The sad truth is that both Democratic nominees may not be able to win because of racicsm and sexism

[still_one]

I personally believe that Obama has a better chance based on ideas and personality than Clinton

When surrogates from the Clinton camp say there are people that won't vote for Obama because he is black, those same people would never vote for Clinton. In addition, there are those who won't vote for Clinton because of the constant hatred propagated by the MSM during Bill's presidency. Just as the sound clip against Wright somehow implicates Barrack by association, the Lewinsky affair, and subsequent perjury by Bill Clinton implicates Hillary in some peoples minds

The truth is, whoever our nominee is, it will be an uphill climb, because the media WILL NOT BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL

It is funny that all the racist politicians from the South, strom thrumond, jessie helms, and so many others, were treated in later years as somehow that racist past did not exist by the MSM. The Lindsey Grahram defense during strom thurmond's birthday party regarding the comment that things were so much better during the times of segregation, only re-enforces the bias nature of the press

That same media also consists of the Clinton haters, so please don't tell us that Obama can't win because of race or experience, the same things apply to Clinton

If the party was looking for experience, Biden would have been the nominee. The party was looking for change. This is the same party that gave us the Civil Rights Act of the sixties, and at that time people were saying the same thing, both in Congress, and the country, it would never pass

Well, it did

[PurityOfEssence]

1. The sadder truth is that they might not be able to because they're mealy-mouthed appeasers

and their records will haunt them.

[Sinistrous]

13. Hmm. That's a curious assertion.

And just who are the enemies of righteousness who have been appeased and to which of their nefarious plans did each of the candidates accede?

[PurityOfEssence]

15. What's wrong with a cap on credit card interest at 30%?

Whatever Mr. Obama may say, it seems like a desire to seem unthreatening to the entrenched forces of power.

The Sense of the Senate about Iran was Ms. Clinton's moment to show how tough she is. Obama made hay of this after Edwards brought it up, but he chose a different tactic: he ducked it entirely and didn't even bother to show up and be accountable.

In many ways, they're both compensation candidates. It'd be interesting to view an alternate universe where Obama hadn't been smeared as a Muslim and see how vocal and public he was with his Christianity, but it smacks of of at least a certain amount of calculated reminding in the face of accusations. Likewise, Ms. Clinton would probably not be such a sabre-rattler if she was male, but the standard (and wrong, idiotic and misogynistic) characterization of women as "soft" on national defense makes her rattle more than she probably would.

Their dancing around NAFTA has them both circling the May Pole in a way that would have them deserving of being tied to the damned thing.

They're both chronic, serial multisiders; they're glad-handing ultramoderates who agree with the audience at hand. Personally, I think he's more flagrant with it, but not by much and that's a damning thing to say.

[TragedyandHope]

2. This is not a truth

We make our own choice by voting. The happy truth is that America has already shown it is ready for a woman or a black President by the record turnouts and enthusiasm during this primary season.

McCain won't know what hit him.

[goldcanyonaz]

3. Combined ticket is the only way this election.

[Vinca]

4. If neither wins, it's because of stupid people and we know they're out there.

They'll vote for POW McBush because he's not black and not a woman, even if it's in their own self interest to vote Democratic. They're so dim witted they'll vote as Rush instructs. I guess it's not a surprise given the dumbing down of America that's taken place on recent years.

[anonymous171]

5. Fucking media deregulation

[ginchinchili]

22. It's that attitude that will get McCain elected.

To suggest that if people don't vote for Obama they are racist, or Clinton then they are sexist, is the height of elitism. It suggests that you either think like me or you're stupid. It was that intimation in Obama's now famous "bitter" quote that has hurt his candidacy. Remember, that quote was in the context of an answer to the question why is Obama having such a hard time with rural, white, blue collar workers. Part of his answer was that they are afraid of people different than themselves, i.e., they are afraid of other races. I've lived in rural areas a majority of my life. It can be said of some, but there are a lot of these people who don't care about a person's race. But to suggest that those who don't support Obama don't because they are afraid of him due to the color of his skin is very arrogant and could very well doom his chances of ever being president.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

6. Unfortunately

You are most likely correct.

I would give a reasoned response as to why I still feel John Edwards could have beat McCain but it is water over the damn now. I feel your pain.

[Uben]

7. I hate to admit it......

.....but I think you are right. In November, when folks go to the polls, it will be, "Do I vote for the white guy or the black guy, or the white guy or the white women?" Whites have the overwhelming edge in numbers of voters, and women tend to vote more than men, I believe. Using that logic, Clinton would have the better chance of the two, but McCain would have an advantage over the both of them, although it would be close in both instances.

I'm a Clinton supporter, but in November, I become a democratic supporter. I believe Obama would do fine as president. An Obama administration would do wonders for America in the eyes of foreign countries, and I believe electing the first woman would do about the same. So, for me, it comes down to who I believe could get more things done for us. I believe Hillary has the edge in that respect.

I so hope Americans are fed up enough with the republican BS that they will elect the dem no matter who it is. I would have liked to be voting for John Edwards, but the concept of the first woman or the first African American pretty much shot his chances.

[gristy]

8. I don't care if both can't win. I just need one of them to win.

:evilgrin:

[JustAnotherGen]

9. Sad but true . . .

And like Gilligan - it's one of the 'icing on the cake' reasons I supported Edwards.

I really think that as much as the Clinton supporters want to believe 'She' can lead - there are a lot of men AND women in this country that are thinking, "That B*tch is going down."

You know . . . one of the polls showed that 12% of Democrats that walked out of the polls in PA this week did not voting for Barack Obama because he is Bi-Racial. They ADMITTED IT!

These folks are voting for McSame - mark my words - whether it's Clinton or Obama. At the end of the day, they want the Rich, Old, White man to pat them on their heads, tell them it's okay, and to send them on their way to financial despair.


Sorry - I can't take these people seriously.

[galaxy21]

10. So, white men can only ever be president?

That's pretty depressing.

[AwareOne]

11. I too believe we lost the general election when Edwards

dropped out. Now the U.S. will show it's true colors and elect the white man, just like in every presidential election in our history. The only bright spot is that Bush is going to hand off a giant mess to McCain and the Republican president is going to take all the heat for it and crash and burn. The pain that will take place over the next four years may be unprecedented in our lifetimes as the economy crashes, commodities continue to sky rocket and the war drags on and on. No, we have not hit rock bottom yet but when the pendulum swings this time, we may see liberal Democrats rule for the next twenty years, it's the hope I cling to.

[bain_sidhe]

12. Relax. We've already lost those voters.

As I posted yesterday in a little-noticed (translation, it sank like the proverbial stone) OP (which I'm copying to avoid re-typing the whole thing):

Barack Obama will lose the votes of racists in the general election.

Hillary Clinton will lose the votes of sexists in the general election.

But guess what? The Democratic Party has already lost the votes of outright racists and sexists for the past 30-40 years or so. That's how long the Republicans have been working to paint the Dems as the party of "uppity blacks" and "uppity women" (not to mention "uppity gays" and "uppity hispanics" and uppity-whatever else strikes fear into the hearts of bigots).

IMvery,veryHO, what we're seeing in these primaries are not the outright racists/sexists voting. We're seeing those who are not really racist or sexist in the classical sense, in that they feel blacks/women are inferior. They are just somewhat uncomfortable with the "otherness." They are choosing which "other" makes them less uncomfortable.

But does anybody really think that their "other" discomfort is going to be stronger than their economic uncertainty? Stronger than their opposition to a needless, expensive and destructive war that kills their sons and daughters, wives and husbands for no reason? Stronger than their "discomfort" at the nagging suspicion that America has lost something very important to its soul in the last 8 years?

I don't think so.

This is probably the main reason I'm leaning toward Obama--he's bringing new voters in that change the dynamic. Hillary is using the same "targeting" that has lost us the last two elections. I happen to think that it would be different this time, because people are a lot more fed up with republican rule now than they were then. Even so, I think Obama has a slightly better chance of winning the general because he's changing the calculus, thus changing the game. But I think either of them are electable. Just using different paths to victory.

So, like I said, relax. I don't think we're losing anybody we haven't already lost.

*editededited forfor repeatingrepeating myselfmyself**

[globalvillage]

14. McCain is the least inspiring candidate imaginable.

Maybe some folks won't vote for the black guy or the woman, but a lot more won't vote for the crabby old war monger who wants to bomb Iran and who will forget where the phone is at 3 am.

We just need to start running against him and he's done. It'll be Obama in a landslide.

[frickaline]

16. No way ... sure it'll be a fight, but I think you'll be pleasantly surprised

I think both democrats are very electable and McCain is shaking in his bus at the thought of trying to beat either of these historic candidates.

[gristy]

20. Yes. Once the Dem candidate is decided and GE campaign gets underway, McCain is going to feel like

he got run over by a truck. The guy is 71, for crying out loud.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

17. Fuck that stupid noise. n/t

[cali]

18. heh, don't forget McCain has to deal with ageism

and yeah, he will have to deal with it.

[ccharles000]

19. I hope our country has moved past racism and sexism.

[ginchinchili]

21. If the Dems nominated Biden, we'd have change, a united party, and victory.

Democrats found it more important to run a woman or African American, or at least half African American, and they can't even decide which between the two. One has too little experience and the other is seen as too polarizing. It was very foolish and once again the world and our country will pay the price. In the eyes of the world, the Democrats are beginning to look as foolish as the Republicans. They are concluding that all Americans have lost their way. I think they're right. We'd be well on the way of reestablishing our credibility had we been smart enough to nominate Biden, but few here are honest enough to admit it. Life would be a whole lot easier for the Democratic Party right now, and next November.