Talk Elections

Of course not, I'm sure others will argue otherwise.  It is incredibly racist that this man is considered for the job, they have plenty of fine people in office as long as him or have much more experience.  But it was the "in" thing to have a black guy

Would Hillary Clinton be considered for the presidency if her husband had not been president himself?

No, does that make either one acceptable?

Obama is special, and if he still had the charisma, and had been elected to the Senate in 2004, and given that great keynote speech, then he would be considered.  If he were some boring, 46 year old random person named Bill Obama, then he would not be considered.

It isn't racism at all.

Obama is "special" alright.  The man is using race as a veichle of influencing voters, he is near declaring a vote against him is racist.  He has taken Michael Steele campaigning to a nat'l level

He has done no such thing; it's some moronic Obama supporters who do that; Obama is a fantastic candidate.

The Dems had plenty of incredible options, winning options:
Al Gore, Brad Henry, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Tom Vilsack

But no, Dem elites pushed through the token candidate of their choice

Then I wonder why you don't go after her instead.

You forgot to mention *cough* the incumbent president *cough*.

As you can see, awarding presidential nominations purely based on personal merit is overrated and maybe even inappropriate. So why the complain?

Every President ever has been President primarily for some other reason than merit.  Sorry.

Does that make it any better?

As long as he was still a young, smart, good looking Senator from Illinois who opposed the war in Iraq from the start, he would have had a shot.

Also, are you saying voters are racist for voting for him?  It's their right to vote for whoever they think would be best and nobody stopped other people with his experience level or more experience from running. I don't understand the point you are trying to make as far as that goes.

That's your typical way to weasel your way out of any embarrasing confrontation?

The fact remains that very few presidents or presidential candidates are truly qualified for the job.

One must wonder why you choose to go after Obama. Especially considering the president that is currently in office.

None of them wanted to run.  They weren't pushed out; and Vilsack would have been a sh*tty candidate.

The president in office had qualifications other than his father, he was the governor of one of the largest states for 6 years.  That is more qualification than a lot of presidents.  Other than being black, Obama has not accomplished anything or lead anyone.

bla bla bla

Would Barack Obama be Barack Obama if he wasn't black?

EIC of Harvard Law Review.

would DWTL be DWL if he wasn't an annoying immature partisan hack?

1) Decided not run, may have won if he did.
2) Decided not to run, too conservative for most Democrats
3) Decided not to run, might have have had a shot if he did.
4) Blame Clinton, not Obama. She almost certainly pushed him out of the race.
5) Sorry but he was way too dull to even have a chance in his own state's contest.

I'm sorry, maybe I should dumb this down a bit for you.  You are easily the worst debater this forum has ever seen.

Uh huh.  It'd be fascinating if we could see into the parallel dimension where any of those people had won the nomination this year, just to see if you'd actually be lauding their "incredible" and "winning" candidacy.  Somehow I doubt it.

Being black is an accomplishment?  Damn my inferior DNA!!

I would have supported any of those people (spare Gore when in environmentalist mode) over McCain

look, I'm gonna stop here for now. Your arguments very often contain a question designed to distract from the originial debate. Very frequently, your only defense consists of asking whether "something is better" than something else.

I won't claim to be a superb debater, but I consider myself (and practically anyone on this forum) to be far more skilled and reasonable than anything you've ever attempted to argue.

It would be hard to say that when you have never actually argued anything.  Obama would not be a candidate if he were not black, please try to refute that statement.

No, you and gporter are tied for that title.

That is truly fascinating!  Absolute bullshit, unfortunately, but still fascinating nonetheless.

Actually, I've made it quite clear that those are my five of my favorite Dems, its not bullsh**t at all.  Especially Henry and Warner, I rather a conservative Dem than a liberal GOP

Fmr. Sen. DWTL, if you would please explain to me what it would mean for Obama to not be black.

Yeah, it means if he was white he would not be considered a candidate.

I haven't tried to refute that statement.

I am questioning its relevance, however. Obama was, in fact, born African-American, whether you like it or not. Every candidate has certain favorable traits that contribute to their success.

Try and argue politically, based on principles and ideas, and not with such garbage.

What am arguing is that Obama is considered ONLY on the basis of being black, and NOTHING to do with achievements.  How does that not have any relevance?  If Americans elect someone b/c they are black and not b/c they are qualified, that is disasterous

Obama is an incredible candidate, with charisma, intelligence, and good ideas for the future.  If that doesn't qualify him to be President, then nothing does.

Maybe so, but having 95% of the African American vote doesn't hurt when you are running against the Clinton machine. In these southern states, he started with 40-60% of the vote in most cases. With a handicap like that, it's almost impossible for anyone to win. Race plays a huge part in this movement. Being anti-war has never been the be all end all issue in the past, and it wouldn't have been this year. If it was, then Dennis Kucinich should have done better. It's his speeches and his race that has allowed him to do as well as he's done. John Edwards is considered a good, inspiring speaker, yet he didn't make it anywhere. Without the black vote, Obama would've had no shot against Hillary.

And that is entirely false. Obama may have become relevant due to his race, but you've obviously not been paying the least attention to the actual presidential race, if you believe that that is the primary factor involved in this contest.

But what does it mean for him to be white? Obviously his dad is black. Who is this person that is somehow Barack Obama but is not black? Does he have ultural ties to Africa? Did he travel around the world growing up? Did he spend time living in Indonesia? Does he go to a predominantly black church? Is he married to Michelle Obama? Please elaborate.

Perhaps, but without the black vote, no Democrat would ever win a national election.

Charisma and good ideas do not make someone a good president, having the leadership skills, knowing how to run a country (this is why governors are more qualified or at least senators with lots of experience) are qualities of a president.  Once again, for the millionth time, as much as you'd like to think so, HOPE solves nothing

How is it not the primary factor in this contest?  Why is Obama running up huge margins?  People see the hip young black guy is better than the crabby old women, to think the average America considers anything more than that is thinking too much of the American populus.  His huge wins in African-American vote is also inflating his numbers.

What good does being a former governor do you if you govern ineffectively once you're president?

Theoretically, on a statistical basis, you're probably right, that governors, on average, would be more effective leaders.

But that type of argument doesn't work in a single race between 2 major candidates. What good does McCain's "experience" do me if he won't accomplish anything that I consider to be important for the future of this country?

Let me ask you this. How much of the black vote die Ken Blackwell get in the Ohio gubernatorial election?

True, but no Democrat can win without huge black margins.

Just a note on your comment, Al Sharpton did very poorly amongst black voters.

I'm not asking in a straight-up Obama/McCain match-up.  Obviously in an Obama/McCain matchup the issue is not whether Obama is a legitimate contender.  I am saying in the primary and why he was considered legitimate in the first place.  The only reason he was concerned is his race.

Please don't be so intellectually dishonest as to suggest that being a governor for 6 years is much greater experience than being a U.S. Senator for 3 years and a State Senator for years before that. At least Obama has some experience with foreign affairs, for example. Bush had none and look where that got us.

Not a lot, however, Ken Blackwell was just a terrible candidate and a Republican.  No Republican is going to snag huge numbers in the black vote, if it was that easy, Republicans would find blacks for every election.  I am not saying the Republicans are not guilty of using race *cough* Michael Steele *cough*

I do not believe it is intellectually dishonest if that state is Texas, if the state was Vermont or Wyoming you are right.  Plus, Obama not visiting Iraq since 2006 does not bode well for his "foreign affairs" cred

Al Sharpton was never concerned a real candidate, I will concede that Obama is more qualified than Sharpton, Sharpton was never even dog catcher.  As far as margins, Dems are never going to win less than 80% of the black vote anyway.  So if the difference is between 85% and 90%, we are talking 5% of a group that makes up about 10-15% of the population.  So what is that?  Less than a percentage point?

Do you even understand the point here Fmr. Sen. DWTL?

Obama is black?

Obama does not have to play the race card when everyone does it for him.

If it's all truly a question of race, then blacks would have abandoned their political leanings to vote for a possible black govenor.

Obviously, and you will not that I have not denied this at any point, Obama's race has been a certain motivating factor. It has inspired people that we might not be very far away from our first black president. But that does remain one single factor.

You're either incredibly naive, or you're playing a joke on us here, if you don't believe that his actual politics have been the actual core of his campaign.


Hillary Clinton supposedly has the "experience" to run the country ,and she's been a senator for 7 years, but nobody is questioning her legitimacy as a candidate, although it is unlikely that she would have become either one if her husband had not been president.

That should be an indicator of an incredible double standard.

Do you want to know what Obama stood to gain by playing the race card? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. And its testament to the fact that Obama hasn't gone down that road, which is why he is on the verge of clinching his party's presidential nomination. And that it is something he could not have achieved without white support

Obama has never played 'race' politics. Not in Chicago, where he lost a primary challenge to Rep. Bobby Rush, a self-acknowledged 'race politician'; nor in his Illinois Senate campaign; and nor in his campaign to be the Democratic presidential nominee

That said, and it pains me to say this given the fact its the 21st century, it is likely that there are some voters who will flatly refuse to support Obama because he is black be it in a Democratic primary or the general. Similarly, there are some who would not vote for Clinton because she's a woman; just as there are some who might not vote for McCain because they may consider him too old

Dave

I don't mean this to be rude, but I have not seen you post before and I am wondering, are you unfamiliar with English or at least American culture?  It was a hypothetical, I am not saying that there is a white Obama out there.  I'm saying Obama is black and that is why he is succesful, hence, if he was not black he would not be concerned for the presidency

Do you have any idea how relevant that is?

Imagine if blacks stopped voting in places like Michigan or Pennsylvania or Ohio.

The size of a state has absolutely nothing to do with someone's competence as the primary executive power thereof.

Sure, Obama's campaign NOW is about his plan for the future and ideas and all that stuff that politicans try and convince us to believe.  But, the only reason he is in this position is because of his race.  His race is what took him to this point.  Without being black, he'd be another run of the mill senator from a midwestern state

Down, it seems like you have issues with black people in general. Most of your points have been disproved but you are still continuing with single minded (and obviously false) rant.

If Obama was just some everyday black dude, he never would have had a shot. His race has obviously helped him in some ways while hurting him in other ways. In the end, it is only one of several factors that have played a part in his rise on the political scene and in presidential politics.

You do not think it takes more work to run Texas than Vermont or Wyoming?

It's larger, and more diverse, but it doesn't require qualities that would not be necessary in smaller states.

Eraserhead, I have never considered you to be a ad hominem attack poster, but I think that is quite unfair to say I have problem with black people.  I have problems with race baiter, which is what Obama's camp is.  Obviously the "every day black dude" has no shot, but Obama is not your every day black dude.  He is seizing oppurtunities presented to him, for which I give him credit, but those oppurtunies come via his race

Fair enough, but the task is certainly closer to running the United States.

BTW, this topic is pretty awesome, thanks to everyone who is participating, over 50 replies in under an hour.  Gotta go now, hope to continue this discussion later.

The point is that your question, your hypothetical, is null.

It's like asking what's north of the north pole. Sure, it's a hypothetical that there could be a north of the north pole. But there's no way to even attempt a sensible anwer because the question is absurd.

Obama is black. That is the reality. You pose it as a hypothetical, well what if he were white? Well, someone who is white does not have the human experience that he has had as a black person...as a mixed person at that. Being black is a part of who Obama is not just in terms of his skin color but in shaping his entire life. Just as whatever race you are has shaped your entire life and who you are right now.

Is Obama being considered for the Presidency because he is black? Yes. Because being black has made him who he is. People are voting for the man, not his skin. And yes, he is different from any white person who has run for the Presidency.

There's nothing special about being black here. Bush was considered for the Presidency because he was white. Being white made him who he was. Would people have voted for Bush if he was black? The question doesn't even make sense.

Would Barack Obama be considered for the presidency if he was not black? Null question.

And Obama would've too if he had lost Iowa. IIRC, Hillary was winning the black vote until Iowa. Blacks want to back a winner, and they knew Al Sharpton had no chance.

Every oppurtunity he has ever had has come "via his race"? You can't seriously believe that. Like I said, the fact that's he's young, very smart, stood against the war, gives great speechs (that he actually writes himself generally) have all played a part in his rise. Can you seriously deny that? Also do you really think his race has been a major boon for him in places like Ohio, West Virginia, etc.?

I thought he and HRC were nearly tied until the racial attacks started coming around the time of the SC primary.  Besides, he won handily in lilly-white Iowa.

Yeah but he didn't. Did he win Iowa only because he's black too?

DWTL, Barack Obama probably wouldn't be considered for the Presidency of the United States if he was a member of the Black Panthers or if he was similar to Jesse Jackson. Though saying this, if a former member of the Black Panthers can be elected to the United States Congress then a vast majority of the American people do not have a problem with them, then YES he would still be considered for the Presidency of the United States, even if he is black.

Unlike past African-American candidates for the Presidency (e.g. Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton), Obama is connecting with the voters. Did either Chisholm, Jackson or Sharpton perform well in states with more than 95% of the voters being Caucasian, like Iowa? If Obama can indeed win in such places, like Iowa he is considered for the Presidency of the United States.

Obama is not "black" within the conventional-and-historical American context (or any other context actually, but that's irrelevent here) and I think we can be pretty sure that if he were, he wouldn't have a chance at winning the Presidency.

I'm so sick of people going OMG RACIST!!!! if you say that if Obama wasn't black, he wouldn't be where he is.  If he WASN'T black, he wouldn't be getting blacks by a 9-1 margin.  That's just a fact.

That is certainly true; although people who say Obama is only doing well because of race are just plain wrong.  He has charisma, and other qualities that help him do well.

Yes, and that's another reason why he is doing such a good job - he has extremely good charisma and is very slick.  I have plenty of respect for Barack Obama, since he has brought new voters into the process and has run a tremendously good campaign - he beat the Clinton machine for God's sake! 

I never said that his strength among black voters was the only reason he was doing well.  It DID put him over the top in many primaries though, and helped him to overwhelmingly beat Hillary in states with significant black population.

You are so utterly full of crap.    I don't think its unfair for eraserhead to suggest you have a problem with black people.  From this very thread it comes across pretty obvious that you have a problem with black people.   He got to where he is because of who he is, his charisma, his ideals, his beliefs, not what he is. 

Granted, but keep in mind him being black also resulted Clinton winning the white vote by a much larger margin than she otherwise would have in some of these states.

He actually seems to be considered for the Presidency and hes black.....sooo....the point of this thread is?

No. He won Iowa because of a number of factors. First, the state is tremendously idealistic, especially those that caucus. The Democrats who participate in the caucus tend to be your far left Democrats or students, and most of them non-working class. Second, it was a caucus, which Hillary showed time and again that she lacked any type of plan or organization at all to win. He does fine with the white vote in states that have no blacks in them.



They may have been, I don't know, but he got over 80% of the black vote in SC. Then Bill came out and played the race card, supposedly, and the blacks united behind Obama 9 to 1.

Like I said earlier, there were different reasons why he won Iowa. He will win states in which the electorate is very liberal and no blacks are in the state at all. States with whites and blacks, he does poorly among the whites.

No.

Some, myself included, believe that Barack Obama does not have the experience or qualifications to become President.

However, two lessons from history to consider.

Warren Harding was not qualified for the Presidency, however, he was given the 1920 Republican nomination by the party bosses as a compromise candidate in part because he was handsome and a good speaker.  His Presidency turned out to be a disaster.

Richard Nixon was one of the few Presidential candidates who came to the Presidency truly qualified for the office, and look at how that turned out.

So lack of experience or an abundance of experience do not necessarily determine how successful the President will be.

Virginia, Maryland, CT, and DC have no blacks?  Interesting.....

Did I say that? I said he does poorly among whites in states that have a relatively large black population and well among whites when a state has no blacks at all, like Iowa. He didn't win the white vote in DC, Virginia, Maryland, and Connecticut, did he?

Too much double-posting! Shield your eyes!

He won it in D.C & Virginia, tied it in CT, MD he lost it but did quite well with the white vote.

I don't know what "considered" is supposed to mean exactly. He wouldn't be the Democratic candidate for president, of that I'm pretty sure. Without being black Clinton would have landslided the black vote against him and getting a little more among applachian whites would not have made up for it.

His chances of winning a general election in general terms would be higher though. He would obviously have been a successful politician regardless.

He isn't Black.

Considering the number of times someone when from state senator to presidential nominee in four years, I would say that his race was an advantage.

It wasn't the sole clause, but it is part of the equation.

Would John McCain be considered for President had he not been a POW for years and married a rich bitch.

^^^^^^^^^^

Admiral McCain probably would have been, yes.  The money helped, I'm sure.

He would be considered but would not have won. It's probable to say that a white version of barack obama wouldn't have gotten 80-90% of the black vote in every contest.

1. It's fascinating that you know how DC voted, given that I've seen no exit poll from there. Where is that information to be found? Anyway, DC's white vote...lol.

2. In Virginia he swept the white independent and Republican vote but he lost the white Democrat vote in a landslide. And that was in the midst of Hillary's absolute low-point.

3. In Connecticut he lost the white vote, albeit very, very narrowly. 9% of the CT Democratic primary vote was black. I don't know what your threshold is for considering a state to have a large black factor, but that's not incredibly high, imo.

Anyway, no way would Obama have won in the South without being black.

It's interesting that the two of you consider fundamental choices and decisions in life to be comparable to what skin one is born with, but I can't agree with that view of "race" personally.

Do you have a list of states where Obama won:

1.  The white vote.

2.  The white working class vote.

Clearly Obama's race has helped him overall in the primary (not as much as many people think, but yes, it has helped more than it has hurt). It hurts him overall in the general (again not as much as people believe, but it's there).

If he were more than half-black he very likely would have never had the upbringing necessary to put him in a position to be considered for President, sadly.

The most wealthiest, educated and elite immigrants to the US surprisingly come from Africa (Obama's dad was apart of this cohort).

The one thing that could have made things infinitely easier on Obama would have been if his dad wasn't a Muslim.

Why did you ask if you already had your answer?