Unfortunately, what Democrats want and what the DLC
(Dem. party leadership) wants are often two different things. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton are an intregal part of (and owe their careers to) the DLC. Without question, the DLC has consistently been allied with the Republican Party leadership, ensuring the failure of the Dem Party to block the most regressive and damaging parts of the Republican agenda.

#120030 by Douglas Chalmers

• “...Hillary won’t hang around to be No.2 in the White House again - as vice-president. She is NOT interested in the second-place job. Democrats have to get that clear. She will not be cleaning up after a boy in the presidency........ Cheney is the last of that kind of act!"…

Ah Douglas, I know you intended this as a threat, (hillary won’t hang around to be 2nd place), but I have a feeling that most of the Democrats, (at least on this site) will accept it as a promise.

In short, Democrats don’t WANT another repuglithan running the country, and Repuglicans should be very clear on that. IE, Hillary the Repuglican, running on a Democratic ticket, is NOT acceptable. Not as a pres, or as a VP either. In other words, she really should NOT hang around, because at the moment, I can’t think of ANY job within the government, that Hillary could do, without jacking things up. She wouldn’t even be an improvement over Condi at the State Department. I mean, I’d like to find a place for her somewhere, just not there.

So, we’re going to accept this threat as a promise. (if only….if only, you know Hill’s not gonna give up until it’s over). And let me tell you, Hillary would be the repugs choice, if they have to settle for a Democrat that really is a repuglican.

So, let’s get THAT clear. Hillary Clinton is a repuglican. Period. Dot. End of conversation. Cheney would be fine with her, if he doesn’t get Guiliani. I doubt it will matter by then anyway, because he’ll have escaped, along with the rest.

And, whatever made you think that Cheney was cleaning up behind georgie boy? Cheney put georgie-boy in that seat, specifically so that he could do his own damage with as little attention as possible, and blame it on georgie. Surely you don’t think georgie-boy is really running anything, do you? Nope, this is a nearly decade old exercise in applied (pathological) psychology. Let the boy think he’s running things, and let the rest of us believe it as well. (if we should be so stupid)

Then there’s the reality. Hillary is the repuglican choice, and not only has she proven this on the campaign trail, but her congressional actions speak it just as loudly. (actually louder). In all honesty, one could ignore some of her campaign errors, because we know how politically motivated all of the smears are. But, nobody is going to ignore what really counts, on the record, and in action. So, from a democratic or liberal view, Hillary is the poison, and while it might seem like a smear to call her a bush lite, it’s really just the truth. No, she’s actually more in line with the Cheney view, since she is at least a whole bunch smarter than georgie boy. Maybe even smarter than cheney, but no less diabolical, and clearly just as much of a power monger.

<Hillary is the best available this time around and that should be firmed up instead of the Democrats slaying each other.>

Please, Douglas. Hillary is NOT the best available. Any other democratic candidate could defeat whatever republican candidate is offered.

Just like 2000 and 2004, 2008 is the Democratic party’s election to win or lose based on the candidate they choose. But the democrats never nominate a liberal. And THAT is the fundamental problem with the Democratic party.

And with no liberal leading our nation, the U.S. will continue its fast paced decline.

NOTE: I’m not sure what the glitch here is, but my named is signed on a comment that I did not write.

I did NOT write comment #119948 by Conservative Yankee, even though my nae is on it.  Further, I am personally anything but conservative. U have no idea why my name is on it.

I think that someday we will have President of different culture and race, now I don’t think it will happen. I think the Oprah show over the weekend was just that, the Oprah show people came to see her. I think the woman has sound judgement and is well respected. I just saw that she is supporting only Obama, which basically made me think that perhaps there was a touch of racism in the “palooza” over the weekend. I am not a racist!! Perhaps if she is believing that we need a Democrat in office then perhaps she should of been more supportive of the Democratic candidates and not made a spectacle out of a “black man” getting into the office of President of the United States.

#119980 by Mordechai Shiblikov: “This country will not elect a black person president under any circumstances...... The next Republican president will be yet another brimstone bearing avatar of fear since that is the prevalent human emotion....”

Obama will be a more suitable candidate in another decade and, in the meantime, could make a good vice-president. Hillary is the best available this time around and that should be firmed up instead of the Democrats slaying each other.

Hillary won’t hang around to be No.2 in the White House again - as vice-president. She is NOT interested in the second-place job. Democrats have to get that clear. She will not be cleaning up after a boy in the presidency........ Cheney is the last of that kind of act!

Grousefeather on 12/11 at 8:18 am
(Unregistered commenter)

In my opinion the surest way to promote another Repug victory in the next presidential election is to nominate Obama. But what does it matter which party wins the White House? The differences between the two that I perceive are only rhetorical. The bottom line is that the same entities making the political decisions now will be making the political decisions after the next election.

Agree that in many cases there is little difference in the two parties. But the next president will most likely be sending up two nominees for the Supreme Court. When it comes to Supreme Court Justices, there’s a whole lot of differences. The right knows that and supports candidates that will get them the conservative court they want and that will demolish the freedoms the rest of us hold dear. Whoever the Democratic nominee is, and I personally support John Edwards, the progressive community had better put down the knives and pull together. Unless we care more about being “right” than we care about what kind of Supreme Court we have. In that case, forget about Obama and Clinton, vote for Nader again.

#119779 by loveinatub on 12/12: “Obama is just NOT much of a liberal… Obama doesn’t stand as a liberal on the greater issues of the day...”

Pity that Michelle Obama isn’t running instead........

Having worked hard for equal rights, economic, political and social, I am glad to see a field of candidates including white, black and brown, male and female.  To further let you understand my commitment I remember be asked by a member of “the right families”: “Are you still a nigger helper?”

While I am not thrilled by the front runners, they are all too conservative, e.g. Kucinich has the only health care proposal which is in line with the rest of the civilized world.

Watch this flirtation with Ron Paul (right wing Rue Paul?).  Ron Paul is anti-abortion and anti-contraception.  Given his statements about faith and etc.  he is probably a crypto-misogynist despite his ob-gyn practice.

Freedom belongs to EVERYONE!  It is not religious, race, or gender based!

<The same bigots that would not vote for a black man, would also not vote for a woman.  Especially one who has been the target of partisan bashing for the last 16 years.>

I, for one, do not consider myself a bigot and I would not vote for Hillary and I prefer NOT to HAVE to vote for Obama! It’s not about race OR gender. It’s about where a candidate stands on the issues.

Obama is just NOT much of a liberal. Does he support physician run single payer healthcare? Does he support medical marijuana? Does he support ending the war on drugs? Many more issues (environment included) where Obama doesn’t come across as a liberal at all. Has nothing to do with his race. And what about his so-called “lack of experience” for the highest office in the land??

You call Hillary’s one term as a senator and before that as first lady as “sufficient experience” to be president???????????  My goodness, we’ve lowered the bar so low with George W. Bush that, honestly, one can’t make ANY argument about ANY candidate who might not have “sufficient experience” to be president!

Obama is just as qualified to be president as is Hillary. But both of them are the WRONG choice for president. Both are bought and paid for by our wonderful “corporatocracy” and don’t represent the 99% who languish at the bottom of this country’s experiment in “representative democracy.”

Too bad Obama doesn’t stand as a liberal on the greater issues of the day, otherwise, he would get my vote. As it is, it’s KUCINICH ALL THE WAY!!!!!

Everything Mr. Robinson wrote about black candidates applies just as well to women candidates of any color.
Hopefully, we’re (slowly) evolving beyond this point.
Must I be expected to vote for Hillary Clinton simply because I’m s woman, even though I so strongly disagree with her social policies?  Should a black man with strongly conservative views be expected to vote for Obama? We need to vote for whoever we believe could take this country out of the deep, deep hole it is currently in, and that decision can’t be based on gender or race.

Part 1#119413 by Conservative Yankee
• Sorry for my lack of political correctness, but except that US citizens treat election polls like football scores, I don’t get Robinson’s argument at all!

CY,
I’m going to try to explain Robinson’s argument, if only because I see that many people don’t “get it” and I honestly think it’s an important argument, at least for serious people who regularly contribute to the discourse.

But, this is fair warning, that I’m explaining with my academic hat on, which means that it has to be from a CRITICAL THINKING stance, (NOT ideological or partisan). I need to further warn that my own field within the academic institution is Law and Society. It is, by its very nature, an interdisciplinary field of study, so we break it down even more. Law & Politics, Law & Culture, Law & Race, (sub cat. of culture) Law & Religion (more culture), Law & Gender, Law & Media, Constitutional Legal History, on and on. So, that’s just to give you an idea of where my attempted explanation is coming from. My take is NON-partisan, but not without bias, because there’s no such thing as complete neutrality in our society. I don’t personally care what color a candidate is, or even if they have both arms and legs. (or extras) I really DON’T care about the WRAPPING on ANY ‘package’, because I have X-ray vision, and I’m willing to use it.

That said; I believe the point of Eugene’s piece is well stated in the first sentence and in the last. He wonders if a nation that has been founded upon the practice of slavery, and has had at its core, a system of social/economic/political inequality BASED ON RACE, can in fact elect a black president. This is a perfectly valid question, and obviously one to consider carefully, since there is a black person currently running for the office. He ends with acknowledging that HE finds the whole idea of America electing a black president as IMPROBABLE, but no longer IMPOSSIBLE. This too, is perfectly reasonable, when we consider our history. IN OUR CONSTITUTON, (relatively young compared to other developed governments), black people were NOT ‘people’ but PROPERTY, just like any other chattel property!! Yes, America has come a long way, which is why Mr. Robinson can now hold out some hope that it is in fact possible, for America to elect a black president.

However, none of us can or should IGNORE the existence of racism in this country, and that IS the point.

Note what I find to be very disheartening; Andy Young, a pioneer in the CRM and colleague of MLK, says this: “….he wants Obama to be president, but not until 2016.” He goes on…

• “Even if Obama somehow managed to get elected this time, Young said, he couldn’t possibly be effective: “To put a brother in there by himself is to set him up for crucifixion.”…

Now, this is EXACTLY what MLK wrote so passionately about from the Birmingham jail, 3 or so decades ago! He was defying this very same mentality! This is the contradiction of the same thing that Oprah stole from (or paraphrased from) that very same letter. The ‘wait thing’

And yet, is it not ALSO TRUE? (at least about the likely crucifixion).

MLK would roll in his grave on this, because it is EXACTLY what he was refusing to do. WAIT. Still, this was the mentality of the day, about the horrors of racial segregation, a practice firmly established (and accepted) in the mindset of the American populace. How did the institution of slavery thrive and last for so long, if it WASN’T acceptable to the population, at least on some levels? And, let’s be clear, SLAVERY was based on RACE! We can’t deny that. And, 200 years of racial segregation and oftentimes brutal oppression resulted from that. And, it was accepted, with the MAJORITY unwilling to make any changes to THAT status quo!

TBC

Part 2
But, are Andy Young’s concerns not valid, about a crucifixion of Obama if left alone to wade these still unfriendly waters. OF COURSE it is. MLK knew it, BUT he did it anyway!!! And even a non-religious person of ANY color, should thank God that he DID, because we are a better society as a result of it. ALL of us.

An astute (and critically thinking) person would recognize that MLK and the CRM, (and fortunately, he didn’t have to do it alone, nor was he the only one to pay the ultimate price – as you have cited yourself in earlier posts) was a benefit to ALL of our human society, and NOT ‘just’ black folks.
However, it is very clear –to this day- and as I write, that NOT all Americans recognize that, and it is equally clear that the stain and strain of racism has NOT left us entirely. Just the comments on this blog make that clear, if in fact you take the time to read them, and again, not just the surface of them, because they are tricky and deceptive.
In this thread, (different from the concerns of Andy Young, who is legitimately worried about a new age lynching of Obama were he to be elected) are the excuses (which may or may not be valid) of “experience” and the perception that Obama doesn’t have it.

So, let us think back to the campaign and election of JFK. He was young. At age 43, he was the youngest president ever to be elected. Was this an ‘issue’ in his election? Yes. It came up. MORE of an issue though, was the fact that he was a Roman Catholic. The previous attempt by a Roman Catholic candidate had been a washout.

http://www.beyondbooks.com/gop00/1b.asp

Did his ‘experience’ ever come up? Well, probably, but the reality is that he really didn’t have any. Nixon didn’t have all that much, and was relatively young himself, but he HAD served as VP, which was more than JFK had. Did his “Irishness” ever come up? I don’t know, but I doubt it. By then, the Irish were no longer part of the scourge of society, as they were when they came as indentured servants, or outcasts from the dregs of European society back in the earliest of days.

So, I said that to say, how important is ‘experience’ – REALLY, to the majority of Americans, even these 4 or so decades later, UNLESS there are some OTHER reasons why they would not vote for Obama, (like him being black?) Would they vote for Hillary instead, because she DOES have the experience? (and yes, she DOES, whether you like her or not,) I’m guessing not.

And what about the ‘experience’ of the other candidates in the race? What kind of ‘experience’ are these voters looking for? Those who are devotees of Ron Paul are taken in by his promise to “return to the Constitution”. Can anyone help me figure out how his ‘experience’ as an obstetrician-physician, and a 10-term member of the House, representing the Southernmost district of Texas, and his deep commitment to the laws of God and the Church, make him MORE “experienced” in Constitutional matters than a civil rights attorney and professor of Constitutional Law with 5 plus years in the Illinois State Congress, and another few as a US state Senator?

Well, I guess that depends on what we collectively consider to be ‘experience’, and this question brings me back –again- to my discussions with my cousin during the 2000 campaign and subsequent appointment of Dick Bush. My cousin said, that he felt that “Bush was really ‘sincere’.“ AND, he also said, this: “Besides, Al Gore really HASN’T DONE ANYTHING!” Yep, he said that. He said it even though at the time, Al Gore had been the VICE PRESIDENT of our country for nearly EIGHT YEARS!! (guess that didn’t count as ‘experience’)

Now, compare that to the ‘experience’ of the ‘sincere beer-drinker. George had “experience” in failed business, after failed business, after failed business, after a career as a cheerleader and a draft dodger, and as a coke snorting alcoholic cowboy.

TBC

Part 3
That was his ‘experience’ before Karl Rove got him the job as Gov of Texas, which he’d been in for just over 2 years, when my cousin and I were having this conversation. And he (george) had already managed to muck that up as well. So, ya see what I mean about this ‘experience’ thing being in the sometimes partisan/racist eyes of the beholder?

We see this same thing in the example with Ron Paul and Obama in comparing experience. And, we have to ask: is Ron Paul REALLY committed to ‘returning to the Constitution” when in fact he either ignores the Establishment Clause of it, (or just doesn’t know that part) and is willing and anxious to overturn Wade v. Roe, even though it is fundamental to the Constitution and the rule of law? That said, I TOO, am very anxious to return to the rule of law, with the Constitution as its foundation. But for SURE I would trust Obama to do that, based on his EXPERIENCE, KNOWLEDGE and ideology, regarding the Constitution, long before I would even come close to trusting Ron Paul with anything ‘Constitutional’. (or otherwise).

But I digress. The point of Eugene’s article is to wonder whether or not Americans as a political body, are ready to elect a black president, and the question means acknowledging that regardless of whether or not –you- as an individual citizen, consider yourself to be a racist, the fact that Barack Obama is black, WILL have a huge part in the decision for many Americans, and that includes black and brown Americans as well. When black and brown people are prejudiced against other people of color, (like Clarence Thomas) the academics call it ‘internalized racism”. I just call a racist a racist, or a bigot a bigot, I mean, they are what they are, and that’s the way it is.

They DON’T however, wear signs, and only a handful are likely to ‘announce’ themselves as what they are or express how they think in straightforward language. Rather they are far more likely to go through pains to HIDE the racist bent, especially if they’re running for office. It’s just not ‘politically correct’ to admit that one is a racist, or a misogynist or a holy roller, at least not these days. It would also be stupid. That STILL doesn’t mean that there are not racists among us.

So, HOWEVER you refer to them or their ideologies, the bottom line is that racism does still exist in this country, and that it can and will continue to play an important part in who we select as our leaders. Do I think there’s been an improvement in this mentality of the populace? OF COURSE!! The fact that Obama is even running proves that. Obviously, Mr. Robinson agrees.

And THAT, I believe, was the point of his article. Time will tell whether or not Americans are ready to elect a black president, and much WILL depend on the primaries, because even among democrats, we DO have racist bigots as well as those who would never vote for a woman, just as we have those who would vote for Hillary only because she IS a woman, and far fewer for Barack simply BECAUSE he is black. Not all (or enough) voters are deep or critical thinkers, REGARDLESS of their party/race/gender/class! Far too few are even aware of the critical issues. Obama might have a better chance if he could team up with Kucinich as a running mate, even before the primaries. Now THAT would be a dream ticket. (as long as we’re dreaming).

So, time will tell.

Democrats have to be qualified to run for president.  Republicans don’t.

Lets’ have a look at the language. This from Hammo @#119476 by Hammo
• Eugene Robinson gets to a main point in a straightforward way: Will having a black (half-black, half-white) candidate like Obama contribute to a possible Republican victory in the presidential race?
In reality, this isn’t even close to what Robinson puts forth in his piece. I don’t think he even mentions the word Republican in the piece, nor to he make any reference to Barak equal portion of white heritage. So, what comes through here, (for me at least, and anyone who can read between the lines) is that Hammo, like much of the populace, is very focused on the race of this candidate. Here’s more:
• The answer is probably “yes,” it will definitely have an effect in swaying some voters to vote Republican. Possibly millions of voters.
What he’s saying here, is that people will vote for the rethug, if only to vote AGAINST the possibility of a black president. And, he’s probably right. But, let’s call it what it is…the ever-present racist mentality upon which this nation was built. He goes on…
• A PROBLEM is that not only is Obama part-black, he had a bit of a Muslim background as a kid and his middle name is Hussein.
My emphasis on the word ‘problem’ since we’re looking at the language here. WHY is it a ‘problem’ that Obama is part black? Well, like I said, Hammo speaks for the racists within the populace, for whom this IS a ‘problem’, and so it wouldn’t matter about anything else, experience or foreign policy or domestic policy or anything else. Then it gets WORSE. He also ‘accuses’ him of having ‘a bit of a Muslim background” –AS A KID- and then, the ULTIMATE CRIME….his middle name!!!  I mean, why haven’t we charged the guy with several felony counts? Surely this all proves him to be a criminal, right?
In all fairness, I myself would think twice about Obama or anyone else if it could be proven that they had (as a kid) indulged in the torturing of animals, or the bullying of other kids on the school ground, or if they rountinely stole from everyone in the community. Yep, that would give me something to think about. I can’t however, pay even the slightest bit of attention to what his PARENTS named him, or the fact that as a result of his parents’ work and careers, he did in fact live in Indonesia for a brief period as a child.
Now, if he had developed some radical associations with questionable groups AS AN ADULT, (such as Ron Paul and his decades old association with the John Birch Society and other white supremacist organizations), then yes, I would surely be troubled. But, as we know, he HASN’T, and he ISN’T, and he never WAS.
Nor can I ‘hold against’ him, the fact that his WIFE, (who isn’t running for president) WAS at one time associated with the CFR. I don’t like the composition of the CFR as it exists today, because it’s now comprised of a bunch of neoconners who have what is the status quo US arrogance in their ideologies regarding foreign affairs. How much of that same mentality Michelle Obama may have herself is very questionable, since she’s no longer associated, and we have no knowledge of why she ever was to begin with. (aside from that fact that she too is an attorney, AND attended Harvard, AND may have taken employment as a fellow at some point in time. Again, that’s speculation, because I don’t know, and nothing documents it, one way or the other.)
Here’s another of the language twisting #119473 by Gary
• So, if we don’t vote for Obama, for whatever reason, are we racist?

Eugene’s article DOES NOT SUGGEST THIS. However, as the above critique notes, there ARE many people who will NOT vote for him, for that very reason!!!

Yes, there may be other reasons that a person would not vote for him, and they will surely make up many (reasons), as we already see. Some may be valid. But guess what? RACIST tops the list, even though no one will ever openly admit that as a reason.

#119514 by Ryan F on 12/11 at 1:42 pm
• So I guess if Obama isn’t elected it must be because America isn’t ready for a black president, not because he hasn’t shown that he’s qualified to be president
Ryan F,
Nope. You’re wrong in the typical rhetorical either/or way. It’s NEVER either/or, and it ALWAYS ‘relative’. In reality, (and you should check Hammo’s post that confirms this) many Americans are not ready for a black president, and never will be, and it would have zero to do with how much experience they ‘perceive’ that he has, because that TOO is ‘relative’ to perception. (how old/how much ‘experience’ did JFK have when Americans elected him?) In short, how many Americans actually ADMIT to being racists here, now, in the 21st Century? Eugene Robinson already pointed that out. If everyone who ‘claimed’ (prior to entering the voting booth) that they would be willing to elect a black leader to any position above that of mayor, then Tom Bradley could have been the Gov of Calif. Long ago.
Additionally, you suggest that Obama isn’t a good choice because he hasn’t PROVEN he has any ‘experience’. That’s the typical mentality of the juror who wants the defendant to PROVE his/her innocence, instead of having the state PROVE his/her guilt.
That isn’t to say that ‘experience’ shouldn’t be a factor in selecting ALL of our leaders, but it’s only ONE factor, and it sounds more like you’re operating from a position of negativity than open-minded reality. I mean, what kind of ‘experience’ would you like? Let’s have a look at Dick Bush, and their experience. George had ZIP experience in the political sphere, aside from what his family name and cheerleading experience had attached to him. (Gov of Texas for 2 years doesn’t count, other than to prove how awful he was at the political leadership thing). On the other hand, Dickie Boy has been in politics for at least 3 decades. Yep, the devil himself. How’s HIS ‘experience’ worked out? Well, unlimited wars of aggression, the violation of any laws ever set forth, and the total raping of the economy, and the theft of trillions.
As for Biden, the same platitudes can be made for him, as I read from others about Obama, except in the reverse. Biden would have been great if we’d had him instead of who we got. But Biden is no saviour and is dangerously attached to the mentality of the status quo. The imperialistic mentality that claims (with typical American arrogance) the right to take another sovereign state, (particularly one with the ultimate resource) and chop it up and decide how it’s government/politics should operate. That’s his plan. He’s worked hard on it, and has presented it to Congress.

Then we have Ron Paul on the opposite side of the spectrum, (but far more devious) because he ‘presents’ himself as being a non-interventionist –as far as the US as a state- is concerned. So, he would have all of the US troops out of this spiral of death/destruction/mayhem, and of course that sounds wonderful to all. He doesn’t mention that it’s perfectly fine with him, (and in fact is what he radically supports) for Halliburton, Bechtel, and any of the others who operate below the public radar, to chop-up those resources and PRIVITIZE them all. NOT just in the middle east, but right here at home as well. And in the back rooms, and away from the public eye, he will surely take a cut of each and every one of those PRIVITIZED operations. And, for any who can’t afford to play in that elitist, (yet underground) ‘club’, then…tuff shit.

So, Hammo is right, whether he speaks for his own racist mentality, or just the racist mentality of that portion of the populace. A black democratic candidate will lead the racists to a repug vote. We can only hope that their numbers are diminishing, but they will never go away entirely. And, as ugly a truth as that is, it requires acknowledgement, rather than a sidestep whitewashing that measures negative standards that are only relative.

The main problem still is that “...a nation stained by centuries of slavery...” is trying desperately to enslave the rest of the world to serve its never-ending wants and desires. Sadly, Barack Obama has no answer to freeing the world from America’s deadly grasp, uhh..........

Obama has a fine future in politics, he may not be elected this time but he has 3 or 4 election cycles in his future.

I do think however, since he is young, he is more susceptible to manipulation than an older politician such as Ron Paul.

He also doesn’t have much of a track record on which lobbies he panders to, however he has made overtures to the AIPAC lobbies, which troubles me.

I guess he’s smart enough to know to slight anything “Israel” and the force of negative media on TV, Cable, radio, Times, Post, Newsweekly, etc. editorials will bury him.

You mean elect him because he is a black man even though his wife is a member of the CFR. Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell are black and in charge, but more importantly both are members of elite organizations that mean to ruin us all. Wake up and look for the puppet strings.

Why shouldn’t America be ready for a minority candidate?We have pandered to the morons twice by electing George Bush.The thing that gives me hope is Harold Ford’s showing in Tenn.Granted he ran as republican light but he came within 3 points of winning in Tenn.There is no question that Obama is bright and competent maybe now is not a bad time to show the world we actually do believe “All Men Are Created Equal."Mr Robinson an excellent column discussing a real issue in a society where political correctness forbids us from discussing these issues very publicly.

Eugene Robinson gets to a main point in a straightforward way: Will having a black (half-black, half-white) candidate like Obama contribute to a possible Republican victory in the presidential race?

The answer is probably “yes,” it will definitely have an effect in swaying some voters to vote Republican. Possibly millions of voters.

A problem is that not only is Obama part-black, he had a bit of a Muslim background as a kid and his middle name is Hussein.

That this will sway many voters to vote Republican is just how it is. This is not to say Obama is not a fine individual.

It can be argued that Hillary Clinton will also push many voters toward the Republican candidate. Part of the reason may be that she is a female.

Other factors are her own personality, history, positions on issues and being married to Bill Clinton.

Dems need to think of the big picture and not shoot themselves in the foot as usual.

Thoughts on this in the article ...

“Democrats risk self-sabotage in presidential race ... again”

November 5, 2007

http://americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp? articleID=42271

Stop focusing on race and other irrelevancies that divide and conquer the bottom 99.9%, and start focusing on the fight between us in the bottom 99.9% and the top 0.1%!  Only when we in the bottom 99.9% are united against the top 0.1% will we possibly win!

It embarasses me when Obama acts “black”, raised in Hawaii by a white mother from Kansas, I would venture to say, he is more alien to the African-American experience than I am.
He doesn’t do anything for me; his platitudes bore me. nothing more to say.

To answer your question, yes, America is ready to elect a black president. I think America has already proven it the way that voters are embracing his candidacy with so little rancor. Despite these trivial media-generated issues of being “black enough,” “not black enough” or “is he a Muslim?” I am pleased to see there seems to be little of this crap among real people. Ten years ago that may not have been the case. And we could very well find this a honeymoon period up until Jan. 20, 2009, and then discover that we have set him up for “crucifixion.” But I am certainly ready to take the risk.

http://13martyrs.blogspot.com/

Oh, wait, I think I get it, it’s the race/gender card.  Oh boy, if that’s it, kindly take your racist shit elsewhere thank you..

#119403 by KISS on 12/11 at 4:49 am
(97 comments total)

Alai Wah!!!  That’s an impolite Thai phrase for Huh!!? (WTF?)

“Obama is a cut from Lieberman, would you wish a Lieberman to be president?”

Could you please explain that statement to an ignorant citizen?  Obama/Lieberman?

My problem with minority want-a-be’s is that gender and race are more important than qualifications, honesty, and intellect?
Obama is a cut from Lieberman, would you wish a Lieberman to be president? And which corporations will Obama scrape too?
I think there are better questions to ask rather than color or gender issues.
How to choose a man or woman that represents humans rather than corporations is the question to ask.
To me this is reverse racism...and Mr. Young personifies this in his way as Mr. Robinson doesin his question.