<p>circuit, you are right - I still don't think a black man can pull it off and become president; not too sure about him being assassinated though.</p>
<p>And he can be the second black president (remember Bubba).</p>
<p>
[quote]
American, black, biracial, whatever. One thing's for sure: if Obama becomes prez, he'll be blacker than all of the other WASPs (except for Kennedy) before him.
[/quote]
Clinton wouldn't be considered more black than Obama? Didn't Obama grow up in Hawaii with a white grandparents?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Clinton wouldn't be considered more black than Obama? Didn't Obama grow up in Hawaii with a white grandparents?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you define "black" as people who grow up in poor fatherless families with whorey single mothers? No offense to Clinton.</p>
<p>The definition of "black" I'm using is who can and cannot sneak under the racist's radar. Obama may have gone to private school in Hawaii, but I doubt the KKK is going to care about his personal story when they try to lynch him.</p>
<p>So you are going by skin color, not culture. I guess I don't know why you mentioned Kennedy.</p>
<p>I was using a combination of physical appearance and culture, in order to differentiate not only amongst whites and blacks but also Catholics and Protestants. We all know how well they've gotten along these past few centuries. It'd be an injustice to put them all in the same hodge podge category together.</p>
<p>Oh, I see what you did. I thought you were implying that Obama wasn't as black as Kennedy. Hah.</p>
<p>Barack is black, at least that's how the American public has, is, and will continue to percieve him as. So any debate like oh he's 1/2 white is just plain retarded. Will that stop a racist from calling him the n-word? I strongly doubt it.</p>
<p>You know, I like Obama as much as the next guy {probably less}. But all this fawning seriously needs to stop. The media is turning into a teenage girl at a David Cassidy concert. I want him to talk about his platform, and nothing else. Then maybe I'll like him more.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Barack is black, at least that's how the American public has, is, and will continue to percieve him as. So any debate like oh he's 1/2 white is just plain retarded. Will that stop a racist from calling him the n-word? I strongly doubt it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good point. Racists are very shallow.</p>
<p>I don't think it will be his lineage that prevents him from becoming the president more so than his lack of political experience. No one can (or should) become the president with only two years in the senate. Plus with the quagmire the US is in in the middle east nowadays and his lack of knowledge on foreign affair, it would be suicide for the country if he were elected.</p>
<p>Dionysus, did you think GWB had experience in foreign policy? Your premise is laughable. This was the same man that did not know who was at the head of the Indian government, the largest democracy and one of the most vital countries in South Asia. I do think his lineage is very important. IF you're curious as to why, read this. </p>
<p>The latest Newseek poll, which is line with all the other data said that 50 percent would prefer the Democrats to take control of the White House in 2008, and only 30percent for the Republicans. The rest is undecided.</p>
<p>However, when people were given actual choices such as Clinton, McCain, Guliani, and Obama the results were dead-heat within the margin of error. None of the choices of the Dems had a 20 percent margin the best poll had Clinton winning by 2 percent.</p>
<p>I believe HC is too polarizing because she's a known liberal figure and Obama has too much baggage that is out of control. The right wing and even some moderates will be pushed away from Obama once the RNC slime machine starts mentioning the fact that Obama's father and stepfather were Muslim and that he spent time in Indonesia during his childhood. On top of the obvious, that he is transparently black.</p>
<p>I don't think the country is that enlightened and that many people aren't ready for a female or a minority, its just that in a polling scenario, people won't voice their racism publicly. If Democrats ran a generic Dem such as Clarke or Dodd or Gore, their chances would be much higher.</p>
<p>Frankly, in the end, it shouldn't matter a damn whether the candidate is male, female, transsexual, a cross breed with some animal, or that their skin color would put a rainbow to shame. What should matter are their stances on issues & whether they can serve the office with honor & integrity.</p>
<p>But, unfortunately, that will never happen.</p>
<p>^Very true. There are tons of racists/sexists out there.</p>
<p>Polls tell us the same. That's the world we live in.</p>
<p>Barack's candidacy, I believe, has little to do with his race and more to do with his charisma and the perception of his "freshness" in politics. Americans are tired of the hard-core Washington crowd with their scandals, bribery, and generally "flexible" morals (I worked in the Capitol and have experienced this firsthand), and many people see Obama as a welcome change...not just a "black man." It's ridiculous to state that the Democrats are playing the race card. If Obama were white, they'd still be supporting him. He's young, amiable, fairly moderate, and perceived as "outside" of the Washington loop. It worked for Jimmy Carter in the 70's, and it's working for Obama today. </p>
<p>But, do I support Obama in 2008? No. I think he needs another couple decades in the Senate before he's experienced enough to lead a nation. I want to see how his policies evolve as he ages and gains experience. He's too junior a Senator to have truly ironed-out policies. </p>
<p>Oh and Mr. Payne...I think what Barno meant is that Obama shouldn't be DEFINED by his race...of course he's half-black, that's obvious, and certainly a part of his identity. But discussions about his candidacy really shouldn't be focusing so much on his race...that's only an aspect of his personality...it does not define his entire being.</p>
<p>Is he actually moderate? It was reported his voting record was one of the most liberal in the Senate.</p>
<p>I think the problem with a Black male or female President is that there really is no mold for them, so both of them will be in the position to coax naysayers into liking them. Just like Bush has supporters no matter what he does, Barack or Hillary will have to marginalize the issues to up their popularity quotient.</p>
<p>Also, I find it funny that one thing we never discuss is how Liberals have never asked that Bush endear himself to us. We just wanted him to do a good job and make sound leadership decisions. I know the "I HATE BUSH" rhetoric has been the starting point with many people's political beliefs, but c'mon, it's not like they're unfounded. I think Conservatives tend to be far and away more interested in who they like and who rubs them the right/wrong way. That's why it's easier to conclude that a lot of Conservatives are stupid. </p>
<p>If there was a Democratic candidate who I didn't particularly like for one reason or another, or who annoys me because they have something off-putting about them that I can't quite put my finger on -- but they believe in educational reform, raising the minimum wage, better healthcare, and not going into pointless wars with countries who did nothing to us, I'd vote for him. </p>
<p>Anyway, I think Hilary and Obama should run together. I think they would be a stronger ticket than either one separately.</p>
<p>A lot of people claim they don't like Hilary Clinton, but they're lying. It's a Conservative statue to think Hillary Clinton is a bad person because she's tough and a little icy. She's a well-educated centrist who happens to be a woman. Bush is a dumb right-winger who happens to be President.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's why it's easier to conclude that a lot of Conservatives are stupid.
[/quote]
If you are defining liberal as democrat and conservative as republican then conservatives almost certainly have a higher mean IQ.</p>
<p>Irrelevant to the discussion but IQ does not correlate to intelligence.</p>