dajoki]

39. We should be above that by now...

Maybe the time is right, or long overdue!!

[AlCzervik]

40. We've come a long way but after reading this thread i'm thinking

some have come further than others. Truly disappointing.

[beaconess]

41. And we're supposed to be the good guys!

[Imagevision]

43. My only fear about Obama is what they did to JFK when they couldn't have

their way. (JFK was about to pull out of Viet nam)

[LostinVA]

78. I don't think Obama is the right "Black Candidate"

[beaconess]

83. He's either the right candidate or he's not - regardless of his race

[LostinVA]

87. You're reading something into what I wrote that I didn't mean

When we are totally on the same page.

Alas.

[RiverStone]

44. Gawd Sperk....?

Then how are we American's going to ever get there? Wait another 50 years? How do you define when Americans are there?
Its been said a journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step; if our nominee in 08 is a woman or a black man, it won't be because of her gender or his color. It will be because he/she brings out the best in our party and our country. Please try to think out of the box.

[AlCzervik]

45. Well done Riverstone.

:toast:

[beaconess]

46. Exactly!

America will be ready for a Black or female president when we confront them with the candidates and give them a chance to vote for them. Saying we must wait to run a minority or woman candidate until America somehow gets itself ready is tantamont to Democrats saying that, given Bush's high approval ratings between 2001 and 2005, American wasn't ready for a change, so we should just keep our mouths shut until America changed its mind. But we didn't do that - we spoke up and fought and convinced others that a change was necessary. Why should it be any different for this?

I, Too, Sing America
by Langston Hughes


I, too, sing America.

I am the darker brother.
They send me to eat in the kitchen
When company comes,
But I laugh,
And eat well,
And grow strong.

Tomorrow,
I'll be at the table
When company comes.
Nobody'll dare
Say to me,
"Eat in the kitchen,"
Then.

Besides,
They'll see how beautiful I am
And be ashamed--

I, too, am America.

It's so sad to see so many DUers essentially tell Barack Obama to "go eat in the kitchen until the company is ready for you." Very sad.

[WildEyedLiberal]

48. I think that's a BS premise

I don't think Hillary would win because she's polarizing on both the right and the left - I don't think she'd lose because she's a woman. I don't think Obama would be our strongest candidate because he has no real experience - not because he's black. I think someday he'll be a fantastic candidate.

Right now I'm pulling for Kerry/Obama. I think that ticket would be a winner.

[AtomicKitten]

49. Race and sex should not be criteria one way or the other.

Hopefully, as always, Democrats will put up the best of the best.

[BoneDaddy]

50. No flame from me

I think they would be incredibly stupid choices. I, personally, would love to see it occur, I just don't think that, still, in 2006-2007 there is enough maturity, civility and tolerance in Amurika to win a victory.

The level of overt racism and sexism is still alive and well on both a overt and covert level and I think that we would be disillusioned and unaware of the realities if the Dems mades such a move.

Now having a woman or person of color run as a VP might actually work. America is simply not ready for it on a presidential level...shame, but reality.

[lynne]

52. A valid question and certainly not flamebait -

- unless one wishes to call every issue they may disagree with "flamebait". I agree with you - the country is not ready for either a woman or a black man. Right now we still have a huge number of pre-boomer voters - parents of baby boomers, and I would imagine mostly FDR-era democrats - who are certainly not ready for either. The country, as a whole, probably won't be ready for a woman or black man until such time as those pre-boomers are gone and probably the older portion of the baby-boomer generation.

[Connie_Corleone]

53. The American people will never be ready for it if we never do it.

I don't care if people are ready or not. I'm sure there were people who thought the same way when the first black person ran for the senate. It didn't stop that person from running.

Sometimes you just have to stand up and do what's right instead of waiting around for opinions to change.

There were people who probably said the same things you're saying at the beginning of the civil rights movement. Thank goodness they were ignored.

I say keep putting up black and female candidates until one of them gets elected (that's IF they get the nomination).

[BoneDaddy]

57. May be true

but are you willing to take that chance now when we really need a victory> The time to put forth a black or female candidate is when we have the white house and the senate. We cannot afford to take such a political risk at this juncture...We need the power back now.

I apply this same reality logic to independent parties. I think we need them, but not right now. We need to wrest power from these scumbags ASAP. It is not the time for a cultural experiment that will fail outside of the NE and big cities.

[Connie_Corleone]

58. If the best candidate happens to be a black or female...

I would hardly call that a "cultural experiment" if he or she was nominated.

[BoneDaddy]

61. True

I just don't think that is the case with this election. Neither Hillary or Obama would be smart picks for president at this juncture. VP, perhaps. Hill because she is simply hated outside of her relatively small gp of adoring fans and Obama because he has too little experience.

It is not a right or wrong issue for me at all. It is a viability issue, a pragmatic issue based in timing.

Now is not the time to try something risky or daring. Let's secure the Senate, get a president in there in 2008 and then start working on the progressive issue of a woman or black president.

I would love to see it, but not right now.

[treestar]

54. It depends on the individual

The time involved in the campaign would overcome that issue. If the candidate could handle the mud-slinging, it would soon be about the usual mud-slinging anyway. There is so much crap to a presidential campaign that it would soon just be another presidential campaign, mud slinging about everything else, the race/gender factor would be a tiny one.

The rethugs might look like idiots to make too much of it. The rethugs might want to run their own woman or black another time. It's not like they don't have any. Condi is just as selfish and jerky a rethug as any. So they would soon resort to the same old crap: calling the Democrat an appeaser, etc., which they would do to a white man, too.

[beaconess]

62. Exactly!

It's not as if Obama or Clinton would be kept under wraps and then coronated the Democratic nominee two days before the General Election campaign begins. They will go through the same process as every other primary candidate. If, after what will prove to be a grueling 12 to 18-month campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina and Ohio and Virginia, etc., one of them beats the rest of the field, they will certainly have proven that America IS ready and they will stand an excellent chance of beating the GOP nominee, regardless how many backward-thinking bigots may not want them.

The Democrats have lost (or had stolen) five of the last seven presidential elections. All of the Democratic nominees were white men. George Bush is widely thought to have actually lost one, if not two elections. He, of course, is a white man. Yet I've never heard it suggested that any of these white men lost because of their race or gender, so perhaps the white male thing ain't all it's cracked up to be. :-)

[Vinca]

55. If we're not ready for a woman or person of color now,

we never will be. I, for one, am sick and tired of being ruled by a bunch of old, white men.

[LWolf]

56. I don't care if the rest of America is there or not.

If there were a black and/or female candidate I thought would do the best job in the WH, that person would have my support regardless of the rest of the nation's problems.

I want the best, and I'll support, work for, and vote for the best. Right now, those at the top of my list happen to be white men. Probably because there are more of them in positions of experience. Non-white men included on my list as possible candidates I'd support: Boxer, Sharpton.

[leftyladyfrommo]

59. Yea - the white men have been doing so well!

Nah, I think Obama could really pull this one off. He may very well be the dark horse that we are needing.

[Norquist Nemesis]

64. Can I get back to you on this after Nov. 7th?

Thanks!

[omega minimo]

65. Bigot Bait

[Clark2008]

66. I'm a SOUTHERN white woman in my 30s and I agree

COMPLETELY with you.

Mainly because I understand how the Electoral College system works and I know that there are far too many people in Southern and Mid-Western states who will NOT vote for a woman or a person of color - not enough to flip the entire state and chalk it up to the "blue" column.

HRC and Obama may be polling well in national polls, but it doesn't mean crap if they don't poll over 50 percent in the individual states.

[beaconess]

68. The Southern and Midwest states are increasingly minority

Unfortunately, voter turnout among those minorities are often low because of a sense of disengagement.

A Black or female candidate could change that and so energize the base that it could change the whole dynamic.

But your argument also can be applied to many White Democratic candidates. I really find it hard to believe that Barack Obama would do any worse in the midwest or South than John Kerry or John Edwards or Howard Dean or Evan Bayh or many other potential White nominees.

And the notion that we shouldn't run a Black candidate because "America's not ready", in my view, not a rational caution but merely perpetuates institutional racism that will result in Blacks ALWAYS being second class citizens, since America has never been ready for change until it was given the opportunity to make the choice.

[Clark2008]

81. I think Barak would do much worse, although not as badly as HRC

simply because she is who she is (and not just her gender). Hell, I hear Democrats down here refer to her as that "lesbian bitch" in a very derrogatory way. But, I digress

I think we - as a country and not just in the South and mid-West - have regressed under 12 years of Republican rule and it's "OK" to be racist or sexist.

I know of a great number of fence-sitters who WOULD vote for Wes Clark or Al Gore or John Edwards (all Southerners) or Evan Bayh (a mid-Westerner), but they wouldn't vote for any black or female candidate. However, you're partially correct concerning John Kerry and Howard Dean - neither held much fascination down here because people in the "Heartland" simply feel that people from the north-eastern and western coastal states don't understand them (it might have a little to do with the way some of these people look down their noses at us - but that's another post).

I'll tell you this, though. If HRC or Obama were Republicans, you'd find it easier to get some folks in the reddish states to vote for them. It's automatically ASSUMED that women and minorities are "more liberal," even as Republicans. You couple that attitude with the belief that all Democrats are one the party of "them there anti-American liberals," then you've lost. The Republican Noise Machine has been successful in demonizing the word, "liberal" and connecting it with the "Democrat" Party (shudder) particularly in the Heartland. People in the Heartland think a Democratic woman or minority is just TOO TOO liberal, but a Republican woman or minority is, well, not so much.

I never said American's not ready. I think it is. But "ready" and "willing to vote for" are two different things. I think the country's far beyond ready, but I just don't think more than 50 percent of the people in Tennessee or Virginia or North Dakota or Oklahoma or any of the red to reddish-purple states would actually VOTE for a woman or a black person because of a deep-seated "ism" that they may not even be aware they have.

In order to win a national election, we have to flip a couple of reddish-purple states, regardless of what a national sampling of voters think. We have to win more than 50 percent of the votes in Tennessee or Virigina or Florida or Ohio and, sadly, I think it's going to take a white man to do that until we get back the Fairness Doctrine to begin to change the idiotic perceptions that people have about Democrats, in general, or women in minorities, in specific.

[beaconess]

85. John Edwards only won 1 primary and didn't help Kerry in a single Southern state

so if there are a lot of fence-sitters who would vote for him who wouldn't vote for Obama, I don't see any proof of it.

Of course, Edwards performance has been attributed to many factors, none of which were related to his race. If Obama ran and performed the same as Edwards did, it would all be blamed on his Blackness, regardless whether that had anything to do with it.

[Frank Nata]

69. Sharpton woulda been great

I think the good Rev Sharpton would've been great, and I hope he'll run again. He seems to be one of the few out there with the courage, intelligence, and knowledge to be able to do the job right. In an age of righty-soundbite-media he knows how to state a headline that gets attention, and then back it up.

Dream ticket:
Sharpton/Sheehan with Kucinich as Sec of Dept of Peace

I know many will think that Diebold would never let it happen, but if we all vote absentee....

[bdamomma]

70. No offense to anyone but we have a mid term to think about

before 2008, this election is all up to us, we have to get these thugs out first, to clean the Senate and the House, to put some fresh blood in there, and stop this old boys club concept.

[ieoeja]

72. As the only white man between 35 and dead who never smoked pot...

... I am the only person who could possibly win the next election.

Except that, of course, we have already had one admitted pot smoker elected president and a current president who did not deny using cocaine when questioned about it. Yet in the year 1992 a lot of Republicans thought Bill Clinton's presidential aspirations were dead in the water when he admitted to trying pot.

But look at what really happened. Clinton having tried pot turned out to be a complete non-story. The political pundits were proved to be 100% wrong. Comedians had some fun with it, of course. But do you know anybody who voted based on this?

Actually, judging by what I read in this thread a number of the people on here probably do know people who had a problem with Clinton smoking pot. Well guess what? They're one-percenters. Fuck 'em.

[SPCAworks]

82. It's not the color

it's the content of the message.

If a candidate inspires 51% of the electorate he/she wins.

I personally don't think Obama can win nationally because his message doesn't touch 51% of the electorate.

[beaconess]

86. He hasn't even started laying out his message yet!

I doubt that ANY candidate, at this point, has a message that has resonated with 51% of the voters. That's what the campaign is for!

[ieoeja]

88. Technically, closer to 26% of the electorate.

If only half the electorate vote then you really have to inspire only one quarter of us.

Main Entry: elec·tor·ate
Pronunciation: i-'lek-t(&-)r&t
Function: noun
1 : the territory, jurisdiction, or dignity of a German elector
2 : a body of people entitled to vote


Just speculating here with absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to back up the speculation, but that may actually be an advantage for a precedence setting candidate. Seems to me bigots are pretty reliable voters. They'll be out there voting in pretty big numbers regardless. A candidate with a different face just may get some of that 50% to come out and vote.

Consider the south where African-Americans make up a HUGE percentage of the population, but have one of the poorest records in this country for turning out to vote. While the percentage of haters among southern whites is disturbingly large, the number of blacks in the southern electorate is many times larger than the difference in the number of haters and non-haters among southern whites. If southern blacks would just vote, the south would be singing the Blues (as opposed to Red).

Truth is, an African-American candidate just may be the Liberal Southern Strategy. Now wouldn't that be a hoot?

[Sensitivity]

84. The racially "accepting" society is just MSM -Self-congratulatory thinking

Profound racist assumptions pervade both the bar-rooms and boad-rooms of America.
It is a huge hurdle to overcome regardless of what people say publicly.

The Ten. Sen. race illustrates this: -- the brown candidate is far more qualified,
intelligent, physically attractive, and ideologically sympathetic than the
white candidate -- Yet the race is a tie.

[ieoeja]

89. And in all the white-vs-white races?

You ignore the fact that the brown Democratic candidate for Senate right now in Tennessee is doing better than the white Democratic candidates for president did in 2000 and 2004. And one of those white candidates was a Tennessean running against a non-Tennessean.

I put it to you that race may HELP Ford. White non-haters in Tennessee may be close enough a match in numbers to white haters that this election may hinge on the turnout among minority voters.

[AngryAmish]

90. It would be a huge mistake

I mean white males are so underrepresented in national politics...

[Jed Dilligan]

91. 2008 is two years away

Who knows what we'll be "ready" for by then?

Who knew in August 2001 that we'd be "ready" to ditch habeas corpus in five years?

Nothing changes faster than public opinion. There are basic demographic facts working in our favor: old racists are dying off, and the young are increasingly non-white or racially mixed. There is considerably more acceptance now of "minorities" (a joke in CA, where everyone is a minority) than when I was coming of age, and I'm only 32.

[zanne]

92. Sperk--Thanks for having the courage to bring it up.

I'm sure that most, if not all of us, have wondered about this and struggled with the idea of being politically smart or politically fair. Personally, I think that a woman of any color would have a harder time of being elected than a man of any color, but I hope I'm wrong and that my opinion only reflects my experience as a woman. I think that we should start talking about this alot. Progress never comes from being quiet.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

93. Locking.

We (the mods) think that the word "flamefest" sums this thread up perfectly. Thanks for understanding!