It has come to my attention that some Americans actually are NOT at all thrilled by the possibility of Senator Barack Obama becoming the next President of the United States.

This concerns me.

I understand some of you feel Obama is too inexperienced and not ready for the job. Others say he's too slick or his loyalties are divided and possibly suspect.

Still others say Obama is too liberal. Too shallow. Lacks the moral courage and the convictions to be POTUS. Critics suggest he's too ambitious too soon and that he's leap-frogged over other more worthy candidates.

There are other reasons given, but those are enough to give reasonable people pause about the readiness of Senator Obama.

For the sake of discussion, let's say Barack Obama is ruled out as the first minority to become Commander-In-Chief.

Who is ready then? Who is qualified?


The Question for Debate:

1. If Barack Obama is not ready and/or qualified to be the first racial minority to be elected to the presidency, can you name a minority candidate who is?

2. Is America ready for a racial minority to be President or will it take more time? Please specify how long it may take.

Note: Please choose a potential minority candidate who possess the experience, the ability to be vetted, and the likely desire to run for the Presidency.

As I usually do, I nulled my vote since I'm not American. I would like to address the topic from inception though since I feel the need to speak my mind.

1. If Barack Obama is not ready and/or qualified to be the first racial minority to be elected to the presidency, can you name a minority candidate who is?

2. Is America ready for a racial minority to be President or will it take more time? Please specify how long it may take.

I think, that as long as you feel the need to ask such questions, then it doesn't matter if your candidate is 'post racial', because your obviously not and (most probably) neither is the rest of America. I appreciate your concerns, but the truth of the matter is, if your basing your vote on the ethnic identity of a candidate, then you are a racist. If you base your vote on the gender of a candidate, then you are a sexist.

Policy and issues should determine where you place your vote. Not personality, ethnicity or gender.

As long as personality is the key decisive factor in who will be president, and not which party (or parties) will form the next goverment, then you will never escape the obsessive attention paid to such irrellevencies as gender, ethnicity, or age, and these trivialities will continue to prevent your country from any real change.

1. If Barack Obama is not ready and/or qualified to be the first racial minority to be elected to the presidency, can you name a minority candidate who is?


At this point, I don't think Obama is experienced enough, or at least we don't know enough about him (other than he is a big time liberal) to vote for him. That may change if he receives the Democrat nomination and the campaign switches from form to substance. We'll see. But on the question.......


Up until a few months ago when he got into some infidelity problems, my bet for the first minority President would have been current Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villararaigosa. Up until he got caught in an affair with reporter from a local spanish television station he was on the fast track to become California's Governor. He may still be on track, but it's not the express train anymore. If he ever becomes California's Governor, he is going to be a major force in Democrat politics. I don't like his politics, but he is a likable guy in person and one tough hombre when it comes to political battles. Other than the affair thing, he'd have been my bet as the most likely first minority President. Hell, I know the guy personally, and I'd be tempted to vote for him.


Aquilla

Like most things in politics it's a bit more complicated than that.

We've had candidates of both genders and a number of ethnic backgrounds run for president but only white males have ever won nomination, let alone general election.

There is something to wanting to support a different kind of candidate just because of the message it sends, that the game is not so very rigged.

Of course for eh vast majority of US history the game was rigged and that's something to keep in mind.

It's the American desire for redemption from the mockery of democracy that was the status quo that makes it not so much racism or sexism.

It is true that personality politics has been an American tradition ever since Washington, though.

Finally I detest the post racial nonsense surrounding the campaign as US culture is nowhere near post racial and to try and paint over that fact would be a grave error.

Obama is as ready as many great presidents were, more so really.

America is not quite ready, but it may happen anyway.

Indeed, they should. But Americans don't want to get that involved. To really learn the issues, and where candidates stand on them, requires homework. Many of us are just too busy with TV and beer to bother ourselves with such things as VOTING, much less, educating ourselves on the issues. And as the level and quality of education continue to decline in America, it doesn't look like things will change anytime soon.




Isn't it funny how personality does play a role. You met the guy, found him likable, so you may vote for him. Never mind what his actual accomplishments (or lack thereof) are. Or what the damage his policies will inflict on California "citizens" may be. The thought of him in any position, including the back seat with the latina tootsie he committed adolescentry with (while his wife suffered from cancer) is sickening.

America is ready. But America is naive if they think the color of a man or woman's skin is going to make all the difference in a system so corrupt it may take a revolution to turn things around.

I didn't say I'd just "met him", I said I know him. He's a personal friend. There are many issues on which he and I disagree, and I've argued some of them over dinner with him. But one thing I do know about him that makes me think I might vote for him is that he's not afraid to tell you where he stands, even on controversial issues. One might disagree with him, but at least you know what you're getting. There's something to be said for a little honesty and straight talk. We could do much worse.

So. tell me, DP, what is it about him that disturbs you so much? (Other than the affair which was unacceptable) Just curious.


Aquilla

I guess my question is why his race is such a big issue if people don't think he is qualified? Why is it so important that we set some time table to elect the first minority? Why not select the most qualified people and not focus so much on race?

I personally will never support nor vote for a minority candidate for President, or any other office for that matter. I will, however, support and vote for a qualified candidate whose positions are most in tune with mine..regardles of his race.

Until more of you get over the minority candidate syndome and think in terms of the candidate who happens to be a minority, the minority you so dearly hope for will never get elected.

You are making quite an assumption here.

For a long time I stayed neutral in the battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I made up my mind to support Obama, after Bill Clinton - not Obama - brought race into the contest.

During the Texas primary/caucus Clinton drew a page from the Bush/Rove play book. The way to get those in Tejas to vote for her was to play the terror card. She ran this ridiculous add extensively in Texas. She is fast asleep in the White House bedroom. The phone rings at 3 a.m. Mysteriously, Clinton answers the phone fully dressed, not in PJs or whatever with a string of beads around her neck. The question was, "who do you want answering the phone at 3:00 a.m."

The fact is that none of the three candidates has ever been in that position. There is no OJT program for presidents.

I would trust Obama to answer the, dressed in PJs, undies or butt naked before I would trust someone who is yet to apologize for her vote on the IRAQ war or a Republican who seems eager to extend Bush's folly.

BTW: You did mean "syndrome" didn't you?

BoF, let's not pick on anyone due to a simple typo, holdingtheline was making a valid point related to this thread. I applaud you for supporting Obama, and if I were a liberal Democrat, I would probably support him as well. I believe he is the best of the two candidates for your party. He is a definite breath of fresh air of rallying people together. He definitely has an air about him that does give hope. From my personal perspective, I don't think a good orator is enough to convince me to vote for someone. I don't agree with his policies, I also don't see how he has proven leadership abilities. Whenever anyone claims that they are going to bring America together, or that they are going to bring both parties together, I immediately think to myself "Liar". I would love to see anyone bring the likes of Rep. Steve King and Rep. Nancy Pelosi together on anything.

At the same time, I also don't know if the Republican candidates are the best candidates for President of The United States. Again in this election, I am getting pushed further and further from the major parties. But that is for another thread.

My point, as well as what it seems holdingtheline was trying to point out is that the race shouldn't be about well, race. Setting some timetable for when we should have someone of a minority race does not make sense. Electing the best person for the job regardless of race should be what we focus on.

I'll post like I want to post and you post like you want to post - thank you. Has HtL hired you as his lawyer?


Realistically there are three choices, Obama, Clinton or McCain. I know you and a bunch of others love Ron Paul, but he was only able to muster 5% in his his adopted home state - Texas.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide.../states/TX.html

It's your vote though, do with it as you wish.


It's kind of hard to put the horse back in the stall after it has kicked the door down. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton unleashed this deamon and the 527 groups will carry it forward to November.


http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/...1708592,00.html

Add to that the number of threads started on making race an issue.

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

Exhibit E

Exhibit F

Exhibit G

I am not accusing those who started these theads or some of the contributors of being racist, but they have certainly centered the presidential debate on in the direction of race.

making???



Seriously BoF. Given American history, how can race not be an issue? What is it you (and the other Obama supporters) really expect? That your going to be able to just shoot down any one who brings up Obama's ethnicity whilst you yourselves capitalize on it to your hearts content?

Because thats the impression one gets, especially when one reads threads like this one.

That was a refutation of the post linked below.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=240725

Not to blow off your impressions, but this is exactly what I expected. I also expect much of the same through the general election, if Obama is the nominee. John McCain will say race isn't an isssue, while the 527s bring it up in subtle and not so subtle ways. If this were a movie we could call it Swift Boat II.

BTW: I was around in the 1940s and 1950s when there were separate restrooms and drinking fountains for Blacks and Whites in Fort Worth department stores. I remember, when as a preschooler, my grandmother jumped all over me for drinking from the "wrong" fountain. Don't lecture me about American history, moif. I've lived it and long enough to be a senior citizen.

Bof- my history doesn't, um go back as far as yours, but really, race relations are quite different in the last 20 years even- even for 10-15 years after the watershed moments of the Democratic national convention in the 60s and all that- racism as an institutino took a LONG time to even be wounded, much less die.

Any discussion of the GOP or Dems prior to that convention is pretty silly, as far as modern politics and which party attracts a more ethnic diversity.

You don't really even have to look hard- watch a McCain rally whereever he stops- like someone said- looks like an old-money country club- while the Obama's rallys are huge, and very, very diverse, but also, lots and lots of white faces in that group.



I guess it is almost impossible to NOT discuss race as in issue, in the, um race for prez.

There are not really any viable candidates, anywhere, in the Republican party for a presidential nominee, that I am even remotely aware would have a remote chance of getting a nomination from the repubican party for prez.

This may be a product of the destruction and havok the Neo-cons have done to the republican party in general though- I mean, you have next to 0 support for the republican party by blacks themselves, and not that great a turnout for ANY republican, and you certainly don't have the enthusiasm of the "rock star" rallys that Obama has.

It is going to be very, very long time, I think, before a viable black candidate makes waves in the republican party- depending if and how bad they lose in November. If Republicans are really, really slaughtered at the polls- for sake of argument, let's say they lose the presidency, and don't win a single contested election for the senate or house- including the mid-term elections- then, the republican party has one great strength- the ability to reinvent itself, become a strong opposition party- with the old guard gone- there possibly could be even a "flight" to the republican party if the dems really screw the pooch for the hypothetical 8 years we are talking here.

let's say, for argument, that Obama turns out to be, oh, almost half as incompetant and bumbling as GW- and nearly as corrupt- then there would be a massive defection, again, and I don't think there will be another Neo-con wing power either- and perhaps, the religious conservative elements of minority groups would quite possibly flock to the elephant, and even radically change the party-

even if Obama is elected, and does a good job, and especially of the repubs really get slaughtered- there will probably be a complete re-alignment of the party, with the old guard leadership being ousted and some kind of new republican hybird emerging, that quite possibly may be diversity-friendly.

If you guys were able to experiance the turn around the republican party has made here, and the constant attempts to remove the old guard leadership- you can get a pretty good pic of what may very well happen nationally.

That said CR, despite the fact that we no longer have segregated restrooms, water fountains, restaurants, etc., racism exists on a more subtle level.

One of the people who frequents the same coffee shop as I do, predicts that against McCain, Obama will not get as high a percentage of white male votes as Kerry got.

I hope he's wrong, but I suspect that the 527s will be pushing the issue through innuendo, smear, fear, etc. Remember, it was only eight short years ago that Republicans in South Carolina dismissed McCain partially over the issue of an alleged "Black" child. Racism isn't dead, it's just better hidden.

John McCain supporters didn't start this thread.


Lecture? Where did I lecture you or any one else?

I asked a question...


It seems to me that the Obama supporters are willing to point the finger at McCain's people (and even Clintons) for perceived racism BoF, but your not willing to accept that you Obama's supporters are also using race as a political tool. There is a glaring hypocrisy in the Obama camp and its parading proudly in this thread.

You guys are already setting yourselves up with excuses in case your candidate loses.

First we have a supporter of the idiot Ron Paul telling the GOP how to re-invent itself, then another attack on the Swifties for telling the truth about John Kerry, followed by a "Bradley effect" excuse for why your candidate might lose. "Must be racism"...... How could we not elect a "rock star" otherwise?

Well, John McCain isn't a rock star, but he's a damn fine politician who knows how to win elections. He faced enormous odds in winning the GOP nomination. He took on the Republican establishment and won. Shocked the hell out of me, but he did it. And, he did it by being John McCain. He did it by holding true to his principles and keeping the faith.

Yeah, he's an old white guy, but he, unlike either of his two potential opponents has a long record of working across the aisle to get things done. Sometimes that's caused problems for him in Republican circles, but that's not his concern anymore. He is my party's nominee and whether Rush, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham like it or not, he is our nominee.

Eventually, the Democrats will end their little soap opera (or should that be Oprah) and make a decision on who they want to nominate for President. Once that happens, the real fun will begin. The political landscape will change from one of form to one of substance. The differences between the candidates, whether it be Clinton or Obama V. McCain will be stark. McCain is well-defined on his stances, neither of the Democrats really are. I have no doubt John McCain will run an honorable yet hard-hitting campaign, he always has. He will present the issues of the day, where he stands on them and challenge his opponent to do likewise. No more rock star rallies, time to talk issues. We'll see if the Democrat opponent is up to that. If they define themselves, they'll lose on the issues. If they don't, we'll define them like we did John Kerry in the last election. (people don't vote for "nuance") My bet is that either way, they'll lose at the end of the day.


I'm looking forward to it.

Aquilla

I know who started the thread, but I was originally answering a Republican. That does not mean that as we move into the election, some of McCain's supporters won't try to use race against Obama. Notice I said McCain's supporters, like 527s, not McCain, himself. They are too smart to be blatant about it.




I think the threads started by quick and others speak to that point.

I'm sorry moif, but I sort of tuned you out when you brought up the possibility that Obama would be assassinated. I've lived through a few of those, too.

And are you really trying to tell me that Obama and his supporters are not capitalizing on his race as well? They certainly seem to be doing so from where I'm sitting, and really very blatently also. Perhaps you've not been paying attention to whats actually said by the people who introduce Barack Obama before he comes on stage? For example, Chris Rock.


What point? Quick's threads don't strike me as being anything more than Quick's personal opinion.


I'm sorry you feel that way BoF. Lots of people have mentioned that possibility, even the afore mentioned Chris Rock made the point recently on British television. I don't see that it reflects on me in any way to have entertained the possibility that Obama might be assassinated. Its not as if I'm advocating his murder.

While that might be true, I think the threads speak of a segment of the electorate that are willing to dismiss Obama because he is Black. Not only that, but I sense a fear among some, right here in Texas, that a Black man may end up in the oval office.

BTW: Obama himself has tried to down play the race angle, even to the point where one participant on Meet the Press thought Obama was going to have address race more.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23658548/page/4/

In a perfect world policy and issues should determine how you vote. But we don't live in a perfect world and even as a non-American, you know that Moif.

I don't think it makes someone a racist or a sexist to factor race or gender (or age in the case of Senator McCain) in their decision. I think it makes us human and human beings make important decisions based upon irrational criteria. Did it really make a difference that some people voted for George Bush over John Kerry because they thought he'd be a better guy to have a drink with--despite the fact that Bush doesn't drink?

I trust you are familiar with how heavily television impacts the decisions people make in choosing a president? During the televised Nixon/Kennedy debates, people who listened on the radio overwhelmingly felt Nixon clobbered Kennedy. Nixon had a better command of the facts and appeared the more knowledgable of the two. But based on how he appeared on televison he was declared the "loser" of the debate and it may have contributed to his defeat in the general election.

The key turning point of the campaign were the four Kennedy-Nixon debates; they were the first presidential debates held on television. Nixon insisted on campaigning until just a few hours before the first debate started; he had not completely recovered from his hospital stay and thus looked haggard, sickly, underweight, and tired. He also refused makeup for the first debate, and as a result his beard stubble showed prominently on the era's black-and-white TV screens. Kennedy, by contrast, rested before the first debate and appeared tanned, confident, and relaxed during the debate. An estimated 80 million viewers watched the first debate. After it had ended polls showed Kennedy moving from a slight deficit into a slight lead over Nixon link

A silly reason to favor one man over another? Certainly, but elections aren't conducted in lecture halls and laboratories where X-factors can be controlled or eliminated from the decision-making process. Out here in the real world, people make their choices on arbitrary and at times ridiculous criteria.

Race, gender and age will continue to influence the decisions voters make as long as human beings make distinctions based upon race, gender and age.



But scubatim, does that mean there aren't ANY issues that even Rep. King and Rep. Pelosi can agree on? Politics is art of both the possible and compromise. I get it that King is a conservative Republican and Pelosi is a liberal Democrat. We've established that. But there has to be some common ground and shared interests they both share. Because if Congress is so broken and fractured by partisan division and rancor, then we might as well take a wrecking ball to the place and turn it into a Starbucks or something more useful.

Barack Obama can't make the Steve Kings and Nancy Pelosis of the world sing "We Are the World." However, there have always been contention, friction and different ideas how to address the same problem. But we need somebody willing to say, "Look, at the end of the day, we've all been sent here to do a job. Can't we sit down and try to figure out how we can do it without killing each other in the process?"

Maybe a silver tongue and rosy rhetoric isn't enough to bridge the gap in Washington. But is anyone even trying to get beyond gridlock and mutually assured destruction of the democratic process? Any manager worth the title knows you can't get people with competing interests working together until they start talking TO each other instead of AT each other.



I don't disagree with you or holdingtheline. Perhaps if I had given the topic more thought, I would have eliminated the poll questions entirely as it seems they may be short-circuiting the actual questions I posed. Besides Aquilla, I am not seeing many actual choices of potential minority candidates for the presidency.

However, there is something to said about raising the idea of a timetable for when it may become likely a racial minority may assume the presidency. Not because "it's time" for a Black or a Latino or Asian president. It simply seems a reasonable question, if not now, when? If not this particular racial minority, then who?

Choosing "The Right Man" (or woman) as POTUS should be the overriding criteria instead of having "the White man" or "the Black man" or whatever. Let's face the facts though. The presidency is not a meritocracy. The best person for the job doesn't always get it.

Had McCain beaten Bush for the Republican nomination in 2000, would he have waged the war in Iraq as Bush has? Would have Watergate had occurred if Humphrey defeated Nixon in '68? If Goldwater beats Johnson in 1964, is the Vietnam War ended with a clear and decisive victory or would it have been even bloodier and protracted?

Nobody can say with certainty. But it's clear in retrospect that in cases like Warren Harding or Herbert Hoover or Jimmy Carter that when the wrong man gets the top job the result is somewhere between rank ineptness to hopelessly corrupt.

If there were a fail-safe in the machine to keep total boobs out of the Oval Office, I think even Steve King and Nancy Pelosi would agree to using it.



I'm sorry Moif, but I honestly do not understand how, as the originator of the thread, that I am "shooting" down anyone over Obama's ethnicity or how I capitalizing upon it.

Would you please explain to me why you believe this is the case?




I certainly hope I'm not expected as a supporter of Barack Obama to act as a campaign spokesperson. That is a responsibility beyond my capacity to fulfill.

I'm not willing to accept the accusation Obama supporters are using race as a political tool, without some concrete examples, Moif. Anyone can make an accusation, but unless there is evidence presented to support the accusation, how can I respond to the charge?

Respectfully, I suggest you have not come forth with the proof of your claim.



Aquilla, you were angered by my derogatory characterization of Condoleeza Rice and took offense in a separate thread to Dontreadonme's statement that Senator McCain's plan to continue prosecuting the Iraq war. DTOM speaks quite well for himself and already has, but I'll admit to going over-the-top in slamming Rice. O.K.? That's the closest I can get to admitting I went too far.

However, you've consistently ripped into Ron Paul and you never pass up a chance to dog him out.

Why do you expect others to be civil towards politicians you like, while you don't even bother to conceal your contempt for those you dislike?



Maybe he's not a rock star in '08, but in 2000, I was at St. John's Arena at Ohio State University, with a crowd of almost 10,000 people waiting for a Arizona Senator to show up and speak. It's not hard to recall as I was one of the few Black folks in attendance. McCain was an hour late, but the audience was fired up when he stepped into the spotlight in the middle of the basketball court.

McCain isn't putting butts in the cheap seats like he used to back in the day, but he's still got a few "rock star" moves left in him.

He has never faced anything but token opposition for his Arizona Senate seat and the last time he was on the national stage, George Bush and Karl Rove dirtied him up in the 2000 Republican primary in South Carolina and snatched the nomination away from him. The Republican establishment lined up against him eight years ago and totally dissed the war hero for a frat boy who sat out Vietnam.

This time around, McCain wasn't even the presumptive front-runner. Rudy Giuliani was. He, not McCain, was the one with the money, the endorsements and the blessing of the Republican establishment. McCain was the aging "maverick" making a last run for glory, like Brett Favre saying last season's Green Bay Packers team could go all the way to the Super Bowl. And like Favre, McCain is a media darling. That hasn't changed. If the mainstream media is fond of Barack Obama, John McCain is their "Viva Viagra" fix; the media treats McCain like a rock star even if the Republican establishment and the self-appointed sages like Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity don't.

Every one of the major Republican candidates had a major flaw with the party base. Huckabee was conservative enough on some social issues, but had no foreign policy or economic chops. Romney had the money and the look, but he was a one-term Massachussettes politician who governed like a progressive (pro-gay rights, pro-choice, instituted a statewide health plan) but ran for president as a born-again conservative. Also he pandered shamelessly to the right-wing and thinks he can pander his way onto the ticket as McCain's running mate. McCain clearly has no enthusiasm or like for Romney, but he may have to accept him to throw a bone to the Republican Right. Giuliani ran a crazy "win Florida, but lose everywhere else" strategy that was doomed and as for Fred Thompson...



Why do you keep mentioning the fact that McCain has some miles on his odometer and happens to be a White man? Do you think nobody's going to notice when he walks out on to debate Clinton or Obama that they aren't?

Moif accuses Obama supporters of exploiting his race. You seem to be sending a not so-subtle message about McCain as well, Aquilla.

I half expect to see a campaign commercial this fall with a nice picture of McCain smiling and a voiceover saying, "John McCain for President. He's the White Guy."



Well, that depends on what the issues are, doesn't it?

If the war in Iraq is still buried deep in the back pages of the morning newspapers, that's good news for McCain. He has plenty of time to bone up on the crappy economy he admits he doesn't know much about. Yes, McCain is "well-defined" on his stances. When you've been entrenched in Washington for over 20 years you should be. The steam may run out of his "100 years in Iraq" misstatement.

Yeah, McCain could sail right along into The White House. If people are looking for a bona fide war hero instead of the trendy "flavor of the month" he's a stone cold lock. Cindy can start picking out the new linen for the Lincoln Bedroom.

But then again....

Iraq could get bloody again with civilians and U.S. troops could start coming home in ever-increasing numbers of coffins. McCain wants to take credit for the success of the surge. Great. If the surge starts to fail he'll get the lion's share of the blame.

There's nothing much McCain can do about the housing market and the economy in the Senate. He may be able to "reach across the aisle" but Harry Reid ain't going to do him any favors for the next several months. If his idea of a economic stimulus package is to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, that's not going to excite anyone but the upper 1 percent.

And unlike Obama, while Hillary will have the bogeyman of Bill Clinton used against her (not by McCain of course, he's far too nice and dignified to take cheap shots at his challengers---though I suspect the 527's and the rest of the GOP will happily do so), McCain is joined at the hip with the overwhelmingly unpopular George W. Bush. It won't take any wild exaggeration of McCain's record to suggest a vote for McCain is a vote for a third term of Bush. McCain will gladly accept the money Bush raises from his network of "rangers" and other cash cows (especially if Hillary is the Democratic nominee), but along with the money comes Bush's fingerprints, and that will make McCain look a lot less of a maverick and a lot more like Bush's older clone.

Bush was poison to Republican congressional hopes in 2006. The potency of his venom and the nation's distaste for it has only grown since then and it should prove fatal to McCain's bid in 2008.

John McCain is just as susceptible to being "defined" by the Dems as the Repubs and the Swifites "defined" Kerry. And the best part of it is, the Dems won't even have to lie about McCain. The truth alone should be enough to get the job done.

"Old white guy" is a term you coined I think, NT. And, that's an accurate term. John McCain is 71 years old and he's most definitely white. I see nothing wrong in unto itself with using that term to describe him by those who oppose him. It makes good rhetoric if nothing else. Indeed, not that long ago I myself posted somewhere here on AD concerns about McCain's health simply because of the way he looked to me at times on television. But, I'm not a doctor, don't even play one on TV and all the reports I've heard put McCain in excellent health. Watching him on the campaign trail does nothing to belie those reports. I only hope that when I reach his age I have his energy. Actually, I could use a little of that now even. But, he is an old white guy and there's no denying it. He also has a long record in the US Senate and that record is fair game. Fair game for those who oppose him like you and fair game for those who support him like me.




Good luck trying to define John McCain as something he's not. Telling the truth about him (as the Swifties did about Kerry) is not going to hurt him one little bit in the general election. Having a long public record of service can help or hurt a candidate, depending of course on the record. In these times, I think McCain's record helps him. He has proven to be a "uniter not a divider" time and time again and some of the purists on the right despise him for that. I was unhappy with his "gang of fourteen" over the judges issue until I took a closer look at what he accomplished with it. Roberts, Alito, Janice Rogers-Brown, Prisella Owens - all confirmed. Not bad and in all honesty much of the credit for those confirmations goes to McCain. That my friend is "working across the aisle" and McCain has proven he can do that and will do it despite the hits he takes for it on talk radio. Obama and Clinton can talk about how they'll work with both sides to come to solutions to the problems facing this country, McCain can simply cite his record to prove he does that and has his entire political career.

So, feel free to cite John McCain's record. Detail it to your heart's content. Advertise it all you want. He can use all the help he can get and that will help him. Go for it, NT. Let's give a little love to the old white guy.


Aquilla

Oh, I have no doubt McCain is going to get more than a little love. Howard Dean and Company have had ample time to develop a less-than-flattering profile of McCain and a ample war chest to disseminate their message.

I also fully expect that eventually McCain will eventually take incoming fire from the media over his refusal to repudiate the support of John Hagee, the rabid anti-Catholic bigot who makes Jeremiah Wright look like Mister Rogers. While the Washington press corps turns toward McCain's birthplace and bows in worship, they hate being called on their hypocrisy and if Hillary Clinton is the nominee there is no way she will pass up this easy of a shot.

I noticed while you give McCain props for Roberts/Alito/Rogers-Brown and Owens, you didn't mention the guy who nominated them, George W. Bush. Even die-hard Republicans know Bush is persona non grata for GOP candidates who want to win this year and McCain is no exception. It's not defining McCain as being something he's not to assert he's become a Bush loyalist and the status quo candidate. Find a substantive issue where the supposedly maverick McCain differs from Bush. It's not there.

McCain is not going to be a pushover and he may be one of the most respected, if not the most respected politician in Washington. But as Rove and Bush proved in 2000, popularity is not the same thing as invincibility. McCain can be beaten and here's a few suggestions from 2006 how it can be done:

Highlight his compromised principles: A lot of hay has been made by Republicans about Gore's changed stance on this or Kerry's flip-flop on that. Any time the tiniest hint of a shift of opinion over the course of time is perceived, they are somehow able to make it into the defining trait of that candidate. McCain's flip-flops are far more glaring than many of the ones used against Gore and Kerry, and there's no reason they won't be effective once brought to light. A couple of examples:

* His caving to Bush on the detainee bill: McCain made his opposition to torture a centerpiece of his image, but by signing on to Bush's bill, he signed away his credibility. The Democratic candidate must trumpet the fact that McCain allowed habeas corpus to be suspended at presidential will. Rather than allowing McCain to shield himself with his own former POW status, make that part of the question, as in "How could you support such a bill, having endured what you have endured?"
�

* His dissing-then-kissing of religious fanatics: Falwell may rally the GOP base, but he does not play well with mainstream America. Run as much video contrasting McCain shaking hands with Falwell and Pat Robertson with video of McCain calling the two of them "the agents of intolerance." � The assertion of hypocrisy is a great message-defuser, so wield it often.

Turn him into Bob Dole: The smartest thing Bill Clinton did for his 1996 reelection campaign was to come out of the gates telling people what to think of Bob Dole. In 2008, all of the serious Democratic contenders, not having the benefit of already being in office, have to start NOW doing the same thing, using most of the same imagery. Bob Dole was "too old"� and out of touch, well, for the purposes of this campaign, so is John McCain. Bob Dole was "too extreme"�, so is John McCain. Bob Dole was essentially the same person as the then-reviled Newt Gingrich. John McCain, it follows, is one and the same as George W. Bush. Find all the video of them embracing and shaking hands as you can, and all the pro-Bush sound bites. Dole and Newt gave us the government shutdown. Bush and McCain gave us the Iraq war. link

I respect McCain. He's a formidable candidate for the Republicans and in the long run probably the most electable. But do I fear McCain? Not even close.

Agreed. But how low can we set our expectations if we still wish to change the world for the better?


All the above quoted paragraphs tell me is that Nixon was defeated because early television audiences were subjected to a novel experience. I am familiar with the incident of course, its an infamous example of how television can effect viewers. The trouble with this example however, is it is from an age when televion was still a novelty and whilst it may still be the case that the bulk of American voters receive their opinions via a cathode ray tube, I don't believe its in any way admirable for a candidate to rely on this method of soliciting votes.

In other words, if your all so stupid as to believe what you see on a television screen, then I'm afraid presidents like GW Bush are all you deserve.

Ethnicity is still a factor in the decision making process, to that I will agree. But it is only such because many people still retain a racist element to their character. In other threads on I've speculated that perhaps Barack Obama is actually what America needs to purge this racism, because of his ethnic identity, but to be frank, I don't think he's the right man for the job of president both because he relies on such methods as his appearance, manner and other such spurious elements and because his proposed policies seem unrealistic and expensive.

Thats just my irrellevent personal opinion however and I'm willing to be proven wrong. Frankly, and with regards to non white candidates, I wanted to see Colin Powell in the White House in 2000 but instead watched the election of GW Bush with a sinking feeling in my stomach. I'll never understand why Powells wife (apparently) talked him out of running. Its all water under the bridge now.


To me, all the above quotes sound like your saying, racism is okay, when its in favour of Barack Obama... but the trouble with this attitude is, as long as you accept racism for own gain, then you perpetuate racism.


Certainly. BoF proposed the argument that McCain would avoid mentioning race but his supporters would use race as a means of attacking Barack Obama.

By saying this, by focusing on ethnicity, as you have done with this thread, what you are doing is the same thing that BoF says McCains supporters are doing. You are using ethnic identity as a means to an end. In this case, it is the stick with which you choose to beat your opponents. Merely asking the questions posed in this topic is using race as a political tool.

NOT using race, for example, would be starting a thread about policy issues. You can't have it both ways.


This very thread is proof enough for me. You are, depsite your apparent unwillingness, the most ardent and vocal supporter of Barack Obama on this forum at this time. You have started a thread about voting in an ethnic president. This speaks for itself.

Incidently Obama does use race as a political tool, and he does it a lot. You just choose not to see it. This video is the most recent Obama video on his You Tube page. After having invoked Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Obama goes on to say:
At this point Obama deliberatly pauses to let the crowd chant 'yes we can'.

Now, if thats not using race as a political tool, then I don't know what is. If Barack Obama was truly 'post racial', then he wouldn't be holding such speeches (and apparently as far back as 2004), instead he'd be debating the issues at hand. The flagging economy, the threat posed by rising oil prices and how he, as a president can change these real life issues for the better.

I'm sure Obama has mentioned these things in speeches that I've not seen, he must have done, but if there is one thing that summarizes all the various quotes and speeches I've seen attributed to Barack Obama and his supporters in the last few months, its race. Often its quoted as 'change', but whats really meant is, if you want to see an end to racism in the USA, vote for Barack Obama.

That, is racial politics.

I am having trouble with the idea that electing someone to President of the United States is going to bring Congress together. If we were looking for someone to lead Congress into some kind of united front, shouldn't we leave that person in Congress? I have never looked upon the President as a role that is to lead Congress. In fact, I was under the understanding that the President had no control over Congress. The whole checks and balances issue is thrown out the window if we allow a president to lead Congress. No matter who gets elected, division will run just as rampant the next day as it does today. What we need if we are so concerned about bringing Congress together is a new Congress and more control from the people over Congress. We could go on and on as to how that gets done, but that isn't the topic of the thread. Congressional control and leadership isn't the responsibility of The President of the United States, nor should it ever be. Our Government was built in a certain way, and we need to make sure it's basic structure isn't destroyed. Not to mention we have already allowed our government to change itself too far from what the Founding Fathers intended. We have way too many problems in Washington to allow one person to be elected to lead Congress. That creates the worst slippery slope we have ever been able to dream up. I agree that Obama has the best chance of becoming the next President. It scares the hell out of me, but only because I disagree with many of his policies. I don't think electing him to bring Congress together is the best action of our nation. I definitely will be voting in a different direction.


Nope, working pro bono on this one!


And here is where I think our electoral system is failing us miserably. I doubt I will vote Paul since he won't be on the ticket, but you can bet your bottom dollar I won't vote for whoever gets elected come November!



Doesn't mean we have to continue to put the spotlight on the issue. All threads like these do is feed the monster. Come election time, if you vote for Obama, certain groups will make accusations that you did because he is black (especially if you are black). If you don't vote for Obama, certain groups will accuse that you didn't because he is black. I know this won't be mainstream America, but none-the-less I would be willing to bet the media will cover it and give it it's undue 15 mintutes of fame.

I’m not just pulling this out of thin air. I don’t remember George W. Bush personally saying anything except that Kohn Kerry’s military service was admirable. Nice faint praise from someone who, despite Dan Rather’s blunder, shirked his military duty.

Then the 527 swift boat group took over and massacred Kerry. Michelle Maulkin even claimed Kerry shot himself in the leg to get his a purple heart.

In 2008, I expect much of the same. McCain stays above the fray, does not get accuse of being a racist and the 527 groups take the ball and run with it. Hopefully Obama will strike back hard – something Kerry didn’t do until it was too late – an enough voters have wised up to the technique that Obama will be elected over Geritol John.

BTW: I’m just joking about the Geritol. Fred Thompson was the candidate who seemed most in need of a shot of Geritol. Here’s hoisting a bottle for Fred.

A Last Hurrah for Fred – Hoisting a Final One for the Not Quite Gipper

Sending racial identity in presidential politics to the back of the bus is going to be a difficult task, particularly since the mainstream media is so enamored by it. The more they 'support' rather than 'report' the more damage they do.

I think the country is ready to elect a qualified, moderate, candidate who happens to be black. I don't think Obama is the guy simply because he's far too liberal.

He also might not be qualified, especially if the best you can say about him is that you trust him to answer the ",".

That is a matter of opinion.

Since you are going to make a bold statement like this, could you please define "liberal."

Which comes as absolutely no surprise. That's a weak cop-out, moif. quick opens thread after thread with the express purpose of "exposing" Barack Obama as a man whose loyalty to America is in question due to his mixed racial heritage and has virtually spammed the board in his attempt to decry Dreams From My Father as some kind of Mein Kampf in blackface.

But where you see this thread as a hotbed of racial politics, you're oblivious to quick's agenda of character assassination.



Now you're claiming that your own words don't reflect upon you. At least you gave quick the out of his antipathy toward Obama as just his "personal opinion." You suggest Obama may be murdered and you don't even have the courage of your convictions to stand behind your own words.

Oh it reflects upon you alright moif. It loudly proclaims your antagonism toward African-Americans like a rifle shot.



The ascent of Barack Obama in American politics and his unexpected success that cuts across race, religion, demographic, age, gender and other artificial distinctions are a resounding repudiation of racism. I do not accept racism. I have historically been part of a group victimized by racism. The possibility of a Black man becoming President of the United States does not signal the the perpetuation of racism. It heralds the repudiation of racism as a barrier to the success of any person who possesses the talents, skills, acumen and desire to run for the highest elected office in the land.

The fact that you don't understand any of this is indicative that the distance between our respective positions is far greater than distance, geography and language.



I'm not beating anyone with anything, Moif. What I'm doing is rejoicing in the fact that Barack Obama is beating Hillary Clinton. Anything else you read into it is a figment of your imagination.

Debates about race and racism can be expected to follow the rise of a serious Black contender for the POTUS. I haven't seen you squawking with such disapproval over similar discussions about Hillary Clinton and the sexism and gender issues her candidacy bring up.

But then for you it's all about "getting Barack Obama." You have plenty of company here in America and certainly on America's Debate.


You missed the purpose of this thread, moif. The question was to query who are the other options among people of color in America who may one day be prepared to step up and serve their country as the President of the United States. Do you have one to offer besides Colin Powell who have never demonstrated he wants the gig?

I'm the most ardent and vocal supporter of Barack Obama and that annoys you so? Thank you! Saying so doesn't bother me in the least. In the future, I hope to be even more ardent and vocal as Obama gets closer to the nomination.

You are one of the most critical and vocal detractor of Barack Obama, but I'm not annoyed by it. I expect it from you, moif because your history of posting in matters regarding America and race is a knee-jerk response that you defend racism by Whites while you seek out racism by Blacks. That is why you affect this pose of the neutral foreign observer, but undermine it with your consistent and easily documented posting history of opposing diversity, ending White supremacy and bringing about a multi-racial, pluralistic society.

Obama's success is creating a new paradigm in American politics---and yes, racial politics as well. The opposition to this change in the status quo is fierce here at home. Apparently, the fear that this engenders has spread beyond these borders and even all the way to Denmark. I have no clue as to why Obama's popularity here angers you so much over there, but like BoF, I stopped taking you seriously when you put the suggestion of murdering Barack Obama on the table.



And you practice it Moif. The racial politics of alarmist fear-mongering and desperately trying to hold back the inevitability of change. Don't even try to pretend you don't.



Ummm...if you think about it holdingtheline, depending on what your racial identity was, Black Americans were sent to the back of the bus. That's kind of how we got where we are in the first place.

What precisely is Barack Obama advocating that is "far too liberal?" Health care for Americans who need it? A phased withdrawl from Iraq? The repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy?

You've got the rhetoric down, HTL, but you're not offering anything in the way of supporting documentation or a critical analysis of what Obama is proposing that is so far outside of the mainstream of American politics.

1. If Barack Obama is not ready and/or qualified to be the first racial minority to be elected to the presidency, can you name a minority candidate who is?

Barack is as ready as any body to be President, I hope. There really is no two ways about, it you don't know how well a President will be until they are President. And yes, I think Colin Powell if he could get past Republican Primaries would stand a great chance at being President.
Like a Captain in charge of the IT Staff once told me .... "I don't need to know this Computer crap in and out... I just need to make sure you do"

Being President isn't about you alone, more importantly it is about who you surround your self with. Take Bush for example scandal after scandal leading to resignation after resignation.

How many times has Clinton had to apologize for this or that that one of her staff had done?

Judgement, Courage, Will and Inspiration are what will make a good President. Clinton has Will. Barack has shown that he is inspirational and has Judgement. I haven't seen the level of courage from either candidate that I would like to see. And Obama's will is just being tested at this level of the game, so we'll see how he fares.

People pretend that the media has been soft on Obama. Laughable... what exactly was the media printing or saying that was detrimental to the Clinton Campaign. They spinned her little sobbing moment in a positive way. They parroted what ever she wanted them to parrot. Yet... she is in the fight for her life, losing in every statistical way that matters, after being so far ahead, that her nomination seemed inevitable.

Look at the feat that Obama did, look at the skillls of Obama compared to the skills of Hillary... this shows you the difference in leadership ability.

Again, everyone talks about Hillary's willingness to fight, but to me this goes to the whole idea of JUdgement and leadership. What good to win a battle and lose the war? Her comments and gestures of herself and her surragates have endangered both candidates from winning the nomination.

Barack isn't asking to change the rules in the middle of the campaign. Barack tries his best to stay above the fray... the funny thing is... this is starting to be seen as a weakness. Barack isn't going to go to the convention, hat in hand, telling the delegates and super delegates, forget who the states voted for, and who the people voted for, vote for me. Barack, I believe, has the vision to see down the road after this primary, Hillary seems to see only herself or no democratic nominee taking the presidency, and her politics have beared this out.

Part of being President and leader is knowing when continuing on is doing harm than moving on. Kind of like GWB.

2. Is America ready for a racial minority to be President or will it take more time? Please specify how long it may take.

Yes and no. But there is no set time. I agre with a couple of others, that we can not look at it like... "It's a minorities turn." It isn't and it never will be. I think that Barack is the better candidate. I think that if any one is being truthful we know that Barack one quite a few White states.. because he is a better candidate.... Barack has tore into Hillary's base and solidified his because... he is a better candidate. Barack has come back from huge deficits because he was a better candidate.

If it was all about race, then where barack starts is where he would finish. But look at how Hillary Clinton lead rare if ever grows.

It's so easy to get caught up in race and Baracks status as a Black man, that we forget... this man is just as much White as he is black. Raised by a White mother and White Grand parents.

So yes the country is ready for a Black President, but only when looking at it from a race neutral standpoint. As long as Barack Obama is a candidate looking to be President, he can win.

But when Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, or whoever else start looking at Barack Obama as the Black Candidate running to be the first minority President, his chances are much slimmer.

Barack is trying to accomplish this race neutral tone, the media and Hillary and later McCain, through surrogates, will try to do otherwise. So it's all about how well Barack and the supporters of Barack can continue to make race a non-issue. Which is hard when your opponnent continues to bait you with race.

The whole Geraldine thing is a prime example. If Barack says nothing Geraldine keeps repeating Barack is a case of affirmative action. If Barack calls her on the racial statements, Barack is playing a race card.

He is going to have to explain to the people at every point that this is the prediciment he is in. It's like a magic trick, it loses it's intigue once you know how it's done.

1. I'm ready NOW for a minority candidate to be elected President, provided that he or she shares my political views. Do I have one in mind who is interested in running? Not at present. That being said, I would vote for any candidate who shares my views, regardless of skin color, gender, etc. I don't care about that. I care about my views being advanced, and if that is with a black candidate, great!

2. The majority of America is ready now. To put an arbitrary time limit is silly. It all depends on the individual candidate. Yes, there are folks who will not vote for a candidate because of his race. There are also folks who will vote for a candidate solely because of his race. When you cancel these out, I think the remainder is insignificant when compared to the important factors a candidate needs to possess in order to get elected.

In all fairness to Moif I think we need to keep in mind he doesn't get the saturation media coverage of the campaign that we do, and there may be a little confusion on his part about the process we use. And, what point of the process we're currently at. Right now, on the Democrat side, the process is still a candidate selection process for Democrats between Obama and Clinton. If the debate between the two looks more like a "beauty contest" than an issues-based debate, that's because it is. Clinton and Obama are not that far apart on the actual issues that will be debated in the general contest in the fall. It is difficult for each of them to really draw a contrast with each other on important issues. That is the nature of the party primary beast. Republicans go through it, Democrats go through it. Every candidate knows you can't win a general election if you don't win your party's nomination, so the focus is on the respective core of each party's voters. Once the nomination is wrapped up, as it is in John McCain's case, you can begin to draw the contrast between the respective candidates based on real differences on issues. McCain can, and has done that now, and he can campaign against both Clinton and Obama at the same time, they really aren't all together that different on the issues. Clinton and Obama really can't do that as much because they each have to defeat the other one first. So, we're still at the beauty contest stage on the Democrat side. I'm guessing that's a lot of what Moif sees.

But, not to worry my friend, once the Democrats get things sorted out and make a decision on who they want their candidate to be, you will see a marked change in the nature of the campaign. That's when the real fun begins although the current Democrat food fight is pretty entertaining.


Aquilla