First major-party African-American presidential nominee

[sr71plt]

Technically (and I don't particularly care about these things), he's not an African-American— genetically, he's something on the order of one-sixteenth black.

Alas, the "one-drop rule" is still on the law books. So, he would still be classified legally as black. (As, I'm sure, would most of us be if we were all tested for a one-drop trace.)

 

[S-Des]

"McCain -- Obviously, it's not your world yet, you fucking snotnosed punks!"

There's the winner, right there!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Wait! Wait!

You are all over the map here! YOU were the one talking about "experience" as relevant!! JBJ (damn it.. it WOULD be him!) was spot on with the reference to Lincoln...

The point.. which you found so unconvincing... was that this "experience" crap is just that... crap!

The nation is not, thankfully and despite Dubya's best efforts, is not in the death spiral that Lincoln inherited... But it is leadership.. character.. and even wit and an "eye on the prize" which is important, not this "experience" factor which you are pushing.... And certainly when the "experience" McCain has boils down mainly to longevity!

But now the bumper sticker factor. as they might have said in Pulp Fiction...

THAT we can all chew on!!

-KC

To recap:

I said "experience" was a factor on the positive side for McCain, one that's easy for him to exploit.
You said "experience is a red herring."
JBJ cited Lincoln as a successful candidate with a dearth of (political) experience. (He did have a wealth of life experience though.)
I noted that the Lincoln example is not relevent given the unique circumstances of that election.

Bottom line: Experience isn't everything, but it's not nothing, either, and the point goes to McCain.

Further recap: I originally pointed out that the dems have nominated the most liberal member of the US Senate, a person whose only accomplishment of note is being an extremely slick politician. The repubs have nominated a centrist with an awesome biography. I asked why should anyone expect this to be anthing other than a 49-state rout a'la' Reagan/Mondale, Nixon/McGovern or Bush/Dukakis?

Let me suggest that the following is not a winning bumper sticker: "Obama 2008: Because he's black, liberal and gives a good speech."

Let me further suggest that since Bush is not on the ballot, neither is this a winner: "Obama: Because he's not Bush." Nor this: "Obama: Because McCain is Bush."

However, as far as I can see those three bumperstickers capture all the rationale that's been offered for an Obama presidency. I refer again to my orginal question: Why should anyone expect anything other than a rout?

 

[sr71plt]

I think "Obama: Because he's not Bush" is a great bumper sticker.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I don't know why in the world Hillary Clinton would want to be VP under Obama. That makes no sense at all. After all the sexist and racial name calling slurs done by Obama and his minions that just isn't in the cards.

Obama isn't electable - read the polls. Hillary will close her campaign, but it's a long time between now and the convention. The Republicans got the candidate they wanted to run against to save the Republican White House, but the truth about Obama is coming.

Geraldine F was right. Obama owes the right to run for president to Lyndon Johnson and the Clintons. There are a lot of white people in this country that will not vote for a black man, and there a a hell of a lot of elderly people and women who specifically won't vote for Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuysWJDP6J4

 

[sr71plt]

I don't know why in the world Hillary Clinton would want to be VP under Obama. That makes no sense at all. After all the sexist and racial name calling slurs done by Obama and his minions that just isn't in the cards.

Obama isn't electable - read the polls. Hillary will close her campaign, but it's a long time between now and the convention. The Republicans got the candidate they wanted to run against to save the Republican White House, but the truth about Obama is coming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuysWJDP6J4

A trigger squeeze away from being president in today's atmosphere? Being the first woman elected to vice president? Having leverage (from the volume of her obvious public support) to be a functioning part of an administration? Being the party presidential candidate presumptive for eight years while being young enough to run for president in eight years?

Yeah, I can see her being interested in the job. The power of the vice presidency has been changing. It would be a dreadful mistake not to realize that. And, again, Hillary's no dummy.

And the short answer is that Hillary said she's interested two days ago. (Where have you been?)

Regarding the poll, the CNN poll released just over an hour ago has Obama at 47% and McCain at 45%. Too close to mean much--other than that your statement of "Obama's unelectable read the polls" looks rather silly. And these polls are while Clinton's supporters are still sore. Come back in two weeks and cite poll numbers, after Hillary's had time to attach herself and most of her supporters to the unity Democratic ticket. (Again, where have you been?)

So many Chicken Littles flurrying about on this issue. All you have to do is wait ten minutes and watch the politicians at work.

 

[CharleyH]

Obama clinched it today. I feel proud of the USA, as if we've done something that ought to be ordinary but is extraordinary.

Whatever happens in November, this step feels good.

The US has not done much more than elect another man to office, in my Canadian eyes. Albeit, if he chooses Hilary Clinton as VP? Then he will probably escape assassination for the mere fact that no one wants Hilary as President, if nothing else.

 

[sr71plt]

The US has not done much more than elect another man to office, in my Canadian eyes.

Ah, so you think it's all about the gender of the office holder? Perhaps it's best you stay in Canada then.

 

[CharleyH]

Ah, so you think it's all about the gender of the office holder? Perhaps it's best you stay in Canada then.

No I don't. I am not happy that Obama is in (he is too idealistic for my taste) but I will be happy if any democrat wins the next election in America. A black man vs a white one? It will be an interesting election race. I've lived in the US and prejudice stinks in the streets there.

 

[sr71plt]

I've lived in the US and prejudice stinks in the streets there.

Oddly enough, I've lived on four continents--and found prejudice stinking up the streets on all four of them. Again, with such a delicate constitution, it's probably good for you to be out of the way in Canada.

 

[CharleyH]

Oddly enough, I've lived on four continents--and found prejudice stinking up the streets on all four of them. Again, with such a delicate constitution, it's probably good for you to be out of the way in Canada.

I don't live in Canada and prejudice has been and is very uniquely American.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't live in Canada and prejudice has been and is very uniquely American.

What a crock of shit.

I take it you don't get around much.

 

[S-Des]

I don't live in Canada and prejudice has been and is very uniquely American.

Yes, when between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Tutsi's were butchered in 3 months in 1994, it had nothing to do with prejudice.

What a stupid fucking thing to claim.

 

[amicus]

I held my nose and waded through the entire five page swamp of this thread, getting just about what I expected: "Sound and fury signifying nothing", the same content as the Democrat's Primary Campaign.

"It is not about race!" They all scream in unison, yet the thread title belies the very fact that it is about race and gender. The liberal egalitarian left has finally justified emancipation of both women and blacks.

Since I have stated my thoughts before, it will come as no surprise when I say that neither women or blacks, following their entrance into the affairs of men, have earned the right to speak with a rational voice.

Both are replete with special rights for each as reparation for the past, how silly, next thing, Cloudy will want the land back. (oh, she already does..."

Neither comprehend the magnificence of America and the responsibility that freedom carries with it, both want 'something for nothing' in a world that offers very little for free.

This thread, like the campaign, is thus far without substance and consequently, import, as there are no issues discussed.

Every election I can remember and that is quite a few and every election I read about and that is all of them, have always been, 'crucial crossroads' in American history.

Perhaps. but we survived Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton, somewhat weakened and the worse for wear, but we survived and we will again, regardless.

Truman and Kennedy wanted to Nationalize various industries and world war two gave Roosevelt the means to do so.

Obama/Clinton have indicated they would Nationalize the major oil corporations.

Both want to draft doctors and nurses into service. No, don't argue; you can't call socialized medicine anything else but forced labor.

Both want to force all young people to attend college and then be drafted for two to four years National service.

Both want to raise taxes.

Both want major societal investments to combat the non existent anthropological influence on climate, a total waste of energy and a curtailment of industry as the nation slows to a crawl. No jobs, no product, no income.

Both would re-institute the military draft.

Neither has an energy plan to alleviate a crisis that is already upon us. Instead they will exacerbate the problem with more 'green' solutions that has thus far increased prices on most essential commodities including food.

I personally suspect that the imposition of these dictatorial and command economy plans would foment a by god shooting revolution, right here in river city.

Bring it on.

Amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

. . . Albeit, if he chooses Hilary Clinton as VP? Then he will probably escape assassination for the mere fact that no one wants Hilary as President, if nothing else.

You assume that potential assassins are rational.

I don't live in Canada and prejudice has been and is very uniquely American.

That's an amazing statement. "Uniquely American." Wow.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Black man or white woman, that was the big question. And I think we're getting the answer. No matter how many racists there may be in the trailer parks out in the american bushes, they still prefer a man of what they consider to be the "wrong" colour than anyone with a pussy. Sexism IS stronger than racism.


Fascinating.









Or maybe you'll just go ahead and vote for the republic white man, just to be safe.

 

[shereads]

Or maybe you'll just go ahead and vote for the republic white man, just to be safe.

Svenska's back!

You've been missed.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Black man or white woman, that was the big question. And I think we're getting the answer. No matter how many racists there may be in the trailer parks out in the american bushes, they still prefer a man of what they consider to be the "wrong" colour than anyone with a pussy. Sexism IS stronger than racism.

Fascinating.

Or maybe you'll just go ahead and vote for the republic white man, just to be safe.

Maybe they just thought he would be a better prez? Or maybe they'll think that about the repub? ("Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.")

BTW, if she had won wouldn't you just be saying, "Racism IS stronger than sexism." It appears that no matter what this country does we'll be condemned.

 

[rgraham666]

Black man or white woman, that was the big question. And I think we're getting the answer. No matter how many racists there may be in the trailer parks out in the american bushes, they still prefer a man of what they consider to be the "wrong" colour than anyone with a pussy. Sexism IS stronger than racism.


Fascinating.









Or maybe you'll just go ahead and vote for the republic white man, just to be safe.

Once the Rove smear and fear machine is done with Obama, a majority of them will.

 

[shereads]

With all due respect to my fellow feminists, I think it's both SEXIST and RACIST to assume that gender and race were the only distinguishing factors for primary voters choosing between Hilary and Obama. Yes, she took some sexist hits (none that I'm aware of came directly from Obama's campaign.) And yes, she is guilty of a below-the-belt comment of her own (the one about "hard working white Americans" being in her camp.)

I've been a Hilary supporter for a long time, and I was a feminist before some of you knew what a feminist was - and I happen to prefer Obama. Primarily because he had the foresight and the courage to oppose Bush's invasion of Iraq.

My point: if you are going to condemn sexism, in the USA or anywhere else, you can't hang your argument on the idea that when a woman loses in competition, it must be because she's a woman. That's no more logical than saying that women who rise to the top must have been given special treatment because of their gender.



Meanwhile, back at the thread topic:

I don't have to be African-American to appreciate that this is a big deal, particularly for older black men and women who remember the world before the Civil Rights movement. And I'm glad that my whiteness - and my womanhood, and my admiration for Hilary Clinton - haven't blinded me to the significance of this moment in our history. That it coincides with the anniversary of Bobby Kennedy's murder has meaning for me, too. I'm proud that my party pushed for passage of the Civil Rights Act, and cognizant of the price.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Meanwhile, back at the thread topic:

I don't have to be African-American to appreciate that this is a big deal, particularly for older black men and women who remember the world before the Civil Rights movement. And I'm glad that my whiteness - and my womanhood, and my admiration for Hilary Clinton - haven't blinded me to the significance of this moment in our history. That it coincides with the anniversary of Bobby Kennedy's murder has meaning for me, too. I'm proud that my party pushed for passage of the Civil Rights Act, and cognizant of the price.

Hear-hear. Yep, those older blacks who grew up and came of age under Jim Crow must be pretty amazed and proud. You've come a long way, baby.

~~~~~~~~

I don't mean to be churlish, but a your partisan pride is a bit misplaced with regards to 1964. Here's the facts on the civil rights act vote:

The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Pride in a political party is almost always misplaced in American politics. The parties are coalitions that exist soley to pursue power, not principle. They "entrepreneurially" adopt or drop issues on the basis how these contribute to that fundamental goal. This is neither a "normative" nor a cynical description; it's just the way it is.

 

[shereads]

Here-here. Yep, those older blacks who grew up and came of age under Jim Crow must be pretty amazed and proud. You've come a long way, baby.

~~~~~~~~

I don't mean to be churlish, but a your partisan pride is a bit misplaced with regards to 1964. Here's the facts on the civil rights act vote:

The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Pride in a political party is almost always misplaced in American politics. The parties are coalitions that exist soley to pursue power, not principle. They "entrepreneurially" adopt or drop issues on the basis how these contribute to that fundamental goal. This is neither a "normative" nor a cynical description; it's just the way it is.

The final votes on the Civil Rights Act don't reflect the struggle that went before. If you took a vote in the House and Senate today on whether the Iraq invasion was a good idea, you'd get a dramatically different picture of party loyalties than you would have even a couple of years ago.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Technically (and I don't particularly care about these things), he's not an African-American— genetically, he's something on the order of one-sixteenth black.

And bottom-line socially speaking, he's simply not White.

I don't know why in the world Hillary Clinton would want to be VP under Obama. That makes no sense at all. After all the sexist and racial name calling slurs done by Obama and his minions that just isn't in the cards.

This must be a parallel Earth you're reporting from, because I am completely unaware of Obama making sexist and racist name calling slurs. YouTube must've taken the day off when that happened.

"It is not about race!" They all scream in unison, yet the thread title belies the very fact that it is about race and gender. The liberal egalitarian left has finally justified emancipation of both women and blacks.

Since I have stated my thoughts before, it will come as no surprise when I say that neither women or blacks, following their entrance into the affairs of men, have earned the right to speak with a rational voice.

It comes as no surprise to me, that's for sure. But you can still fuck off. And this African-American middle finger I'm holding up can point you in the right direction if you can't find the way.

 

[cloudy]

This must be a parallel Earth you're reporting from, because I am completely unaware of Obama making sexist and racist name calling slurs. YouTube must've taken the day off when that happened.

Indeed.

It comes as no surprise to me, that's for sure. But you can still fuck off. And this African-American middle finger I'm holding up can point you in the right direction if you can't find the way.

I heart you.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The final votes on the Civil Rights Act don't reflect the struggle that went before. If you took a vote in the House and Senate today on whether the Iraq invasion was a good idea, you'd get a dramatically different picture of party loyalties than you would have even a couple of years ago.

Perhaps, but my broader point remains. The 1964 Dem party you are "proud" of was a marriage of convenience between southern segregationists and New Deal economic liberals. And there's no gainsaying the fact that 80 percent of Repubs voted for the bill.

There are many individuals and groups that deserve pride and honor, but U.S. political parties as such are not amongst them.