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

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

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.

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.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

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.

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.

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

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

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.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?