I hate to say this BUT......

[djohnsper]

If Clinton or Obama get nominated, we will be running a high
risk of seeing another repuke in the WH come 2009. I would vote
for either of the two in a heartbeat, of course I'm talking about myself
and most likely anyone here on DU. BUT......come the general election
is this country really ready to elect a woman or a black man to
take the presidency. Remember, our country unfortunately is still quite
racist and there are thousands of those "angry white males" out there
that would do anything to stop a woman from getting in the W.H. Please
let us be realistic and believe what I am suggesting. Does this not
make sense or what?

[fenriswolf]

1. dont worry DU agrees with you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2611558

[Breeze54]

8. That's quite a broadbrush you have there.

:eyes:

[fenriswolf]

15. well DU people who have voted in the poll

and so far its a vast majority believe edwards is more electable, prove me wrong and get people to vote no.

[TwilightZone]

21. "more appealing to GOP voters" does not necessarily equate to "electable"

I understand your underlying assertion and agree with it, but that poll doesn't completely equate to electibility. Our next president could win with mostly Democratic and independent support, without a lot of crossover from Republicans.

[fenriswolf]

23. valid point

just as is the fact that more repubs are probably more then likely to vote for edwards just based on his skin color and sex, as sad as that is it is the truth. but you make a good point as well.

[stillcool]

24. 32 people...

represent DU? I'm not too worried about Obama being black, or Hillary being a woman, or Edwards being white..with the GOP..but then again...I don't watch CNN. If you want a white male as a candidate just say so. Why bullshit?

[fenriswolf]

29. its a poll!

1. do not try to paint me as a sexist or racist, i am not, i just happen to like edwards over the other two choices

2. 32 people do not represent DU, they represent a slice of it that is why it is a poll and everyone is free to voice their opinion including you.

3. the majority of the people agree that repubs are more likely to like edwards because he is male and caucasion, is that fair? is that right? no but its what the poll says and of course commen sense.

[stillcool]

31. Common Sense?

and the GOP? I don't know where you get 'sexist' or 'racist' from. It made "common sense" to me that you would like to have a white male to get elected by the GOP. Good enough.

[fenriswolf]

34. oh whatever

talk to me when you want to speak rationaly.

[stillcool]

35. right back atcha....

at least be honest.

[fenriswolf]

41. lol i am honest

i posted a poll that was clear cut, does john edwards have an advantage in regards to repubs voting for dems because he is a white male. most of the peole who took the poll agree with me, it is not hard to imagine someone sick of republican bullshit but still being sexist or racist not wanting to vote for hillary or obama, I make no personal claims or statements, it is just what it is.

and yes you are calling me sexist and racist because you stated i am voting for a white male not john edwards, you think i am stating my opinion based on race and sex and for that you are a slanderer and cannot have a rational discussion because you would rather acuse people then discuss intelligently the topic at hand.

[CTyankee]

84. To me, Edwards is more electable because he is so good on working class issues.

I just don't buy it that a white male racist in this day and age would vote for the Democratic Party's candidate, no matter what. That guy is thoroughly a Republican, even tho he may say he's an Independent (what IS it about these guys?). No way, no how is he gonna vote for John Edwards. Remember how Edwards was supposed to win Southern states for the ticket in 04 and then he couldn't even carry his home state of NC?

[NorthCarolina]

90. He's So Good if you Believe he's had an "Epiphany"

because his voting record as a Senator sure doesn't back up his new found "populism". Personally I don't trust "epiphany's" that occur coincident with a run for public office.

[CTyankee]

91. Except for one thing: he has the policy positions that are coincident with

what he talks about. He has me on working class issues and also on international policy areas. He impressed me with his analysis of the loose nukes situation in the debate Sat. night. He demonstrated an understanding of the issue and offered his own plans for tacking it. Not only did I not hear Obama offer solutions, he didn't seem to be prepared to talk about it.

Don't get me wrong. If Obama is our candidate I will work my heart out for him. I hope I am wrong about him; I hope there is more substance there and it will emerge strongly if he is elected. But I am old enough to remember Jimmy Carter and how that good man floundered around. I don't want to see another good Dem ground down by the Washington buzz saw...

[NorthCarolina]

93. I'm not an Obama supporter either

I'm one of those crazy progressives that wants real change and not just incomplete and meaningless empty rhetoric. If the conservative media endorsed a candidate as "neocon safe" by allowing them to participate in the NH debates, then that candidate is no candidate of choice for me. There is really only one true Democrat in the running with a real progressive message AND a LONG voting history to back up his positions and that candidate is Congressman Kucinich. He'll get my primary vote as I refuse to vote for a candidate likely to continue the status quo.

[CTyankee]

94. For a whole variety of reasons (which I won't go into here) I think DK is in that

less likely to be electable category.

However, I am old enough to have seen what happened in 1960 and how JFK was perceived, esp. by the Stevenson wing. Eleanor Roosevelt castigated JFK as having "more profile than courage." I think JFK began to emerge more liberal than people thought. We just will never know because of his assassination so early in his presidency. But he was so stunningly good in the missile crisis, was supporting civil rights legislation and, I believe, would not have plunged us further into war in Vietnam. Yet he wasn't much of a star in the House and Senate and to many liberals had a suspect family background. Lefties hated him and mistrusted him. So I have seen how presidents can grow into their terms of office. I believe John Edwards can be that president too.

[NorthCarolina]

95. As our Senator her in NC

Edwards was much very much in tune with the neocon agenda in supporting such measures as the Patriot Act, and the War, and in fact was very much a disappointment to us NC Dems as he moved very much to the right after taking office. Fool me once.........

I'll stick with the candidate whose campaign promises are firmly backed up by his voting record. To do otherwise is simply putting too much faith in a politician, especially one whose past has been much more of a power seeker than that of an advocate for his constituents. My vote is for Kucinich. If he doesn't get the nod, hopefully there will be an independent worth voting for.

[CTyankee]

104. I can understand your objections.

Perhaps I am trying very hard to "believe". I don't know...

I voted 3rd party only once and I'll never do it again. It was for John Anderson in (I think) 1980. I really regretted it as I felt I had wasted my vote. It wouldn't have mattered, I guess, given the fact that Reagan really swept in on a tide, but I wasn't comfortable with doing it. I think it was because I was mad at Jimmy Carter for not performing better in office. Such a waste...

[NYCGirl]

2. Why is it that every post that begins with "I hate to say this but..."

is a steaming pile of crap?

[scarletwoman]

10. The thing is, if they REALLY "hated" to say it -- they wouldn't. (nt)

[NYCGirl]

12. Absolutely.

:thumbsup:

[Javaman]

101. Maybe the OP is self loathing. LOL

:rofl:

[mitchtv]

19. yeah you can tell, kinda like a post beginning with

"The Clinton's "

[Rockholm]

92. I bet he has friends who are gay too.

[Phillycat]

97. The only ones that are worse are the ones that start with:

"I'm a lifelong Democrat, but..."

Sure you are. :eyes:

[Javaman]

102. I really hate to say this, but I'm a life long democrat...

:rofl: LOL

[scarletwoman]

3. Your concern is duly noted.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Here we go again...

:popcorn:

[K Gardner]

5. oh lord, not again. ::sighs::

[Avalux]

6. So we have no choice but to vote for a white man?

These posts are getting silly. :eyes: :puke:

[Tesha]

63. You have a choice, but in making that choice, you immediately discard...

You have a choice, but in making that choice, you immediately discard
portions of the electorate.

Now some of the electorate who won't vote Obama because he's part
black or Hillary because she's a woman won't vote for a Democrat
under any circumstance, and we can safely ignore them. But a
*NON-ZERO* percentage of the electorate would vote for a white
Christian male Democrat but won't vote for a black Democrat or
a woman Democrat. And you toss these people away at our peril.

Hillary, of course, comes with other baggage as well that
some hypothetical white Christian female Democrat might not
have.

Tesha

[KingFlorez]

7. Have you seen the GOP field?

And what about the political climate? The GOP is damaged goods and are destined to electoral failure in November.

[pocoloco]

25. LOL

"Kerry is gonna win in a landslide!"

[flvegan]

9. I disagree.

I don't like either Clinton nor Obama, but I think we're going to see a whole lot of young, internet-educated voters come out.

The country is ready for a black or female or gay or transvestite or dwarf or headless president. So long as he/she is better than what we have now.

Everyone is running a campaign on "change" and that should tell us all something.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. We already have a headless president.

[Breeze54]

20. LMFAO!

[flvegan]

42. Brainless, not headless.

Ah, who cares. He's a dipshit regardless.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

11. I could reply to this but Skinner has already done so more eloquently than I ever could

Post by Skinner in GDP:

If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, I believe America is ready for a black president

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3968699

[saltpoint]

14. As several have posted today on DU, there's a sense in the land that we are

indeed ready for a woman or an Afro-American, if that is your topic.

I believe any of our nominees is likely to beat the living crap out of any GOP ticket in November.

[mwb970]

71. Especially with a full year of bush & his buddies to go!

Who knows how many new scandals and revelations about our sick-in-the-head Republican leaders will come out during 2008? I'll bet there are at least two on the way right now that are completely new and not just extensions or deeper knowledge of a current scandal. I mean brand-new scandals and revelations in areas we don't even suspect at present.

Watch for them. The R's are nowhere near hitting bottom yet, regardless of how it looks now.

[saltpoint]

109. Yes. Bush and the thieves and cretins in his administration are not going to

be turning anything around in the next year.

What few people he has who are sentient will be leaving the administration for greener pastures, leaving him with hacks and kooks.

We should mount a full-court press on the Republicans and take command of Capital Hill.

[pdxmom]

106. Any person who would let a candidates race or gender make them

vote against their own beliefs or self-interest are not going to vote Democratic anyway.

[saltpoint]

110. Yes. If race and gender are obstacles to a given voter, that voter is likely

a Tancredo supporter!

[graywarrior]

16. You leave one of these at 10 am, come back at 11 pm and it's like you never left.

[Radio_Lady]

39. Suspicious Radio Lady here. Where is the post from 10 AM?

Nothing is coming up for the 42 previous posts.

Also, no responses from he/she/it.

[fenriswolf]

44. yeah actually ive seen more 1000< posters in the past couple days

then i have ever seen at one time. people signing up fueled by democracy in action? or campaigners trying to sway support? guess we'll never know.

[frogmarch]

17. I hate to say it too

because I'm a woman and because nearly every race under the sun is represented in my family...but I'm afraid you are right.

[Sparkly]

18. Here's why I think you're wrong.

The people who wouldn't vote for a black man or a woman probably wouldn't vote Democratic anyway.

And if we did lose Democrats, I think we'd pick up even more voters because of the excitement of having a black/woman president. Women are the majority in this country, and we could get out a massive new vote for either of them. The key is to STOP the GOP from suppressing our vote and do everything possible for margins they can't steal -- because the voting process is still screwed and unverifiable.

[NeedleCast]

85. This thread should have ended with your post

The people who wouldn't vote for a black man or a woman probably wouldn't vote Democratic anyway.

That's it. That's all that needs to be said. Sure, there are some moderate independents out there who will sometimes go either way, but I don't think Obama or Clinton will have a problem with that segment of the voting population. As far as the segments that wont vote for Hillary because she's a woman or wont vote for Obama because he's black...does anyone think those people WOULD vote for Edwards? He's a "fag enabler," he's a "commie bastard," he's "damned to the hellfires." Those folk aren't voting for a Democrat no matter what skin it's in...and they probably aren't voting for a Republican either, unless it's the Huckster because he might have enough Jesus to pull them in.

Obama doesn't need to court the racists to win if he's our nom. Hillary doesn't need to court the sexists if she's our nom. Those people aren't going to vote for a Democrat under any circumstance.

[CTyankee]

86. Sparkly, stop making sense!

Why oh why won't people discard this notion that white racist and sexist males are gonna take one look at the Democratic Party? We simply don't talk his language. He has drunk the Kool aid of the Republican Party and he will NEVER vote for a Dem. Besides, we don't want him anyway, do we? When we lost the Southern racist Dems back in the 70s because of the Civil Rights Act of the late 60s, it was good riddance of bad rubbish. And when the Republican Party took the ERA out of its official platform, moderate Republican women became Democrats.

Where we are set to gain in our party is with younger voters who now have shown they can get out and vote, as they did in Iowa. We are winning the Independants who have not yet gotten infected by the Kool Aid, as so many Independents in the past have been. I hope that number grows and grows and I think it will.

[BeatleBoot]

22. Michigan will go Republican in the General Election

if Obama is the candidate.

The "so-called Reagan Democrats" are still alive and well in Michigan.

If Hillary or Edwards? They'll stay Dems.

[mac2]

46. Michigan and many other "liberal" MW

states are angry about illegal immigration yet our party ignores it. We could lose the election over it to Republicans. DA!!

Large numbers of homes are in bankruptsy because of job lose, etc. Democrats still support off-shoring and trade deals which don't favor us.

A large percentage of Americans want our borders secured and immigration laws enforced. Ignore it at your own risk Democratic candidates.

[KharmaTrain]

62. Illegal Immigration Is An Issue???

Then why isn't Tancredo still in the race? The biggest loser in Iowa was that strawman issue...the latest GOOP wedge issue. And as the economy worsens "illegal immigrants" will be less of an issue cause there won't be jobs here for them to "steal". I have yet to see a poll where "immigration" is ahead of Iraq, the Economy or Health Care. Only in Lou Dobbs world.

The economic mess this country is in didn't come across the borders...it started in the boardrooms of the corporations. They outsourced, they hire the non-union labor, they've move factories and sure love the GOOP talking point of "illegal aliens" to deflect the blame.

[mac2]

74. Only the candidates

who are supported by the corporate media survive. Have you seen the polls on the issue of illegal immigrantion? Strange that it isn't a election issue on the front page but Americans are very concerned.

[KharmaTrain]

79. I See The Election Results

I lived in Iowa and if there was a state where "illegal immigration" would have some sway it would be there. Many migrants work the corporate farms and in the meat packing plants. It's also a very xenophobic state that showed itself in the Repugnican primary with the strong evangelical and libertarian vote. And yet, Tancredo never got off the ground and Dunkin Donuts spent his caucus day in New Hampshire. And that doesn't include the Democrats who haven't considered this an issue. Look at the bigger picture and this wedge issue isn't gaining any traction...other than the politicians using it as coded racism.

[mac2]

76. I haven't seen a Democratic

candidate except Kucinich who even comes close to my concerns regarding the direction of this country. We don't have our rights back and our economy is being ruined by our own government...of both parties for Empire.

The 2006 election said we wanted accountability for the Iraq robbery, illegal wars, etc. They have all ignored us.

[salin]

26. and the repubs run big risks too:

a thrice married multiple time adulturere whose vocablary is limited by the need to exploit 911.

a politician who has changed nearly every single stand on major issues between when he ran to be a GOP pres of a liberal state, to run to the conservative base and ends up looking like Eddie Haskel which is a big turnoff

a candidate once seen as a maverick, who is now seen as bushlight after three years of back tracking and playing miniBush

a man who asserts that dinosaurs existed with Adam and Eve, and that is the less of his extreme positions.

The faults of their candidates are not as easily ascribable to a specific prejudice, but each has the potential to revolt their voters. Here will be a big clue - usually the party with a wide-open race will have higher turnout in the primaries. This is one of those years whwere both parties have wide open primaries. If Iowa is any indication (per the participation in the two party primaries - where the dems came out at a 2:1 ratio) than the edge (if nothing else due to suppressing a chunk of the electorate who would be effected in teir voiting choice by their prejudices) goes to the dem candidate. So before declaring this now - wait until after the "super primary" date in early Feb - and getting a sense of the "enthusiasm" of the various parties in terms of participating to get a candidate to the top of their ticket, and in terms of where independents align themselves. (Many states let the declaration of party happen at the poll which allows independents to chose which party to work for. Still far to early to say that this is an election where much of america comes out to vote and votes primarily om their prejudices.

[Skittles]

27. let me ask you something, djohnsper

what will EVER change if we ALWAYS change our votes to pander to racists and misogynists and homophobes?

[Tesha]

66. Worst case scenario: it never changes.

> let me ask you something, djohnsper: what will EVER change if
> we ALWAYS change our votes to pander to racists and misogynists
> and homophobes?

Worst case scenario: it never changes. There's at least some
evidence (the entire history of the American South and the
ascendency of that population group in our national demographics)
to support this proposition.

Better scenario: It eventually changes as the more-bigoted
generations die off and are replaced by people who have grown
up among minorities, have worked with women in all sorts of
capacities, and have actually known that some of their co-
workers and firends are gay and lesbian.

Best scenario: It changes sooner when people start to under-
stand that all of these "isms" are just tools used by rich
Republicans to keep idiots from recognizing that they are
voting against their own economic best interests. But that
will require many more Democrats speaking out about issues
of economic justice. It might even require waging some
good old-fashioned "class warfare".

Tesha

[CoffeeCat]

28. Sounds like a great idea!

Yeah. Sure. Let's kow tow to the lowest common denominators in our society.

Let's let the bigoted, ignorant tools of this nation determine who we elect for President.

Sounds like a real winner of a plan.

My state, which is 98 percent white, just overwhelmingly came out to caucus for Obama. We shattered caucus
records. In 04, on the Dem side, 116,000 Iowans caucused. This year, 230,000 came out overwhelmingly for
Barack Obama.

The man is appealing to Dems, Independents and disenfranchised Republicans.

He's so electable, it hurts.

Who cares if the bigots and the neanderthals don't like him. There's an entirely new generation of voters that
have awakened and they are ready to vote and they love Obama. Maybe this enlightened, intelligent, group of
people will counteract the ill-informed bigots who would vote against Obama.

Geez. Since when in this country do we FAIL to do the RIGHT thing because it might not sit well with bigots?

[Blue-Jay]

30. Thank you for your concern!

:thumbsup:

[Mr_Monday]

32. As an angry white male,

who supports Obama, I am deeply offended by your characterization of us.

[mac2]

45. Angry white male

that your country has been ruined and destroyed by many in our own govenment who may or may not be "white males". I feel your pain.

[CTyankee]

87. You can absolutely be an "angry white male" and not be a raving RWer.

My husband is a pretty pissed off white male and he works at the precinct level for the Dem Party. I'm a pretty pissed off white female who prefers the national scene in Dem politics. Your and our anger isn't misdirected by blaming everything on minorities, immigrants, gays or the poor. My husband hasn't decided who he'll vote for in our primary on Super Tuesday. At this point I am still for John Edwards and plan to vote for him. I am trying to get hubby to do so also.

[rAVES]

33. Bollox...

[WorseBeforeBetter]

36. Then don't say it.

If either one of them loses, it will have nothing to do with her being a woman or him being a black male.

What a load of crap.

Signed,
Angry White Woman

[marmar]

37. I'm sure someone said the same thing about the caucus in really white Iowa.....

.... This meme is getting tired.

[Radio_Lady]

38. Who are you? 42 posts? Where did you post them? I searched. No profile?

The paragraph is formatted with linebreaks that look like you posted it elsewhere first and then cut and pasted it here.

Just sayin' --- maybe I'm not too trusting of newbies right now.

Thank you.

Radio Lady in Oregon

[GirlinContempt]

47. Why do you do that so much?

It seems like half the time you post, it's to call out other posters based on their post count, time in, or profile information, and talk about searching out their posts. I just don't get it.

[Sugar Smack]

99. I love seeing so many new people here. It's sudden,

and it's a pretty dramatic influx. I don't understand people getting weird over post count, either.:hi:

[Oak2004]

40. My elderly mother, like most of her generation, is openly racist

She is wary of Obama (as frankly am I, but for different reasons). Yet she intends to vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee because, as I put it and as she wholeheartedly agreed, even if the Democrats ran their mascot for President, it would be a much better candidate than any of the asses the Republicans have to offer.

I would not count any chickens before our eggs hatch. We're going to have to fight for every possible vote, for not just victory but for the largest possible landslide, even if it is only for the one vote that defeats the Republican dogcatcher in Nowhere, Kansas. The Republican Party as currently configured is a dangerous entity that should neither be underestimated (it will do illegal things to try to stave off the near annihilation it so richly deserves), nor should it be given the slightest opportunity to regenerate itself short of a complete reorganization into a sane, responsible, democratic-small-d, party.

That said, the GOP is in dire straits, and would be in even worse shape than it currently is if our alleged news media actually reported real news (tell me, how popular do you think a party that sells nuclear secrets to Al Qaida is likely to be with Americans?). We're looking at a major realignment, folks, and it is a very pretty sight to see.

[Radio_Lady]

43. How old IS your mother? I do not agree that most of ANY generation is racist.

Much of it depends on where she lived and who brought her up. Most of any generation "learns what they live."

I'm assuming she was not raised in Vermont!

Could you elaborate before we try to swallow your subject line? Most of what you have said after that seems OK to me.

But that line is clearly elderly bashing, unless I've taken it completely wrong.

Sincerely,

Radio Lady (born in 1939)

Audio Al (born in 1934)

[Oak2004]

52. My mother is older than you, and from the south side of Chicago,

as am I. Not that Vermonters in my adopted state are immune from racism -- of course they're not. I know of numerous instances of overt racism in Burlington, and have raised the issue of police harassment of African Americans in the Old North End in public meetings with local authorities who'd just as soon ignore the problem, if they're allowed to.

It's odd that you don't recognize that widespread racism has existed overtly until very recently, and still exists covertly. If a majority, until recently, were not overtly racist, why did we need the civil rights movement? Why, indeed, was it MLK's campaign for fair housing in the north that drew me into political activism? Surely if racism was a minority view, or existed only in isolated pockets, none of that would have been necessary.

Virtually every sociologist who has studied the field has documented that racism continues to exist, and that what has happened in the US after the civil rights movement is not so much the disappearance of racism as its sublimation. People continue to discriminate, but often are unaware they are doing so, and instead rationalize their racist decisions. One group of researchers at Harvard has even found a way to measure subconscious racism and other subconscious biases, via what's called the Implicit Association Test. You can learn more about it at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

It seems to me that you are taking the position that stands well outside the norm. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It's you that has the burden of proving that I, and most of sociology, are wrong, not I and the rest of those educated on the subject matter who need to prove that we're not wrong.

[cali]

58. You do realize that Vermont is very supportive of Obama, right?

Of course there's racism here, but I want to point out to you that here in the Kingdom, Jesse Jackson won the primary nearly 20 years ago. If Obama is the candidate, Vermonters will vote for him in droves.

[Oak2004]

59. Yes, Vermonters tend to be better than most about overt racism

But the claims of the previous poster, that someone from Vermont lives in la-la land and can't possibly have a clue about racism is just nonsense.

I am happy to have adopted Vermont as my state. I can't imagine wanting to live anywhere else in the United States. But Vermont is not a utopia, or la-la land. It deals with the same problems as everywhere else, usually more effectively, sometimes less so, but regardless, we're not in some parallel universe.

Growing up in Vermont doesn't happen to be my story. Mine begins in the 1950s in a working class neighborhood on the south side of Chicago. But my story could just as well begin outside of Jericho on a dairy farm, and I'd still have the right to present an argument and have my argument, not my zip code, evaluated on its merits.

[Oak2004]

54. Duplicate deleted n/t

[blonndee]

48. I doubt you "hate to say" it, since you've said it before.

Your perspective hasn't changed at all?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3105

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=793686

[Imagevision]

49. Name one repug that could beat Clinton Obama or Edwards??

you don't sound like you listen to any speeches or have attended any? yes/no?

[treestar]

50. Yes it is

And now is the ideal time to nominate a black and/or female candidate.

This country had has Chimpy and his like up to here and will vote for anybody who will change course.

Obama ought to pick Hillary as his running mate.

[Duer 157099]

51. The flip side is that some will actually vote "for" those

I know of some women who will vote for ANY female on the ballot, regardless of party.

I can imagine the same can be said about race as well -- some people will vote by race. Some people will vote for anyone with an hispanic surname. It's just how some people are.

So, it can go either way, imho.

[Blue-Jay]

53. Do you REALLY hate to say it?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

55. Man I am rediscovering the joys of "hide thread" again! Onto the pile with you!

[nolabels]

56. Are you sure this is the correct forum to be posting BUT's?

Like please tell us what you REALLY feel :shrug:

[cali]

57. I go by the wisdom that any post that starts with "I hate to say this.."

is going to be a hit piece laced with "concern". It NEVER fails to turn out that way.

No, you don't make sense.

Do you know what happened in Iowa? Attendance at dem caucuses was over twice what attendance at puke caucuses was. I suspect that dynamic will be repeated tomorrow in NH. And again in SC. Do you actually fail to see the significance in this, or don't you understand it?

[Naturyl]

60. Obama has a better chance than Hillary

Not because Hillary is a woman, but because Repukes nationwide hate her with a passion that is almost pathological. They ignorantly believe she is Socialism Incarnate (don't I wish) and will do just about anything to stop her.

She gets all the leftover hate for her husband, plus all the misogyny, and all the misinformed fear that she is a rabid leftist (as if). The only hurdle Obama has is being black.

[NorthCarolina]

89. I Think There Are Also Many Dems

that hate her with a passion as well, it's hardly a "Republican" thing IMO. For me, the last thing I want is another conservative media approved candidate being elected to the White House. Rather, I want real change from a candidate WHO CAN GIVE SPECIFICS about his or her idea of what change is, and not just a load of nebulous rhetoric. The only Dem candidate I find I can cast my vote for with a clear conscience is Congressman Kucinich. All of the others will simply result in another 4 or 8 years of same old same old, and will likely prove to be the final act that serves to secure the neocon hold on our country forevermore. If you want real change, you better be prepared to vote in a radical manner. The NH debates showcased the group of candidates that the conservative neocon agenda is allowing us to select from, that in itself makes them anathema to me.

[robbedvoter]

61. Yeah, cuz Edwards is theft proof - oh, wait, he isn't! 2004? See my signature.

The ol' electibility BS....In truth, the last national election GOP won was in 1988.

[blondeatlast]

64. Thank you for your concern. nt

[Midlodemocrat]

65. Your concern is heartwarming. Thanks!

:eyes:

[Ikonoklast]

67. Duly noted

Just keep saying the same thing, over and over.

People here are stupid, and will listen to your right-wing talking points if you just repeat them enough times.

Angry white male who will vote for a block of cheese before any Republican that ever drew breath.

[blondeatlast]

68. But you summoned every ounce of guts you had, said it, then, like that majestic animal

known as the chicken, ran away from the train wreck...

[mwb970]

69. Oh, now it's Clinton *and* Obama who are unelectable.

For weeks it was mostly Hill-bashing here. Now that the O has taken the lead, let's declare him unelectable too. Is Edwards also unelectable then?

It just seems that an awful lot of people like Obama for someone who somehow can't be elected in a country yearning desperately for someone just like him.

[mac2]

75. Right

[Swamp Rat]

70. Most Americans would vote for a slug before they'd vote for another republican ever again.

You will see come November 2008.

[blondeatlast]

72. Do you plan on returning to this post sometime before the election? I dare you... nt

[Vanje]

98. Dont hold your breath

The op poster is a hit and run habitual.
Starts threads but never joins the ensuing conversation.
A shit-stirrer.

[gollygee]

73. How many times has this sentiment been posted here?

We won't know who is electable until after the election, will we? Gore wasn't electable apparently. Nor was Kerry. Both are white men. As much as I supported them, and as much as I wish Gore were running now, in the last election he was in anyway, he wasn't electable.

There is no reason to believe a black man or a woman, or a black woman for that matter, couldn't be elected. There are some people who would refuse to vote for anyone female or black without any other consideration, but those people aren't voting Dem regardless. And honestly even most hard-core right-wing Republicans would vote for Condaleeza Rice if she were the nominee.

[JTFrog]

77. If you HATE to say it, then don't. How much common sense does that take? n/t

[BulletproofLandshark]

78. Thank you for your "concern"

[bunkerbuster1]

83. Lookie, there's a wiki entry!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concern_troll#Concern_troll

K3wl!

[PaDem]

80. I'm just shocked that people think Obama can't win

What is going on here? It couldn't be more clear. The guy energizes people, will bring out young, first time voters, and can cross over Republicans, including Evangelicals. Obama would be very tough to beat. Hillary on the other hand is a GOP wet dream.

[cooolandrew]

81. Outstanding black people are overlooked by racists. eg. Mohammed Ali. He can do this.

[bunkerbuster1]

82. Wow, what an original thought!

It had never occurred to me that some folks might have difficulty voting for a woman or a black man. Thank you for your insight!

[spanone]

88. B U L L S H I T

[zorahopkins]

96. No.

Your comment makes no sense at all.

I get so tired of the "Now is not the right time" arugment regarding women and people of color.

When will the right time ever get here?

NOW is the right time.

[Javaman]

100. Just got to love these flame inducing hit and run posts.

whatever, dude. LOL

Take your stand up act else where.

[iamthebandfanman]

103. To those who disagree with the OP...

just today i was at a doctors office... over heard a couple of older men(atleast 65+) talking about the election... this is how it went down...

first guy :"well i guess that obama kid is going to win the nomination"
second guy: " i know , i dont know who im going to vote for... im not voting for no black person though"
third guy: "well hes better than that hillary clinton, id never vote for her"
second guy: "i might vote republican if mccain wins their nomination"
first guy: "I used to like him but hes lost that sparkle in his eye that he had a few years ago. hes just like bush now."
second guy: "yeah, well i wont be voting for him then. i guess we dont got nobody to vote for!"

and then they all had a hardy chuckle.



to those of you who live in a perfect fantasy world where racism doesnt exist(and that goes for those who laughed at the notion of obama being shot at)... congrats on being completely distant from reality.
sorry guy, but racism is still going strong in the good ole US of A.

p.s.
im glad this thread was already here... id been debating starting my own thread about what happened the whole hour ive been back! lol

[LanternWaste]

105. No worries. We've progressed from where you may think we are.

No worries. We've progressed from where you may think we are.

White House is ours in 2008 and 2012, regardless of which Democrat gets the nomination.

And for every loud, angry white male, there's two minority voters to put him back in his place.

Don't let the GOP pigeon hole your vote as it appears they've done to you, little one-- vote your conscious.

[progressivebydesign]

107. Truth? Here's the truth... the 3 front-runners are ALL electable.

The ugly truth about ANY Democratic candidate that gets the nod....

If Edwards gets the nod, GOP will attack because he's a trial lawyer. They will make fun of his hair, and insinuate he is gay. They will attack his giant compound that he recently built.

If Clinton wins. The GOP Will: attck her for being part of the Clinton years. they will attack her for her attempt to get us universal health care. They will insinuate she is a lesbian. They will use every stealth word in the book to suggest she cannot lead because she's a woman.

If Obama wins. The GOP will: attack him for lack of experience. They will use every code word to suggest he cannot lead because he is a man of color. They will insinuate he is a muslim.

If Kucinich wins. The GOP will: Attack him for being too liberal. They will attack his wife for having a mind of her own. They will insinuate he is a kook.

and so on.. and so on.. and so on...

Face it. No matter WHO we nominate, they will attack fiercely. ANd when all is said and done, we'll scratch our heads and wonder why we didn't choose the "electable" one. We had a respected Senator last time, a freakin' war hero, and they wore purple BANDAIDS during their convention to make fun of his PURPLE HEART!

Vote for whomever YOU like. There is no such thing as "electability". Short of nominating a convicted bank robber, ANY candidate we nominate IS electable if we can fight the GOP Media machine, respond to the fucking Swiftboaters correctly, AND start NOW planning for voting day inequities and frauds. ANy of the three front-runners in the race would ALL be acceptable to Independents, Republican moderates, and undecided. ANY of them! The IWR vote, while a bit deal here on DU to pine over, means little to voters now. Remember the Clinton campaign in the 90's??? "It's ((STILL)) the economy, stupid"

[JeffR]

108. I hate to say this BUT...... you're just flat out dumb.

I really hated to say that. Really.