It isn't racist to acknowledge that Sen. Obama will have a tough time

winning the White House. There have been three African American Senators and two African American Governors elected in the lifetimes of the entire electorate. Of the three African American Senators, one was a Republican and two were from Illinois where they won in three way primaries and against weak Republican opponents.

Added to that is the very unfortunate history of African Americans being unable to get a foothold in Presidential contests. To name one example, Governor Wilder of VA ran for a short time in 1992. His campaign ran New Hampshire focus groups where people were given the resumes of the various candidates (Clinton, Tsongas, Kerrey, Harkin, Brown, and Wilder) and were asked to rank their choices. Wilder was the favorite of the New Hampshire voters. Then they ran focus groups with resumes and photos. He came in dead last. Getting those results convinced Wilder to drop out.

This latest election had the great example of Deval Patrick but the sad example of Barbara Sykes. In a year when every state wide race in Ohio went our way, Ms. Sykes, who had been on the statewide ballot before, lost to an untested GOP candidate in the Auditor's race. We won everything but the one race we had an African American candidate in. We even won the AG's race with a weak candidate against a woman who had served twice as AG and twice as Auditor.

One last example. In NC we had statewide elections in 2004. There are a huge number of positions called council of state. We lost only two incumbents in all of those races. One of the two was the only African American who had been elected statewide in NC.

We would be fools not to think Obama will have a tough time of it. I don't have a candidate yet. I might choose Obama, but we should do so with eyes open.

This is now, baby!
this is fuck'n now!

2004 was 14 months ago. NC isn't even close to the worst state in this regard.

He still believes that there can be a "bi-partisan" approach to things. Bi-partisanship ended the day Newt Gingrich decided to enter politics.

is dangerous anyway.

If we're going to win moderate Republicans over on specific issues, we can't be pointing out the fact that they're "jumping ship".

American politics would be in a much better place if we eliminated party platform positions altogether.

Let's have more division and hate!

Usually when we hear that word it's all about selling the Washington consensus. That means both parties working together to convince America that what's good for their business elite masters is good for them. It's also about the establishment covering each other's asses. This is not a good thing.

Of course Obama is charismatic, intelligent, and diplomatic. But is that enough? What about being populist and progressive? Will he fight for middle America against the corporate elite? That's the important question.

Any candidate that mentions the word bi-partisan can look for support elsewhere.

I voted for Dennis last time around, and would do it again.

wasn't divided over Watergate, irt was UNITED that Nixon had to go and that he committed crimes of office - the BULLSHIT laid on us all these years is that Ford pardoned him to unite a divided country - - UTER, UTTER HORSESHIT.

The same excuse has been used by Bill Clinton to allow the continuing coverup of the outstanding matters in IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning. How did that work out for this nation? For the 3000 killed on Sept. 11? for the world?

This country can't afford the LIES and coverups it requires to play the 'bi=partisanship' card. Truth matters.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

can be put back together....well....good luck with that.

kum-ba-yaa

A black name wouldn't help; a middle-eastern sounding name may do him real damage.

Whether people consciously process it or not, there is more than one type and level of racism at play here. Whether the racist vote is enough to lose him the presidency is something I don't think we'd know about until election day.

as would any white candidates.

I think the hand-wringing over his name is overblown. His name has not held him back so far and it hasn't caused him any real damage. In my view, any attempt by his opponents to make hay out of his name not only makes them look ridiculous, it also gives him more opportunities to disarm them with his wit and forthrightness, as he has in the past when he has used his unusual-sounding name to his advantage.

who was dismissed early on by many solely because of his name?

I'm thinking about all the little old ladies in Nebraska who have never seen a black person before going "what the hell kind of name is that?"

He's only had to win the votes of the people of Illinois before. Illinois is northern and has a good-sized African American population.

OTOH, his name may generate interest from people just because it's so unusual.

since I'm sure he'll be campaigning there like everybody else - including Vilsak and Kucinich and Brownback, whose names are also somewhat unusual. If they're so ignorant at that point that they don't know anything about Obama other than his name, they probably would not have voted for him anyway.

And you're wrong about Illinois. While Chicago has a large African-American population, the state is overwhelmingly white - and downstate Illinois is EXTREMELY conservative - in fact, some parts of it are known as Klan country. Obama campaigned in every part of the state and won these predominantly white, conservative areas handily. Don't assume that Illinois is some all-black enclave that would have voted for whatever black candidate turned up on the ballot. And don't sell Obama short - he has an excellent track record of winning over white voters.

:)

However, what I have a problem with is those who blow it out of proportion or adopt right-wing bigot talking point or insist that he shouldn't run or that he can't possibly win (because "America's not ready for a black president") or - one my personal favorites - that if he runs and loses, it will hurt black people, the Democrats, etc.

And the fact that blacks have faced serious challenges in electoral contests doesn't mean that it ALWAYS has to be that way and that Democrats should cave in and stick all of our black candidates in the closet in order to avoid anything bad happening in the future. The way we overcome these problems is to face them head on. And if we don't overcome it this time, we'll try again - and again - and again. But conceding defeat in the future because we've had a hard time in the past is the very point of institutional racism, which ensures the perpetuation of the racial status quo without anyone having to actually perform an overt hostile act.

but otherwise I agree with your post.

Democrats haven't ever had a black person on the ticket, yet we lose presidential races as often as we win - and the same can be said for Republicans as well. Yet no one claims that the fact that white men have lost every single presidential race sets back white people in any way.

If Obama runs and loses, he runs and loses - just like white men have done throughout our history.

We cannot afford another 4 years of a RepubliCON administration, period.

In the end, if my candidate doesn't get the nom, I will vote for the Democratic candidate, because I want the CONS out of the White House.

Not racist to acknowledge that racism still exists in this country and that it affects politics.

However, if people talk about the politics of a white politician, and then talk about the race of a Black politician, then that's racism. It's akin to talking about the politics of whitemen running for office, and the outfits of women running for office, then justifying that by saying the public judges women by appearance.

If you are contributing to unhealthy race/gender power dynamics by focusing on a politician's identity as a minority rather than on the issues, you're part of the problem.

would anyone be considering Obama for President if he were not a minority? Don't get me wrong, that is a perfectly fair part of the equation to consider but it can't be considered only in a postive light. The fact that as a minority he got where he did is a big deal and makes it much more impressive that he got there. Like it or not, his race is a big part of why he is in this race and it will play a big part of why he wins or loses.

or Bill Clinton being the product of a very difficult upbringing play a part in their success and appeal. Obama's race is part of who he is and has informed his worldview, his philosophy and his actions. He's not being considered because he's a minority - his being a minority has helped to develop him into the kind of person and politician that people find enormously interesting and appealing today.

Edwards is a fair comparison and yes his mill worker backround helped fill him out to some extent. In all honesty I felt him to be very skimpily qualified to be running for President. I think Richardson would be our best choice if Gore refuses to run in terms of qualifications. Obama and Edwards lead in charisma but I think Richardson would be the better President.

2

the right wingnuts will "Harold Ford" him, since they saw how well that type of thinly veiled racist smear tactic worked for them. I hate to say it, but there are still enough biggotted white folk out their that are scared of a guy like Obama. You can see how Faux news plays into it by "mistaking" Obama/Osama on purpose, and pointing out his middle name, and the latest "Hillary sez" crap.

I like Barack Obama, but I think he and Hillary will cancel each other out. I don't think this country is ready for a black president. I also think it's a damned shame. His keynote speech last time around I thought was brilliant. However I also know how the right wing smear machine works, and it works quite well unfortunately.

We can't let the most hateful element on the other side cower us into hiding our best and brightest under a bushel for fear that they will pick on them.

That element smeared Kerry to no end - but no one is suggesting that Gen. Clark shouldn't run or can't win because the swiftboaters will do to him what they did to John Kerry. Why should we do that to Obama because of what a group of people in Tennessee did to Harold Ford?

And I just don't agree that America isn't ready for a black president. Perhaps in the abstract, you're right. But when you put a face to that black president and ask America if they would vote for this particular person with these particular views and these particular qualities and this particular platform, I think the country very well might vote for Obama. America is never ready for anything until it is pressed - only then will change take place. It certainly will never be ready if we don't give the country the opportunity to choose.

As long as Obama has HIS eyes wide open.

We knew when Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and
Carol Mosley-Braun ran, there was no chance.
However; it was wonderful to have their
voices heard, this could be different.

If not him? Who?

If not now? When?

When has it not been tough, but you keep
on trying like those before us until victory
is won.



:)

I'm not saying Barack should not run, or try. America needs him and ANY and EVERY diverse person or opinion out there. My gut feeling is that he would not win, but it is important to try. If nothing else, each attempt gains us more knowledge and preparation for the next time. I personally like Biden the best at this point. However, I do like Obama and could support him no problem. Hilary?-not so much.

Though I don't see any effect - those who are racist enough not to vote for a candidate because he is black are probably already repukes.

What group exists, if any, that would otherwise vote for the democratic candidate? How to reach out to them?

My gut answer if exposure to Obama. Many racists, sexists, homophobes and xenophobes have exceptions for the actual people they know.

Obama was smart to go on Oprah and needs to go out there and be seen everywhere as much as possible.

and the sad fact is they don't. The very same electorate what elected Strickland by 20 points refused to vote Sykes in. The very same electorate which nominated Clinton flipped on a dime on Wilder.

Black candidates often lose for reasons unrelated to their race. Assuming that black candidates can't win because they're black sets up a roadblock to progress that can never be overcome.

As a black professional, I've encountered this attitude frequently. "We would LOVE to hire you, but our CLIENTS might have a problem and we don't want to set you up to fail." Oh THANK you!

This kind of attitude, while perhaps well-meaning, actually enables racism and, in fact, makes it much easier to perpetuate institutional racism since it achieves the results that racists want to achieve without them having to lift a finger.

For Dems to hold back support of Obama, not because they think he shouldn't win, but because they think he CAN'T win, achieves the results that racists would love to achieve. They don't have to oppose him if his own party holds him down.

We've got to move beyond this and put the issue out in the open. If Obama runs and doesn't win because he's black, we need to make the racists who vote against him be the ones to take him down so that they will be exposed. But to cave in on the front end is, in my view, not only self-defeating, it's a cowardly cop-out.

I love that countless Bubbas in sports bars across the country got their first exposure to Obama on a Monday Night Football lead-in in which he not only showed himself to be a regular football lovin' guy, but that he had a sense of humor, too.

candidates mentioned lately, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, are members of a minority group. Hillary Clinton is a woman and no woman has ever even been nominated for President by a major party before. Obama is of course black, and likewise, no major party has ever nominated a black person before. Edwards is a southern Democrat, also a minority in recent years, although southern Democrats have been nominated before (Bill Clinton, Al Gore).
It seems to me that if any of these three candidates gets the nomination, the party will be taking some risk, although I hasten to add that I think any of the three can and WILL win in 'o8 because of the mood in the nation at present. There IS still some racism in the country, and not just in the south, and I think there is still some resistance to a woman President, although it may be less evident. There may even be some resistance to another southerner for President after 20 years of rule by southerners, if you consider the Bushes to be truly from the south.

I am unfamiliar with that term.

when polled, a majority of voters said they would vote for him, but he lost the race by a wide margin - this has led to an assumption that when a black candidate runs against a white candidate, white voters will say they're voting for the black candidate, but once they get in the privacy of the polling booth, they do the opposite.

I don't think the Bradley effect is as prevalent as it once was. In recent years, the outcomes in such races have been fairly accurately predicted in the polling. Perhap pollsters are adjusting for such dynamics or perhaps white voters are just less concerned today about anyone thinking they're racist if they don't vote for the black candidate and are answering honestly.

Either way, I think the so-called Bradley effect is more of a myth today than an actuality, but, unfortunately, the fear of it keeps creeping into discussions about black candidates.

In Obama's case, I think we might actually see a "reverse Bradley effect." So many white voters seem intrigued by and attracted to him - even some Republicans - that I wouldn't be surprised if a significant number of white voters say they're going to vote for white candidates and then, when they get in the polling booth where no one's looking, they'll pick Obama.

But it's all speculation at this point.

I was wondering if you meant Bill Bradley or Ed Bradley. :+

Racism is based on fear of unknown, inferiority complex
of the majority race who wants to feel superior via racism to
hide their feelings of inadequacy, jealousy of the superior
attributes of the other race (white men can't jump), and also
the natural tendency to meld with your own kind.

The amazing fact is that origins of modern man are only 30,000
to 50,000 years old and we are all related via geneological roots,
a lot closer than you think.

His candidacy will confirm what most Black folks very well know, racism is everywhere and a much more insidious ailment than most White folks realize.

That's why I'm glad he's running. But that's why I don't have any faith that he'll come out the winner in the end.

wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway and, therefore, would be no net loss IMO.

Gobama.

of inexperience. The operative concept here however is that he would lose.

You can rest assured however that if he is the party\'s nominee he will get my vote.

American citizens have a responsibility to base their votes on facts, not emotions.

It is, however, racist to say you'd rather have a white nominee.