If Obama Weren't Black

[Texarkandy]

Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Issues

Oh look, a platform - everybody's gotta have one to get elected (not that most of the voters will really study it in depth - they just want to hear pretty speeches)

Sorry, I've given Obama my best objective read/hearing (as I try to do all the candidates being the Independent I am) and in the end it all smells carefully crafted/calculated to win an election.

 

[Texarkandy]

Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Issues

Just read this...
"Interviews with Virginia voters leaving the polls showed obama split the white vote with Clinton, and his share of the black vote approached 90 percent"
source: Obama, McCain win Virginia primaries - Yahoo! News

Since this percentage appears abnormally high, I wonder if this may be reverse discrimination in the sense that (Bill) Clinton has done so much for the black community, yet the black community seems to be putting that aside in favor of a black candidate maybe just because he is black. I know Billery is running, but I can only assume Billery would be just as kind to blacks as Bill was.

I can't help but wonder if Hillary got 90% of the "white vote" in any particular locale - would some people be hollering racism?

Obama will get 70% to 90% of the black vote no matter what his policies are - Hillary should know that, if she doesn't she has terrible political instincts and doesn't deserve to be President. When it comes down to the wire in the privacy of that voting booth, I suspect many black Americans will ultimately swing toward voting for Obama - just because

 

[samclem]

. . .
Since this percentage appears abnormally high, I wonder if this may be reverse discrimination . . .

Not to pick on you R@40, but when I hear people say "reverse discrimination" I always wonder what they are talking about. It seems to me that there is is only "discrimination." We recognize some discrimination in selecting a president (or employee) as good and proper (e.g. discriminating between honest people and dishonest ones, discriminating between lazy people and industrious people) and we see discriminating using other criteria as inappropriate (e.g eye color, height). I think discriminating on the basis of race in selecting a President is inappropriate and I'd hoped we were past that, but maybe not.

 

[Notmuchlonger]

"I think discriminating on the basis of race in selecting a President is inappropriate and I'd hoped we were past that, but maybe not."


Its human nature and I doubt that will ever change. Anyone who is "different" will be discriminated against somehow.

 

[retire@40]

Not to pick on you R@40, but when I hear people say "reverse discrimination" I always wonder what they are talking about. It seems to me that there is is only "discrimination." We recognize some discrimination in selecting a president (or employee) as good and proper (e.g. discriminating between honest people and dishonest ones, discriminating between lazy people and industrious people) and we see discriminating using other criteria as inappropriate (e.g eye color, height). I think discriminating on the basis of race in selecting a President is inappropriate and I'd hoped we were past that, but maybe not.

Well, call it discrimination if you want, but I agree that picking a president on factors other than merits is not right. When I see the white vote for Obama split 50/50 and the black vote split 90/10, it just makes me wonder if this isn't the case.

 

[dumpster56]

He just dusted Hillary today in VA MD and the District. I would like to see Hillary leave the race now. She thinks she can stop Obama in Texas and Ohio the first week of March? That is a joke look how that strategy worked for Guilianni in Florida.

Hillary go home.

 

[Texarkandy]

Well, call it discrimination if you want, but I agree that picking a president on factors other than merits is not right. When I see the white vote for Obama split 50/50 and the black vote split 90/10, it just makes me wonder if this isn't the case.

But you have to look at it this way - if evangelical christians go 90% for Huckabee because he's a preacher, is that discrimination because McCain, Romney, & Paul are plain-vanilla protestants?

No, they're just votin for their guy!

(note: as a matter of law you can't discriminate against a person based upon race O0 or religion - but, this is an election - not an EEOC case)

 

[loosechickens]

I think it should be noted that when Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton ran for President, large majorities of black people did not vote for them.

But, when a candidate comes along of the quality of Barack Obama, AND he is also black, if you were black, what would you do? Even though you might have great respect for Hillary Clinton. If she doesn't recognize it, she's got a tin ear.

I think it's kind of like when Joe Louis fought, or when Jackie Robinson took the field in a big league game. When you're looking at a champion AND he's one of yours, why wouldn't you vote for him? Not just because he's black, but because he is a great candidate that you feel inspires you and would be a good President, AND he's black.

A different thing entirely. With a group of people who have experienced racism all of their lives, who can blame them if they want to see one of their own as President? Especially one of their own who is a top quality contender.

I gotta say.....two Texans here in California at the moment, waiting on our absentee ballots so that we can both vote for Obama in the Texas primary.....already sent in two campaign donations, and we are about as white as white can be.

Another thought....couldn't it be just as accurate to say, if whites are voting 50/50 and blacks 90/10....maybe he's just a 90/10 candidate, and it's possible that lots of whites are still practicing racism.

LooseChickens

 

[chinaco]

2-13-2008

After the Potomac Primaries, it looks like it will be a nail biter to the end for the Democratic nomination.

For some odd reason, Clinton and Obama both have more delegates than McCain. Maybe there are still some big red states left.

It would appear that the electorate is a bit undecided (Split). During the General Election die hards for each party will vote party lines. Moderate party members on the republican side could defect to the democrats (the reverse is less likely this year). I suspect that much of the independent vote may go to the democratic party since they often tend to be anti-status quo.

This year may wind up being a vote against the Republican party for GWB's Iraq war. And since GWB is sitting on a questionable economy (official recession or not)... it is probably over for Republicans for the next couple of elections. In other words, "throw the bums out" sentiment.


Obama takes day, pulls ahead in delegates / He sweeps Potomac primaries - McCain strengthens his lead

Delegate chase

Democrats

Obama: 1,212
Clinton: 1,191
Delegate total: 4,049
Needed for nomination: 2,025
Republicans

McCain: 789
Huckabee: 241
Delegate total: 2,380
Needed for nomination: 1,191
(Counts include separately chosen party and elected officials known as superdelegates.)

 

[Letj]

Just read this...
"Interviews with Virginia voters leaving the polls showed obama split the white vote with Clinton, and his share of the black vote approached 90 percent"
source: Obama, McCain win Virginia primaries - Yahoo! News

Since this percentage appears abnormally high, I wonder if this may be reverse discrimination in the sense that (Bill) Clinton has done so much for the black community, yet the black community seems to be putting that aside in favor of a black candidate maybe just because he is black. I know Billery is running, but I can only assume Billery would be just as kind to blacks as Bill was.

No. It's not reverse racism. Blacks are pissed like hell over the recent antics of the Billary team especially the Bill part of the team. If the democratic party is not careful, it would forever alienate blacks.

 

[Letj]

I think it should be noted that when Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton ran for President, large majorities of black people did not vote for them.

But, when a candidate comes along of the quality of Barack Obama, AND he is also black, if you were black, what would you do? Even though you might have great respect for Hillary Clinton. If she doesn't recognize it, she's got a tin ear.

I think it's kind of like when Joe Louis fought, or when Jackie Robinson took the field in a big league game. When you're looking at a champion AND he's one of yours, why wouldn't you vote for him? Not just because he's black, but because he is a great candidate that you feel inspires you and would be a good President, AND he's black.

A different thing entirely. With a group of people who have experienced racism all of their lives, who can blame them if they want to see one of their own as President? Especially one of their own who is a top quality contender.

I gotta say.....two Texans here in California at the moment, waiting on our absentee ballots so that we can both vote for Obama in the Texas primary.....already sent in two campaign donations, and we are about as white as white can be.

Another thought....couldn't it be just as accurate to say, if whites are voting 50/50 and blacks 90/10....maybe he's just a 90/10 candidate, and it's possible that lots of whites are still practicing racism.

LooseChickens

This is one of the smartest and analytical post on this subject. You nailed it here.

 

[ziggy29]

For some odd reason, Clinton and Obama both have more delegates than McCain. Maybe there are still some big red states left.

The Democrats have more total delegates than the Republicans -- almost twice as many.

I just hope the superdelegates don't override the people's choice here. It would be ironic if some of these superdelegates were the same people who complained that Gore received more popular votes than Bush.

 

[HFWR]

The Democrats have more total delegates than the Republicans -- almost twice as many.

I just hope the superdelegates don't override the people's choice here. It would be ironic if some of these superdelegates were the same people who complained that Gore received more popular votes than Bush.

Depends on whose ox is "Gored"...

har-har

 

[FinanceDude]

This year may wind up being a vote against the Republican party for GWB's Iraq war. And since GWB is sitting on a questionable economy (official recession or not)... it is probably over for Republicans for the next couple of elections. In other words, "throw the bums out" sentiment.

Well, more of a vote AGAINST the war on terror, to be precise. Both Billary and Barack want to get the terrorists to the "negotiating table" of they get in. I don't think pandering to radical Muslims is going to work, but what do I know?

 

[dumpster56]

The Democrats have more total delegates than the Republicans -- almost twice as many.

I just hope the superdelegates don't override the people's choice here. It would be ironic if some of these superdelegates were the same people who complained that Gore received more popular votes than Bush.

If the superdelagates screw it up then many dems and independents WILL vote for McCain. Bottom Line Hillary will NOT be the next president of the united states.

 

[TromboneAl]

After the Potomac Primaries, it looks like it will be a nail biter to the end for the Democratic nomination.

Maybe not:

First thoughts: Mr. Front-runner - First Read - msnbc.com

 

[FinanceDude]

I see Obama versus McCain........now THOSE will be some lively debates..........the "young un" agains the "old codger".

Based on what I've seen, I don't think either one has a clear advantage, Obama is eloquent but I think McCain has been around the block more than a few times.......

It won't be as cheesy as the Gore- Bush debates were several years ago..........

 

[haha]

Another thought....couldn't it be just as accurate to say, if whites are voting 50/50 and blacks 90/10....maybe he's just a 90/10 candidate, and it's possible that lots of whites are still practicing racism. LooseChickens

Absolutely. One way or another reality will be bent to conform to PC Catechism. Congratulations, you have just come up with a very creative way!

Ha

 

[Notmuchlonger]

Al Gore will throw his name in soon. Just you wait.

 

[CuppaJoe]

I don't think everyone does it and the number that do in the USA is shrinking.

I have an idea - politicians are only allowed to appear and advertise on radio

One of my favorite radio talk show hosts happens to be O0, came up through the Potrero Hill Projects, is loving Obama.

 

[Marquette]

Al Gore will throw his name in soon. Just you wait.

I thought so. I've been saying that for a long time now.. I'm not so sure, though. At a cursory level, his platform is going to be reduced to 'environment'. One could have ran on that a year ago, but not now...

Bloomberg's coming in though! (maybe not if Obama is in)

 

[ziggy29]

Bloomberg's coming in though! (maybe not if Obama is in)

If ever there was an election where a moderate/independent challenge wasn't needed, it would seem to be Obama-McCain, as both of them already have broad appeal to independents and moderates.

Had we wound up with something like Clinton-Romney, an independent challenge might have made more sense.

 

[clifp]

This topic reminds me of a Star Trek Episode...

STARTREK.COM*:*Episode

I named two black and white cats after the 1/2 black 1/2 white characters in that episode Loki and Bella. Embarrassed the heck out of one of the gals at the Vet when she recognized the origins of the names.

 

[chinaco]

Well, more of a vote AGAINST the war on terror, to be precise. Both Billary and Barack want to get the terrorists to the "negotiating table" of they get in. I don't think pandering to radical Muslims is going to work, but what do I know?

I think most people see a difference between the war on terror (Afghanistan, Covert Ops, intel, etc) and Iraq. Of course Iraq is a terrorist magnet now. But that was not the case before we invaded.

I think most people believe one of two things about Iraq: GWB and his crew made a judgment error or they intentionally misled us. He was at best wrong and perhaps he was worse than wrong. Either way, most of us went along because of the threat of WMD... including me. Now that I know they distorted the truth (and facts), I have little respect for the man.

 

[Texarkandy]

I think it should be noted that when Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton ran for President, large majorities of black people did not vote for them.

Well, they were/are entertainers & self-promoters and everybody knows/knew it. Even they knew they didn't have a snowballs chance of a nomination (and not because of their race). They were only in it to keep their own careers in the media spotlight.

"Race hustling poverty pimps" in the words of J.C. Watts (look for him by the way as a surprise on McCains short-list for VP possibles)

But, when a candidate comes along of the quality of Barack Obama,
LooseChickens

Quality? Afraid I'll have to question that characterization loosechickens. (I'm sure he's a quality person - but as a presidential candidate I don't think he's necessarily earned that stripe.)

Sure, he's not a clown like those other two - but "quality" - how about "perceived quality" - and how much does that "perception" of quality stem from the fact that he's the first black (well, semi) candidate who is young, good looking, has some genuine credentials (academic as they may be), and happens to be a very good (inspiring to some) public speaker.

But, where's the beef? His platform is not really all that different from Hilary's (and the generic democratic playbook). It seems to me calculated to win an election - not anything really new there. (big nanny govt will solve your problems & we'll "tax the rich" to pay for it)

He has minimal legislative experience; zero foreign policy experience; and zero executive (CEO or Governor) type experience. There's no track record there - it's all academic theory.

Sure he's got plenty of "vision" - "vision" & $3.65 will get you a Latte at Starbucks in Northern Virginia.