I am SO SICK of the "America's not ready to elect a Black man" meme

[beaconess]

Who SAYS America's not ready?

And how will we know until a Black man actually runs?

Hell, America hasn't elected a liberal Democrat president since Kennedy - and he wasn't really all that liberal by today's standards. Based upon past elections, one could argue that America's not ready to put a liberal Democrat in the White House. But I don't see anyone suggesting that liberal Democrats shouldn't run for president.

So why is there so much opposition among supposedly open-minded Democrats to Obama running? I'm not talking about those who have genuine concerns about whether he has enough experience - I'm talking about those who just flat-out say that he doesn't stand a chance because he's Black. The sad part is that many of the people saying this seem to include in their comments the caveat, "I'm not a racist, but . . ." or "*I* certainly don't have a problem with it, but . . ."

America may or may not be ready to elect a Black president. But suggesting that Obama shouldn't run because he's Black just in case America's not ready not only smacks of paternalism, it also helps to perpetuate a political apartheid that relegates Blacks to the back bench while all manner of qualified and unqualified White folks get to run to their hearts content, regardless whether they have any chance of winning.

I don't know whether America is ready to elect a Black president. But it certainly is sad that some Democrats, regardless how they try to spin it, don't seem to be.

[Phredicles]

1. "And how will we know until a Black man actually runs?"

Recommended for that line; it hasn't been tried since Jesse jackson in the '80s.

My own first thought was that Obama should wait until he had more experience: say, having completed a full term in the Senate. But a coworker of mine pointed out that you really can't choose your moment of best opportunity, and if you let it pass there's no way of knowing if there'll ever be another one. And it does look like the present is an opportune moment for Obama.

My personal first choice is Al Gore (assuming he does in fact run). But if Obama runs and wins the nomination, I'll vote for him in November '08 with much greater enthusiasm than I would for a lot of the other names currently being mentioned.

[MGD]

55. "if you let it pass there's no way of knowing..."

There's a phrase in the military you may or may not be familar with. It's called "rushing to failure". If Obama runs and loses, he won't probably get another a chance. He will have rushed to failure. Personally, I don't know as much about Obama's politics as I probably should but I do know he hasn't served even a full term in the senate. Because of this, I think he would quickly find himself in over his head just as GW has and, because of his lack of experience, I don't think he is the most qualified candidate, not by a long shot. The presidential election is no place for a litmus test or affirmative action. Regardless, it will be worked out in the primary elections, not in the DU.

[blm]

2. I think a black man has a chance - and think Deval Patrick has a great chance at it.

.

[wiley]

81. I completely agree with you about Patrick. I also think Obama has a chance,

but he will be pounded by the MSM about his perceived acceptance of Muslims and their right to be just as patriotic and trustworthy Americans as Christians or Jews, etc. But if Barack Osama can define himself as an open-minded American with principled stances - I'm willing to give the guy some time still - he will be the guy to beat. He has the ability to really enthuse the Independent and Democratic base, and his most recent interaction with Brownback seems to say he's not backing away from either religion or bi-partisanship.

[acmejack]

3. That's why they have elections.

It would be nice to do it with an honest recording method and a level playing field, too.

[Make7]

4. You're right.

Liberal Democrats shouldn't run for president either.

- Make7

[SeattleGirl]

5. I'm sick of it too. Instead of saying Obama (or any other black)

shouldn't run because America "isn't ready", how about saying, whoever WANTS to run, run? Regardless of color. Regardless of religion. Regardless of gender. THAT'S how America will let it be known if it is ready for a black, a female, a whatever kind of President. Trying to discourage someone from running because you ("you" in general, not a specific "you") think America is not ready is ridiculous. And to see it coming from people who identifiy themselves as Democrats, liberals, progressives or what-have-you, is disheartening. What? You want a "safe, sure-bet" candidate? There isn't one. Regardless of who runs, from which party, there will always be people who will say, "THIS is the best candidate because.....", and people who will say, "THIS is the worst candidate because.....". Hey folks, let whoever wants to run, run. Let the American people decide.

[ClassWarrior]

11. Exactly! The more people who run, the more robust the contest...

...and the livelier the debate. And that's what a democracy's all about, right?

NGU.

[SeattleGirl]

15. Yes, that's what a democracy is all about, ideally.

And while certainly we are not an ideal democracy, if we insist that only the "right kind" of candidate run, then we ourselves are stiffling that democracy.

I absoltuely love what you said, CW: "The more people who run, the more robust the contest and the livelier the debate." Amen to that! I'd like to see MORE of that, not less, because too many people are too freaking scared that the "wrong person" will run.

[MGD]

56. It will all be worked out in the primaries. nt

[dsc]

6. I think any honest look at what has happened to blacks who have

shows it to be a real problem. To site just one example. In Ohio this year, Democrats had the best year they have had since the 1980's. We won every single partisan statewide race save one. The one we lost. The sole African American on our ticket. I think Obama is lacking in experience and would be a disasterous candidate due to that alone, but I think we have to honestly address this problem. The first step toward that is admitting it exists.

[LisaL]

36. Presumably to win the presidency the candidate would have to

win the state of OH.
At least no republican candidate ever won without winning OH.
Blackwell really lost by a huge margin in OH.
I guess what I am saying is that I doubt that OH is ready to elect an African American man as president.

[beaconess]

37. Umm - Blackwell's color had nothing to do with his loss - he lost because he's an ass & a Republican

Every Republican statewide candidate but one lost in Ohio, so the fact that Blackwell is Black had nothing to do with his loss.

Apparently you are unaware that Blackwell has won three statewide races in Ohio before this year, so your argument doesn't fly - in fact, it makes just the opposite point. Ohio has repeatedly voted for a Black candidate for statewide office so, if a candidate must win in Ohio and Ohio has an established precedent of electing Black officials, Obama has a good chance of winning the presidency.

Right?

[dsc]

53. Blackwell's first statewide win was against a black woman

and he took the very unusual step of including her pictures in his ads (she was so underfunded many had no idea who she was).

[Connie_Corleone]

43. Wrong.

Blackwell was a nutcase. Even black people didn't vote for him because we saw right through him.

[MGD]

57. He wanted to sell off our turnpike! We could have ended up paying our tolls to the Chinese.

That makes about as much sense as selling our sea ports and air ports to Arabs. For all the taxes we pay in this state, they ought to turn the pike into a freeway anyways. Let's face it too, he was dragged down by those who he associates with as much as anything. He's god damned lucky he isn't sharing a cell with Noe as far as I'm concerned.

[LisaL]

66. I am not saying Blackwell was a good choice.

I am just saying, I don't think the state of OH is ready.
The black candidate should do well in the democratic county-Cleveland. But the rest of the state, especially rural areas? I don't think those rural areas are ready.

[Redstone]

7. Me, too. I'm ready for a black WOMAN President. Just not Condi.

Redstone

[acmejack]

9. Now her cousin Constance, I could consider.

Well maybe not for President, but she is everything Condi isn't...

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/rice.html

[Redstone]

10. Oh, Connie! Yowsah! Brains and looks, and a TON of both!

President? Hell, if I were single and she'd have me, I'd MARRY her!

Redstone

[beaconess]

16. And a whole lot of Republicans would probably think she's Condi!

She'd win in a walk!

[danalytical]

8. Me too, but...

I am willing to bet the undercurrent of racism in this country would lead to a massive defeat for us if a black person does top the ticket. Call me crazy, but the South, Mid West, and Red West will show their true colors if that time comes. That also holds true for Hillary or any other woman. The US of A just barely elected a Catholic to the presidency. And that was only 46 years ago. Still no Jewish presidents. How many black governors have there been? How many women governors?

[beaconess]

34. So the fact that there haven't been many Black governors in the past

mean that no Black person could possibly win a presidential race?

And even worse, you're arguing that he shouldn't even have the chance to try, just because he's Black since, according to you, it would "lead to a massive defeat?"

Wow.

Of course, you would probably never say in plain English that Black people shouldn't have the same opportunities as Whites. But that's really exactly what you're espousing. And it's just as damaging as outright bigotry and discrimination, regardless of the fact that you're couching it in paternalistic language - in fact, it's actually more insidious.

I don't buy the notion that if Obama ran and lost, it would have been because he was Black. Yes, his race might affect some voters, but there are all sorts of reasons that candidates lose, unrelated to race. And any attempt to blame a loss on (or insist in advance that he not run because of) his race is a bullshit excuse advanced mostly by those with warped perceptions about people who look different from them. White candidates have lost every presidential election since the 1700s. But no one in their right mind insists that White candidates shouldn't run in the future. Why should Obama's race disqualify him from making a run?

[danalytical]

44. Ohh the racist title

Thanks for being an asshole. I never said anybody shouldn't try running for president. I'm saying this country has below the surface sexism, racism, and religious bigotry. Unfortunately. These are what we have to deal with. They are deep rooted problems that will impede our favorite candidates. I think Obama, Hillary, or Russ would all be fine candidates, and I also think each one could easily be chosen in the primaries. We are Democrats. But in the general election, watch out. Now you have to deal with everyone else out there, like Republicans, the South, Texas, and so on.

Did I ever say Obama shouldn't run? Did I ever say Hillary shouldn't run? Did I ever say Russ Feingold should be shoved aside? Nope I didn't. You can take your projected anger and turn it on someone who doesn't want to see a black president or a woman president. It might do more good than attacking fellow liberals on your side.

[pnwmom]

12. America wasn't ready for a Catholic president either

until the day John Kennedy won.

We won't know when America is ready for a black or a woman or a gay President except in hindsight. Or anyone else who doesn't follow the usual WASPy, male mold.

[Fire Walk With Me]

13. The Honorable Conyers should win.

I don't know anything about Obama, but Conyers has impressed me.

[cadmium]

14. I would be sick of this meme too but I never have heard it.

Where is this meme repeated? I hear that he is not experienced enough ---(I'm plus/minus on that). I have never heard that we are not ready to elect a black president. It wouldn't surprise me that some people say that, but I have yet to hear it from any substantial source.

[beaconess]

17. Have you read any Obama thread? It comes up constantly here.

[cadmium]

45. I confess I haven't checked the Obama thread. I will check

later when I have a a few minutes.
Repitition of that meme would be harmful in and of itself.

While I have not heard that meme -- I can see how someone would think that. It is a narrow way of looking at who Americans as a whole would vote for. Race is certainly a factor in a lot of people's vote. To hear that we aren't "ready" as a disqualifying factor would really bother because it can be a self fulfilling prophecy that could go on forever. This refrain itself would make it harder for a black person to get elected.

[beaconess]

47. Exactly!

[beaconess]

18. Self-delet - dupe

[Ninja Jordan]

19. Maybe so, but one with "Hussein" as his middle name?

Whose last name is one letter removed from Osama?

[beaconess]

20. Oh, please.

Anybody stupid enough to vote against him for that reason probably would never vote Democratic anyway.

[Ninja Jordan]

21. You sure?

It's important to realize the ignorance of the masses.

[beaconess]

22. If the masses are that ignorant, then he might not win.

So what? It happens. Democrats lose all the time - it doesn't stop them from continuing to run.

[Ninja Jordan]

23. ...and continuing to lose.

'08 isn't a race I feel like losing.

[beaconess]

24. Then work like hell for whoever the nominee turns out to be

But why are people singling out Obama and saying he shouldn't run, while not suggesting that any other Democrat - even those with no hope of winning - should sit it out because they're not assured of winning?

If Obama runs, he might not win. He might win. We won't even know the possibilities unless and until he actually runs, since there's a whole lot of time and space between now and the election. But it's ridiculous and somewhat insulting for people to insist that he shouldn't run because he's Black or because of his name when similar admonishments are not directed at White candidates, many of whom don't have a fraction of the chance that Obama has.

[Ninja Jordan]

26. Vilsack's name blows (no pun).

[Bake]

49. Ballsack? Harry Ballsack?

Yeah, that's a pretty sucky name ...

Bake

[ClassWarrior]

32. When did we lose?

We won the last four Presidential elections.

NGU.

[uppityperson]

74. I thought I read elsewhere that you are supporting Obama?

perhaps confusion or mind changing is happening?

[beaconess]

75. Self-delete

[uppityperson]

79. don't know but I can guess.

not sure if I'm right, but, well, if I am, indeed.

[LisaL]

67. I feel like a democratic president in 2008, that's all.

[ClassWarrior]

31. "The masses" aren't ignorant.

Maybe you need to do some reading yourself.

Start with John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience." You'll soon learn that it's not ignorance. It's much more terrifying than that.

NGU.

[Clark2008]

63. Actually, yes, they are.

It's not their fault, mind you - but most people haven't come to understand how woefully lacking their news media is.

I read Conservatives Without Conscience and I'm not speaking to those authoritarian followers who need some psychiatric help - I'm speaking to those under-educated by a media who feed them stories about Brittany's sex romps, Lindsey's fit-pitching and a whole host of simple pablum, while they conveniently leave out stories about the Ross Ice Shelf in Antartica breaking apart, about the Iraq-Iran alliance signed this week, about how the news organization's very company builds war machinery (GM=NBC).

Yes, there are some very scary people who would never vote Democratic to begin with. I'm not talking about them and neither is the poster who started this sub-thread. We're talking about people who are either ignorant or racist on purpose or not.

[izzybeans]

51. If I were his adviser I'd have my canned "If (insert bigots name) needs a lesson

in humility, equality, and justice tell him/her to stop by my office. I would also gladly teach him/her about the genealogy of my name and what and how much my family name means to me."

It has the quality of "I challenge you to a duel" that I like.

[KingFlorez]

87. People who are stupid enough to let that effect their vote

Probably wouldn't be voting Democratic anyway.

[Clark2008]

25. You would agree we'd need the purple states, correct?

Well, I'm in Tennessee - a bona fide purple state (Dems control our state government, both as the governor and in the state's General Assembly, but we have republican US senators and about half Dem, half Rep. in the US congress) - and a black man couldn't win in this state.

I like Obama, but I don't think enough Americans in the purple states would vote for him because of his color - and they may not even realize their own prejudices.

My state is a good bellweather for this: and Ford fell 3 percent short of winning and about half of that was because of his color, I guarantee it (the other half were the staunch Republicans and those who don't listen to anything but corporate media).

[beaconess]

27. Oh, Lord - here we go again . . .Yes - we KNOW you're from Tennessee

How many times are you going to bring this up?

You keep coming up with the same old bogus argument:

Obama can't be elected president because Harold Ford lost in Tennessee . . .

Makes as much sense as saying that John Edwards can't be elected president because Rick Santorum lost in Pennsylvania.

Or that no white woman can ever be elected president because Deval Patrick beat Kerry Healey in the Massachusetts governor's race.

But wait a minute - Deval Patrick is BLACK! So does the fact that he won in Massachusetts mean that he would win a presidential election?

Barack Obama is not Harold Ford. Tennessee is not the United States. 2006 is not 2008. The fact that Harold Ford lost in Tennessee in 2006 in no way predicts whether Obama could win a presidential race in 2008. The fact that they are both Black does not mean that their political roadmaps and prospects are the same.

And, by the way, Al Gore couldn't carry Tennessee either. Since Tennessee is such a bellweather state for future presidential candidates, does that mean he should never be considered for another presidential run? Oh, wait a minute - Al Gore is White.

Never mind.

[ClassWarrior]

30. Their political roadmaps and prospects may not be the same...

...but don't you agree that they all look alike?

:sarcasm:

NGU.

[beaconess]

33. Now that you mention it . . .

And they DO have that rhythm thing, too.

Not that there's anything wrong with it and it wouldn't make ME vote against them -

But you know how other people will look at them, so we'd better not put them out there.

:sarcasm:

[ClassWarrior]

35. Yeah... OTHER people... that's the ticket...

:rofl:

NGU.

[Clark2008]

61. I didn't say he shouldn't run.

I said I don't think he'd win because, like Hillary, he won't flip any purple states and we HAVE to do that to win.

The more people of color who get out in the public eye - the better - and the better it will improve his chances further down the road. I just don't think it will happen in 2008 - not with our backwards media, not with our backwards country - all predicated by what the Republicans have wrought for the past 20 years.

[LisaL]

73. I don't think America is ready for Hillary either.

At least republicans I talk to really dislike her. It's hard to start a race with that sort of baggage.

[Clark2008]

60. Oh Lord, here we go again. Someone else that doesn't

seem to understand that the middle of the country IS NOT like the coasts.

Get out more.

It's not a bogus argument and I dare say you'd hear it from most ANY ONE from a purple state who doesn't only reside on liberal boards and has their judgment clouded by listening only to liberal thinking (that would be a great world, but it's not reality).

And Barack Obama may not be Harold Ford Jr., but they're not seen as all that much different by the electorate - in fact, they're confused more often than you'd like to admit. I'm not talking about us political junkies - I'm talking about the folks who just vote and nothing more.

No, Tennessee is NOT the rest of the country, but it's a closer predicator to what the mid-West would do than Massachusetts or California.

And, if Al Gore had WON Tennessee, the Supreme Court would not have been necessary (btw, and for your entertainment value, Gore lost to Bush by the same percentage as Ford lost to Corker - 3 percent - in this state. That's worth noting).

[Hippo_Tron]

80. Look I live in Tennessee as well, but it is far more red than purple

The fact is that the south is not at this time is trending red on social issues while the midwest and the west are starting to vote on economic issues again which bodes well for the Democrats. The one exception is Virginia and that is due largely to population shifts. I realize that you'd like to see Democrats compete in TN but I think it will be red in '08 unless the Dem wins in an absolute landslide. I'm not saying that we should abandon the south because we shouldn't abandon a single state but by post-convention time in '08 I do not think that it will be realisitic to compete in Tennessee or anywhere else in the south outside of Florida and Virginia.

[ClassWarrior]

28. I hear purple is the new white.

:rofl:

NGU.

[Clark2008]

62. You're laughing, but you may be right, unfortunately.

13 percent of Tennesseans interviewed said they knew someone who would not vote for Ford because of his color.

THIRTEEN PERCENT.

That's awful, but I suspect rather true.

[KingFlorez]

88. Tennessee isn't a purple state

The majority of the purple states aren't backward thinking like Tennessee.

[DaveinMD]

29. the bigots won't vote for Obama

but they weren't going to vote for him anyhow. He can win.

[BikeWriter]

38. IMO, racism still thrives in the US. Some will never vote for a black.

[beaconess]

39. And some will never vote for a Democrat and some will never vote for a Catholic

and some will never vote for a Republican, and some will never vote for a deadbeat ne'er-do-well and some will never vote for a trial lawyer and some will never vote for a career politician and some will never vote for a career military man and some will never vote for a divorced person, and some will never vote for a former actor, and some will never vote for a Southerner, and some will never vote for a Massachusetts liberal, blah blah blah - but that doesn't mean that any of these people should never run or that they can never win.

[BikeWriter]

40. It means I don't think he has a snow ball's chance in hell.

[frankenforpres]

41. Tupac said it. i, however, am all for obama(n/t)

[AJ9000]

42. Obama's nothing special, and yes, many Americans will not vote for a black candidate. nm

[Vidar]

46. I'd vote for Jesse Jackson whenever he wants to run.

[Eurobabe]

48. I 100% agree with you. And I am sick of the anti-WOMAN Prez

posts as well. BLAH-BLAH ->-> "America isn't ready for an African American or a woman or a Hispanic or a (fill in the blank)."

Bull.

[Bullet1987]

50. Great Post Beaconess...

...I agree with you 100%.

Also, on the Kenneth Blackwell thing. I also think he lost ever since the feelings about the 2004 election being stolen and him having something to do with thousands of votes disappearing from numerous districts destroyed his reputation (as much as it's not talked about in the MSM). RFK Jr. has done a lot in uncovering that whole mess in Ohio.

[loyalsister]

52. I'm with you

As a matter of fact, Shirly Chisholm- A black WOMAN had some delegates in the 1972 primary.
Now, that's a long way from actually winning the election, but it does tell us that even in 1972 there were people who were willing to cast votes for a black woman in a presidential primary.
We are not nearly as enlightened as one would hope, but are people really convinced that we regressed so far behind 1972 despite all evidence to the contrary?

[Jamastiene]

54. I think it is codespeak (bigotry) when they say that.

I say let any black person run who wants to run. Obama seems just as much a contender for the nomination as anyone to me.

[Skittles]

58. I'm not sure if it is always actual bigotry

but it sure as hell is always at the very least PANDERING TO BIGOTS and honestly, that's just as bad in my book.

[beaconess]

65. A lot of it is paternalism based on prejudice (which is different than racism or bigotry)

The prejudice is the sense that Blacks really can't make it, not because of any inherent inferiority, but because of situational inferiority, i.e., forces outside of our control make it impossible for us to ever measure up to White people. They insist that they don't personally feel that Blacks are inferior, but since so many other people do, it's just the way things are.

The paternalism comes in when they then insist that because Black folk can't compete fairly, they should not try because 1) we'll try and fail and it will hurt us more than if we hadn't tried at all; and/or 2) if we try and fail, it will mean that someone else {White} who could have succeeded didn't get the chance and now everyone is being harmed because of the Black person's failure. Of course, they'll insist, the failure isn't the Black person' fault because, after all, it's not their fault that America is racist and didn't give them a chance, but the damage will be done just the same.

[Skittles]

70. you nail it beaconess

you kinow your stuff :thumbsup:

All I know is, I don't put up with it - when I hear people talk such nonsense I shoot 'em down. Yes INDEED.

[Jamastiene]

84. Right.

Pandering to the bigots falls under the same category as silence is murder. By pandering to them, they are giving them power and credence they should not have. That's why our country is falling behind in so many ways compared to the rest of the world. It's just another example of where we should be leading, but instead we are letting the bigots have too much power and control.

It's exactly the same as letting a child pitch temper tantrums and giving in to them. They'll just keep doing it if we let them get by with it. If we let them bitch and complain but do what's right instead a couple of times, they'll have to get with the program or realize they have been marginilized, which they should be. The extremists have controlled our political system long enough. The extremists have been getting their way for far too long.

Why? I think our government is afraid of the Timothy McVeighs and the Eric Rudolphs and the hate groups because they are so violent and many have military training. They need to enact tought ATF laws regarding those hate groups and watch them more closely, so we can have a real representational government in this country based on the actual population instead of those 12 people out in the middle of nowhere who want a whites only world. It just ain't gonna happen for them no matter how hard they try. So, why give in to them and let them have their way? It's a losing strategy, if you ask me.

[Clark2008]

64. I can attest to you that it's not bigotry.

I worked for Harold Ford Jr. - a black man, I campaigned for him, in a state many of you think is red, but is atually purple.

And, after his loss, I can say that I don't believe a black man can win. And it's certainly not bigotry on my part (even if people on this board would like to assign that to me - they're sadly mistaken. I don't have a bigotted bone in my body). It's the bigotry, the lack of a good media in the purple states and the sheer ignorance of some of the voting populi I saw during that campaign that make me about 90 percent sure that Obama can't win.

Although the OP only presented the bigotry in his/her statement - there are other factors. Let me see if I can explain: there are a certain number of people who will NEVER vote for a Democrat, no matter what - about 26 yo 30 percent. So, throw them out. Then there are people who live in states where there is little to no alternative media besides the corporate machines - throw out another 10 to 15 percent of them because they think Democrat=liberal and "liberal" is a dirty word because the media told them so. Now, you have between 36 and 45 percent who aren't going to be voting for a Democrat. That's OK. That's a number we can deal with. It's still below the 50 percent margin and workable.

However, then you factor in racism. Some people are racist and proud of it, while other are racist and don't know they are. They may consider a black person when they're making up their mind, but, at the last minute, something happens in their pre-trained brains and they simply can't push that button, pull that level, punch that chad - whatever - for the black candidate. And that's where we run into trouble as Democrats. That 5 to 15 percent create the problem - we could still win with a black candidate, but we're pushing the 50 percent envelope.

Black Republicans don't quite have this problem because they've still got the advantage with their base and with their monopoly on most media in the purple states. It's a harder battle for a black Democrat, however. They have all THREE groups of people to contend with - the die-hard Republicans, the mushy middle influenced by a conservative media AND the racists.

I hope this clarifies things for both the OP and you.

[LisaL]

72. Nobody is saying he can't run. The question is if he can win.

[beaconess]

77. No one knows if he can win. Just like we don't know if ANY Democrat can win.

None of the potential candidates are a sure thing. So it makes no sense to impose a requirement - that he be a sure thing - on Obama that no other candidate is required to meet.

[Jamastiene]

83. That's just plain wrong.

He should stand the same chance as anyone else with no special requirements. Skin color should not matter. Sometimes, I really am disappointed in my own party, but then they all seem to be that way. That still doesn't make it right at all. It's wrong. He should be able to run and stand the same chance at winning based on the same standards as any white candidate.

[Jamastiene]

82. Well, that all depends on the latest democratic mindset.

Lately, the democratic mindset has involved telling any minorities in the party to pretty much shut up and let the white, straight, right wing of the party (they call themselves the moderates) do all the talking.

I see your point. If the mindset of our own party changed in that realm, he could possibly win. I was just upset back in '88 that I didn't turn 18 until the general election. I wanted to get to vote for Jessie Jackson my first time at the polls. I didn't get to and he hasn't run since, sadly. :( I'd still vote for him if given half a chance.

[nebula]

59. I don't think even many Dems would vote a black for President

Personally, I think Obama is a lightweight. I will never understand
why some people seem to be so obssessed over him.

[Montauk6]

68. Look, let's put it ALL on the table, shall we?

America is NOT ready to elect a candidate who is not of English, Scottish, Irish, French, Dutch or German descent; male; Christian; pro-military; pro-corporate; married with children; heterosexual; and from one of the two major parties.

If the candidate meets ALL the above criteria, they (or I should say HE) won't be nearly as scrutinized or second-guessed as someone who doesn't; that's reality, and yes, it should make any rational American looking for more than business as usual.

This is why Obama won't get in. This is why Feingold won't get in. And, yes, this is why Hillary won't get in.

Now whether that's "ever" remains to be seen; I would hope not but I'm not holding my breath... that would make me sick. ; )

[Bullet1987]

69. ...

America is NOT ready to elect a candidate who is not of English, Scottish, Irish, French, Dutch or German descent; male; Christian; pro-military; pro-corporate; married with children; heterosexual; and from one of the two major parties.

If the candidate meets ALL the above criteria, they (or I should say HE) won't be nearly as scrutinized or second-guessed as someone who doesn't; that's reality, and yes, it should make any rational American looking for more than business as usual.

This is why Obama won't get in. This is why Feingold won't get in. And, yes, this is why Hillary won't get in.

Now whether that's "ever" remains to be seen; I would hope not but I'm not holding my breath... that would make me sick. ; )

We'll never know until they run (minus Feingold because he said he didn't want to run).

[beaconess]

76. How do you know America is not ready to elect anyone not in those categories?

Unless a serious candidate runs, how will America even know?

And how do we get America ready unless we push? America's not going to elect a Black candidate - or a woman or anyone else who doesn't fit in the mold of presidents of the past - unless they have the choice put in front of them. And maybe they won't do it this time or the next time, but that doesn't mean we don't try.

America is never ready to do anything until it's pushed to do it. America wasn't ready for a Catholic president - until JFK ran and won. America wasn't ready for a Black Supreme Court Justice - until LBJ nominated Thurgood Marshall, and got him confirmed. America wasn't ready for a divorced president - until Ronald Reagan was elected. America wasn't ready for two southerners on a ticket - until Bill Clinton and Al Gore rewrote the running mate playbook.

I think American is ready for a Black president. But even if it isn't ready right now, it's time to get America ready. And the only way to do that is to run a Black candidate. And if Obama doesn't make it, he can run again. Or we can run another Black candidate. And another one. And another one. If its not ready now, it will eventually be ready. And so will we.

Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God. Dr. Martin Luther King, Letter from the Birmingham Jail.

[Montauk6]

85. Then you're going to have to define "serious"

Meanwhile, this bears repeating, and perhaps, we all have to step outside the comfort zone of DU and face this harsh fact (and GLORY HALLELUJAH if it turns out NOT to be a fact):

America is NOT ready to elect a candidate who is not of English, Scottish, Irish, French, Dutch or German descent; male; Christian; pro-military; pro-corporate; married with children; heterosexual; and from one of the two major parties.

How do I KNOW THIS? Well, 2004 is one guide. Now, unless there was some HUUUUUUGE revolution between then and now that would overturn a tradition possibly as old as the country itself, I doubt much has changed.

Like Gulliver said, you had Carol Mosely-Braun and Al Sharpton running. I'm sure THEY would argue that they were serious candidates. But you've also gotta throw in Kucinich (unmarried at the time, no kids, arguably anti-military (perhaps, more appropriately anti-Military) and anti-corporate). Now he was DEFINITELY a serious candidate but I'm sure he wasn't considered a serious one, certainly not one with a chance in hell of winning.

You mentioned Ronald Reagan; true he was the only President to have visited divorce court. But, come on... that was 1948. By the time '80 rolled around he'd been REMARRIED to the same woman for almost 30 years! James Buchanan never married but got in back in '57 (18, that is); some might argue he was the first and only gay president and that Harriet Lane was a beard but that's rumor and speculation only.

And while some have desperately referred to Big Dog as the first "Black" president, that's a definite reach, Ms. Morrison's arguments notwithstanding. But comparing "not ready for two southerners" to not ready for someone not fitting The Criteria is interesting but doesn't wash, sorry.

Finally, JFK was still a Christian, despite the denomination (which still is the largest in the world).

[beaconess]

86. So - you think that because Sharpton and Moseley-Braun weren't elected president in 2004

Barak Obama cannot possibly be elected president in 2008?

I see.

[Montauk6]

94. No no no.. .now see? You're zooming too fast, bring it down a little..

Because of the reasons I stated, bolstered by the lack of success of Sharpton AND Mosely-Braun AND Kucinich AND Cobb AND Nader AND Browne AND Perot AND heck let's just throw in Pat Paulsen while we're at it; Obama will PROBABLY (not possibly because anything's possible) not win.

Look, if he decides to run, great; I'll even vote for him if he gets the nom, but then I have no problem voting for candidates who PROBABLY won't win. But I'm not going to ignore the country we live in.

[KingFlorez]

89. The country has been ready

People who base who they vote for on race are a minority, not everyone bases things on race.

[gulliver]

71. Chisolm, Jackson, Mosely Braun, and Sharpton did run.

So it's not like no blacks have ever run. I think America is ready to elect a black president. But it is a terrible idea to support someone because they are black. That taints the very idea of electing a black president. We would be trading in mere appearances, and I've had enough of that with Bush to last a lifetime.

That's my fear with Obama. I listen to him talk, and I like what I hear, but I still find his content mediocre. If I were listening to him on the radio, I wouldn't feel compelled to stay tuned any more than most other Dems. Obama is an unknown quantity to me. I want to see some actions.

Right now, I am opposed to him for the same reason as for a Hillary/female presidency. Some look at politicians and ask, "Why not?" I try to look at politicians and ask, "Why?"

[Guaranteed]

78. Totally agreed. Would give you another rec if I could.

Obama is not my first or second choice for pres- but definitely not because he's black. His being black is one of his most attractive characeristics, in fact, in my opinion. It's his policies that bother me.

We need to start breaking new ground in our party. We need to start doing bold things. Nominating a black man for the presidency would certainly be bold.

[salin]

90. Perhaps we have grown since 1984... but there was a woman on the ticket

and the excuse many gave for not voting dem - was not that she was a woman... but that having only served a few terms in congress, that she didn't have the experience needed to be a heartbeat from the presidency (yes the word heartbeat was used over and over again).

Yet many of the same people turned around and voted for a ticket, a near 4 years later, with just as inexperienced Dan Quayle on the ticket - also a "heartbeat" away from the presidency. One could make a strong case that intellectually, Ferraro was much safer to have a heartbeat away from the presidency than Quayle.

That said, I do not think we should vote based on what we perceive to be the current terms of "electability" - but rather for the best candidate for president. Given that I don't know who will be running, I can't say whether or not Obama fits the bill (could be the best candidate - depends on the actual field. Right now I don't know much about Vilsack (sp) and I really don't like Bayh - so of a field of three I would support Obama).

All that said - per my point above of the lesson from 1984 and 1988 - I don't know how much we have "grown up" as a voting public since that time. But when I heard the same folks who used the lack of experience excuse as a reason for not voting for Mondale/Ferraro... turn around and vote for Bush/Quayle... colored me cynical.

[JeremyWestenn]

91. I don't like darkies.

I eates them for suppa.




... Really. I'm so tired of these threads. :\

[LibertyorDeath]

92. I am SO SICK of people who refuse to accept American political reality

"America hasn't elected a liberal Democrat president since Kennedy"


That's because the powers that be put a bullet in his head.

Americans in general may be ready Obama or Hillary (but I have major doubts about that)

the power structure that exists in America is not.

They weren't ready for Kennedy Bobby or Jack or MLK

So it sucks but it's the reality of American political power.

[Sapphire Blue]

93. K & R; I'm also sick of it... and sick of seeing it on DU.

I've said before that I sometimes have to check the address bar up above to make sure that my internets haven't been hijacked & sent to the netherworld of the 'other' site. I'm only half kidding.

(Edited to add: too late to Recommend. imo, this should have been on the greatest page.)

[pnwmom]

95. I think his candidancy could electrify YOUNG America,

and their work could put him over the top.