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

[Franzl]

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?

[Franzl]

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?

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

[Franzl]

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

Does that make it any better?

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.

[Franzl]

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

Does that make it any better?

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.

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

[Franzl]

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

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

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

[Franzl]

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

Does that make it any better?

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.

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

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

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.

[Franzl]

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

Does that make it any better?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

[Franzl]

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

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.

[Franzl]

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.

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

[Franzl]

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.

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

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?

[Franzl]

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

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.

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.

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

[Franzl]

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

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.

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.

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

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*

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.

[Franzl]

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.

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 have any idea how relevant that is?

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

[Franzl]

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

Does that make it any better?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

[Franzl]

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

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.