Yes. I think Obama is electable.

[cali]

I'm so sick of people on this board insisting he's not electable because he's black. Don't like him? Fine. But this country is as ready as it's ever been to rise above racial bigotry. Why should we operate out of fear of racists? How different will things be 4 years or 8 years from now?

Don't support Obama because of policy or experience or how he presents himself? That's one thing. Arguing against his candidacy because he's black? That's another. And it sucks.

[mourningdove92]

1. I agree that Barack Obama is

electable, as is Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

For myself, my support is with Clinton. However, after the primaries, I will wholeheartedly support whichever Democrat comes out as our candidate.

[cali]

2. I feel the same way, but If I see one more

post about how Obama can't win because he's black, I'll :puke:

[OHdem10]

8. I do not think it is because he is black. Yes, there are people

who will not vote for him for this reason. They would not
vote for any Democrat.

I think his youth and experience are the factors that in the
end make it very difficult for him to win.

Elites are having meetings on the Condition of our Country.
This information is not pretty. Experience and Competence
will be the attributes needed.

[cali]

11. He's 46 years old. He would by no means be the youngest president elected.

Experience? He has over a decade in elected office.

As for your claim: Who are the elites you claim are meeting? What are they meeting about? You seem to know so much, you should elaborate.

[ZinZen]

62. I remember

in 1991-92 "inexperience and youth" being negatives againist Bill Clinton. Clinton also had the adulterer stories coming out en masse. I believe this same tactic was used againist JFK along with his religion.

In other words. Obama's youth and inexperience does not wash. Give it up.

[H2O Man]

3. He is electable.

He may be the most electable democratic candidate for president since Bill Clinton. The racists in the republican and democratic parties are in the minority these days.

[Imagevision]

4. Obama the best sice JFK, people from Des Moines poll today feel the same way also...

[mtnsnake]

5. I agree. nt

[noiretextatique]

6. i will believe it when i see it

but i do think the fact the he is bi-racial and multi-cultural gives him an edge.

[Evergreen Emerald]

7. He is not electable. He is an inexperienced light-weight

Who has gaffed when given real-life opportunities to rise to the occasion. He speaks wonderfully, but we need more than a speaker.

[cali]

9. A lightweight who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law.

Sure. That makes sense. not. He's intellectually gifted and he's running a hell of a campaign for someone you deem as inexperienced. Gaffes? Clinton has committed far more.

[Evergreen Emerald]

21. There is a difference

Look: the reason Obama's campaign can get away with the negative campaigning is because the media is complicit. Can you imagine if Clinton suggested he was "bushlike" in his votes? And remember, he voted for the war time and again, so she COULD say that. But, the media would be all over her attacking her relentlessly and obama would play the victim.

Clinton's are the usual politics that the media is not letting her get away with. Obama's attacks are the usual politics that the media is HELPING him get away with.

The "Gaffs" you refer to regarding Clinton are the ususal political stuff--not gaffs, but the media distorts.

The Gaffs Obama does are things like foreign policy blunders (suggesting that he personally would meet with Iran's leader, or suggesting that Clinton caused Bhutto's murder.) Those are gaffs we cannot afford.

[H2O Man]

27. Respectfully disagree.

First, it is inaccurate, at best, to say that Obama said that Clinton caused Bhutto's murder. One of his people answered a question about Bhutta's assassination by saying, accurately, that the Bush administration's policies had played a role in increasing the tensions and violence in that area of the world. It is fair to examine the extent that all democratic candidates have supported and/or contested the Bush policies, especially the war in Iraq. Those comparisons -- and not a "complicit media" -- allows the democratic voters to decide which candidates are most in line with the Bush policies.

[Evergreen Emerald]

30. No. That is not what he said.

What he said was that going to Iraq took their eye of Al Queda and Afghanistan and Pakistan and look what happened. You are changing what he said (as he was allowed to change it with the help of the media), but if you look at his statement, he said the result of going to Iraq was a direct link.

And we know that historically Pakistan has been in upheveal and Iraq has nothing to do with it.

You suggest that the media is not complicit because they are failriy examining all the candidates. That is simply not true. It would be fair if they also examined Obama's complicitness in Bush's policies, but he gets a free pass.

What I refer to in "complicit" is assisting Obama in attacking Clinton, giving Clinton on a silver platter--with no questions about his statements or attacks. He has been attacking Clinton for months and the media helps him define Clinton's response as "attacks." He is getting a leg-up from the media.

[H2O Man]

42. I agree that

what the Obama aide said in his answer to his question was what you said here -- and it is what I said, as well. The administration absolutely took its eye off of al Qaeda, and instead focused on invading Iraq. In the years since then, it seems clear that the war of occupation in Iraq is central to the administration's foreign policy. While this has taken place, other areas have grown far more dangerous. The Obama aide is 100% correct about that, in my opinion.

To the extent that voters evaluate each candidate's support for or opposition to the Bush policies in Iraq, I think the party benefits. I will admit that I have not read every newspaper and magazine, nor have I watched every television program. But I've read and watched quite a few. I'm not aware of any trend on the media's report to falsify either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama's votes on any of the bills in regard to the Bush administration's inanity in Iraq.

There have also been a number of televised debates in which both senators have had the opportunity to present their stances on Iraq and the Middle East. Personally, I think that both have been able to show themselves as fully capable of defining their beliefs. Both have made clear that they recognize the administration has created such a tragic and dangerous situation, that there are no simple answers.

Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are intelligent, highly qualified candidates. Should either one become our party's candidate, the media will then display what they do when they are complicit in attempting to sway an election. I think that either one would beat any of the republicans, though.

[Colobo]

24. You sound bitter, Emerald.

[Evergreen Emerald]

28. what a stupid thing to say

"bitter?"

[Adelante]

10. "this country is as ready as it's ever been"

I believe that wholeheartedly. Racists may not vote for him, but I think there are many more Americans who are looking to get past this divide. It's not because he's black, but because they're fed up with the country running on stuck.

[jpgray]

12. Yeah, even in the once-removed "other people think this way" tactic, that argument sucks

Same goes for the "Hillary would lose simply because she is a woman" business. But I have to say I also dismiss arguments from those candidates' supporters who claim a certain thorny establishment stance or statement is necessitated by the obstacles a black/female candidate must deal with.

[bettyellen]

25. it's not a "once removed" tactic if you see the sexism all day at the office, in the streets etc

if being the wrong color or gender hurt peoples careers. you damn well see and are hurt by those "some people", it's not a matteer of hiding behind them, as your post seems to imply. it's an acknowledgement of how life still is in this country.
i hate when people claim its a tactic or card being played, and not just an honest assesment of the situation at hand.
it's not a game if it impacts your own life, and it;s dishonest to shove it in the closet because some people find it distasteful to think about.
mu guesstimate is that sexism and race is going to cost them the ugliest 15-20 % of the Dem party because we are what we are. i'm not happy about it, but i'm not pretending we all holding hands and singing kumbaya either. that's just naive.

[jpgray]

32. But you can't say "Oh well, there are bigots, therefore I won't pursue that job/policy"

You have to confront them sometimes to do what is right or necessary. Recognizing they exist is rather a part of that. If you constantly compromise your life in fear of bigotry, they win without even having their harmful ways directly contested.

[bettyellen]

40. on issues and action, absolutely. but supporting a candidate because "it's time for..."

a woman or black is bullshit. and i see that here all the time here too.
and as far as being progressive on the issues - Obama comes up pretty disappointing,as does Hil and her triangulations. It would be wonderful if they were both convincingly principled. Then they might overcome their demographic disadvantages- America's isms- if they could really truly inspire the voters. I'm just not seeing it. Hil's coming off as a sellout and Obama's becoming very divisive. It's disappointing. The generational infighting bulllshit from Obama was bad (and foolish) enough- but the anti gay bigotry he stood with, that's a deal breaker.

[jpgray]

41. You're right, supporting someone because of their race or gender alone is also silly

And of the major candidates Hillary and Obama are on the bottom of my list.

[bettyellen]

54. and i'm the first to admit, i will hold a woman or black man to a more progressive standard

because if they haven;t learned to champion for the little guy - and be truly progressive and proud of it- based on their own lifelong second tier status, then they are missing (or have abandoned) something truly important, something that would have made them very valuable.

[bettyellen]

13. i wish i had your faith in the populace, but fear and ignorance has been bringing out

the vote for the last two generals, i don't see why we should expect a big turnaround or enlightenment happening.
my experience with middle america has been that it;s still plenty racist, and i know i'm not the only one.
just calling it what it is.

[noiretextatique]

15. one need look no further than DU

check out the african-american issues forum, or any thread about reparations or affirmative action for examples.

[jpgray]

18. But where does fear of ballot box bigots end? Doesn't that strategy axe support for gay marriage?

It has in many cases. And I don't think it's right, or always necessary. At least not for national candidacies.

[bettyellen]

35. well that's what interesting- my feeling is that he's chasing the bigot vote already

and it's a fools errand. in this day and age it's downright embarrassing for a anyone BUT a republican to let people surrounding him demonize gays.
not having core liberal values turns off progressive voters who would have automatically supported him- and he;s chasing "moderate"votes i don;t belive he'll ever get.
both obama and hil trying to capture the center have abandoned issues and beliefs that are very significant to true progressives. they will become targets of the embarrassing "stand for nothing" flip floppy left accusations. and fracture the party.

[jpgray]

39. I have an extreme problem with Obama's triangulation, as I do with Hillary's

The "middle ground" when one extreme side is completely wrong is -not- the right place to be, as comforting as "let's end all this partisan bickering and bring the country together" may sound. But for the same reason I say gay marriage should be a Democratic plank, I say being black should not disqualify you from winning national office. If the election is about petty bigotry, then either someone is trying very successfully to make it about just that or someone else has failed to make the election about something that matters. It's our responsibility to make the election about something that matters.

[bettyellen]

47. it should be about what is most important- which is why it's a shame to see the triangulations

i think Obama has a gift and could really work it- if the substance, the idealism was there also.
to mbring race and sexism into the conversation is very loaded- almost a no win situation, you know. if we acknowledge it- "they" exploit it- if we pretnd it's not there (like this OP) well, it's a nice thought that it will have no / little impact on the race... but who ever says that comes off woefully ignorant, and naive. Racism still thrives, but just ebeneath the surface, sexism is still hilarious. I'm not going for this pollyanna bullshit that somehow a 180 has occured since the Reagan years. Thers' no evidence to support that. It's wishfull thinking and not much else.

[cali]

20. You seem to have forgotten 2006. And this year will, I believe,

be more analogous to 2006 than 2004 or 2000. At least all the signs point in that direction. And by signs I mean evidence. I'll remind you that your personal experience really can't be used to extrapolate about how this country will vote. It's a foolish thing to do and DUers can't seem to grasp that. Yes, there's racism in this country, and sexism and xenophobia, but I don't see that there's enough of it to defeat a strong black candidate or a strong woman candidate or a strong candidate of just about any background. Well, as long as they aren't a professed atheist.

[bettyellen]

29. so, your personal extrapolation... i.e. guess is as good as mine. thank you.

i could never extrapolate based in NYC, LOL..... I live where racisnm is pretty unacceptable and the women are fully emancipated and then some, but I have been around the block enough to know i'm in paradise (despised liberal oasis) compared to much of the country.
i remember 2006, the race was too darn close for comfort. i'd hate to see a squeaker like that again- and i believe with hill we may lose.
that's my opinion- every bit as valid as yours.

[cali]

36. No, I made it clear, I don't extrapolate from my personal experience.

And 2006 was not really a squeaker. Yes, some races where dems weren't expected to have a chance were tight, but 2006 has rightly been called a landslide.

[bettyellen]

43. 04 was a SQUEAKERfor the WH. (thread topic) and your opinions are based on

other peoples experience? ?
all you have are opinions, child, and prognostications.... no matter how frequently you repeat them. there's no evidence that their more informed than anyone else's here.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bettyellen]

57. discussing the WH elections- Bush won bigtime? Is that your point, or do you totally lack one?

we are talking about getting into the WH- 2004 not 06, btw- and your pollyanna OPINION about how racism doesn't exist anymore enough among likely voters...LOL.
facinating stuff. pointless drivel, but interesting in a train wreck kinda way...:popcorn:

[cali]

65. No, cupcake, you originally wrote that we lost the WH in '06

I was laughing at your ignorance. And, pookie, we're talking about elections and the change in the political environment over the last 7 years- at least that's what I'm talking about, little dumpling. I can see you have a difficult time following, but honestly it's not all that difficult. You also might try not putting words in my mouth. I never said racism doesn't exist anymore- or anything close to it. I said that I believe that even with the racism extant in this country, a black candidate can be elected.


Fascinating watching people joining the racists- inadvertently- in perpetrating the myth that a black candidate can't win. And pathetic.

[bettyellen]

66. you have an opinion that there's less racism these days. it's not backed up by anything

and now you are accusing people of joining racists because we acknowledge their existence . we can;t discuss race, because it;s racist. LOL. pathetic and illogical arguments, stolen from the RW.
i think obama can;t win, because he's a sellout and a triangulator. he can give an inspriational speech but the substance isn;t there. nothing racist about that, dollface.
never said a black person couldn;t win. knowing that it is a disadvantage to be black, and it is despite your ignorant claims otherwise, is not the same as condoning it. that is just weak. you basically need to mischaracterize what people are saying and make veiled claims of racism to make any sense of what you're saying- and it;s complete bullshit. you KNOW you are mischaracterising what people say. and that makes you as much of a pathetic souless triangulator as the worst we have running.
as many here have said, sticking your head up your ass doesn;t make the racists go away- it just makes you blind to it. i hope you continue to revel in your ignorance, this faux pollanna thing really works for you.

[Little Star]

67. Wow! U sure can be nasty.

I was just reading your response to Bettyellen, has no one changed your diaper today?

[HughBeaumont]

14. Hey, I'm fine with Obama.

Civil rights matter to all of us, and what he's accomplished in that area is admirable. Personally, I think he'd make a better VP at this point, but any combo of Edwards, Obama and Biden, I'd be fine with.

[virginia mountainman]

16. He is NOT electable...

1. He is Black......their is still "unspoken bigotry" in America.. Even among Democrats, you would NOT, believe some of the language and comments I hear, AMONG US, at our gatherings, and Union meetings.

2. Many people THINK, he is Muslim, and will not be persuaded otherwise, especially because of his middle name. All the republicans will need to do is, call him by his full name, to "gently remind" folks of that fact.

3. Lack of experience, he is viewed by many as a political light weight.

4. He supports an outright ban on ALL Semi-Auto firearms. That is dramatically out of touch with most Americans, even many mildly pro-gun control folks.

When you add up all the negatives, they make a really high mountain for him to cross, even if much of it is undeserved, and unfair. It is reality.

[cali]

22. Maybe he's not electable where you're from, but don't

be blinded by that. As for the stuff about his religion, middle name, etc, that's something I believe he can overcome fairly easily- he's clearly doing so in states like Iowa and NH. He draws more repuke votes than any other dem candidate.

He's no more inexperienced than Adlai was when he ran.

Operating out of fear is a losing proposition.

[boston bean]

31. You are going to be given a reality check when he loses.

Racism and bigotry in the nation is as strong as as ever, just not spoken.

It is under the breath. Out of sight. but a cancer on our society.

That is the reality. Now I wish it wasn't like that. I don't tolerate it, but there are many americans who do. It is naieve to think otherswise.

I won't vote for obama because he is a lightweight and inexperienced. I don't find him to really have the gut for it, but rather the nice words that he thinks can get him elected.

[cali]

33. Or you will be when he is elected.

You're expressing OPINION as if it was fact. It's not. And clearly you DO tolerate it, in as much as you let it cow you. How sad. And i hope you're speaking of not voting for him in the primary only. Will you vote for him if he's the nominee.

[boston bean]

34. Of course I will vote for him if he is the nominee, although that may be futile. nt

[IndianaJones]

44. many believe that racism does not exist in America. nt.

[Imagevision]

17. Stating Obama is a 'lightweight' with a failure like Bush in office is entertaining

But Bush did make those in Defense,Oil,Tobacco,Drug companies etc. much more wealthy and more powerful.

[dailykoff]

19. Agreed. I believe he can easily win a popular majority.

Whether he'll be allowed to take office is another matter entirely and largely depends on us.

p.s. happy new year!

[cali]

23. Thanks.

And a joyful new year to you too.

[IndianaJones]

26. reality will encroach soon. nt.

[Little Star]

37. JJ & Al Sharpton still believe there are many bigots.

They are out there daily fighting against the racism. Are they making it up? I think Obama may be able to get the Democratic nod but in a general we will end up with another Repug. It is very sad to have to say that in the year of 2008 but I am in MA and see it here. I went on a vacation to TN this past summer and actually saw, on more than one yard, those black jockey statues holding the confederate flag. I could not believe my eyes! I wondered how those home owners could get away with such blatant bigotry. Sorry Cali, there are more of them than there are likes you & I.

He also has to many other negatives which you can see pointed out in this whole thread. I agree with those who say he lacks experience, etc. He is not seasoned enough, yet.

I want to win the general and I am to afraid to gamble when the odds are so bad. I will therefore be continuing to support JRE because I don't believe the woman Hillary can win the general either.

[cali]

45. what a whispy straw man, my dear

Did I say there wasn't racial prejudice? No. It's there, but I don't believe there are enough of them to prevent Obama from being elected if he's the nominee. And I refuse to live in fear of bigots. You want to do that, that's your business.

As for inexperience, Obama has considerably more experience than JE. JE is a one term Senator. Obama has served 3 years in the Senate and 8 years in the State leg. He's more seasoned than JE, not less.

I actually think that any of the top three are electable, but I think JE will have the most obstacles to overcome.

[boston bean]

48. You might want to revisit the Harold Ford senate race in TN. nt

[cali]

59. Was Ford expected to win? No. A big fat no.

TN is a red state and Ford actually did better than expected. You might recall that in 2000, Gore lost TN- and that's his home state.

[boston bean]

61. uhm, he was expected until the thinly veiled racist ads cam out and if you read this article

You just might recall how close it actually was.

http://www.thebluestate.com/herald_ford/index.html

The last two weeks have been an utter nightmare for the Ford Campaign. The Republican's racially-driven television ad that aired in mid-October took the wind out of what was likely a Democratic Senate pick-up. Just about every poll since then has shown Bob Corker's lead increase. In a Mason-Dixon poll conducted between November 1st and November 3rd, Corker led Ford 50% to 38%. But in a Rasmussen poll that was taken through Saturday, Ford only trailed 51% to 47%.

And now, in a USA Today poll scheduled for Monday morning release, Bob Corker's lead has been cut to just three points, within the margin of error. Political Wire also confirms Ford's late surge.

On Sunday, Barack Obama was in Nashville campaigning with Ford:

"I know that all of you are going to work the next couple of days to make sure it happens, because I'm feeling lonely in Washington," Obama said at the Mt. Zion Baptist Church. "I need my dear friend to join me."

[cali]

63. He was never ahead in the polls, was he?

And no, most pundits and analysts did not favor him to win- and that was well before the ads. Ford did remarkably well in a red state. I don't think you can make the connection that because Ford lost a Senate race in a red state, Obama can't win.

[boston bean]

64. he was if you read down further.

but never mind. you have typed me out. but i don't agree with most of what you've written.

[IndianaJones]

50. c'mon. nt.

[Little Star]

56. Go ahead

keep your head in the sand. I don't know how you could see a straw man, even if there was one. "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see".

[indimuse]

38. yes. in 2016

He will have ample experience and respect...and hopefully more humble pie and less arrogance.

[cali]

46. he's running now. And if he does well in Iowa on Thursday

he stands a good chance of being the next dem nominee.

[indimuse]

52. maaybee...

:party: Happy New Year.

[killbotfactory]

49. It's basically saying we should pander to racists

It's bullshit, plain and simple. Every black candidate for the next hundred years will have this crap thrown at them until one of them wins.

[loveangelc]

51. I totally agree

When exactly will America be ready for a black president if not now? Is there some set time in the future? Is there a survey everyone needs to fill out stating they're ready? My guess is people who are older may believe this because they lived in a time when black people were treated very badly, but its not like that today generally.

[Imagevision]

55. It appears several generations must die off to get rid of this racist bullsh*t...

[TeamJordan23]

58. The amount of Independents this guy is getting is remarkable.

That is all you need to win a General Election.

[Sancho]

60. No one is electable if the ***holes steal the election!

Check out Florida, Ohio, etc...

[Flabbergasted]

68. kick

[FrenchieCat]

69. Hell yeah, Obama is electable......

He's got a lot going for him, and could win it in a landslide.

If Iowa Independents and the youth turn out for Obama, it will be an indication of what's to come in the GE; New voters who will be voting in the general election that didn't vote in the past. Even folks here aren't counting on the potential large number this could turn out to be, because if they did, they would realize that the number of potential new voters stands at 40%....as only 60% of eligible voters voted in the General election in 2004. OBama would only need a fraction of that 40% to win handily.