I don't disagree with your assessment though I do think these kind of responses are notable and reflect - to a limited degree - a sign that attitudes have shifted over time. Whether or not American would REALLY be ready for a Black or female President will only get proven at a ballot box.
I don't dispute that a shift has occurred--if nothing else, white people now feel some pressure to lie about how they really feel. But I don't think the shift is nearly as great as people on SoulStrut would apparently like to believe.
They feel pressured by anonymous pollsters calling anonymous numbers?
Absolutely.
I know lots of white people that wouldn't have the intestinal fortitude to tell an anonymous voice on the other end of the phone how they really feel. They'd say something like, "I vote based on the issues, not on the candidate's skin color," and then when all alone in the booth they'd vote against the Black candidate whose position on most of "the issues" matched their own.
I can't believe that people who have spent upwards of two decades in this country don't know and understand this.
I think I might vote for a black man just because hes black.
I mean, unless he had some political position i was super opposed to, or i had serious questions about his charachter.
I like McCain too, and i wouldnt be mad at him in the white house, but if it came down to choosing between the two, id probably vote for obama. Mostly cause hes black.
Why? Cause we've never had a black president. And i think we need one. And i think he might have a better understanding of the sort of problems facing our society.. Just on the basis of him being a black man living in america.
Mabye thats an uneducated opinion, but im sick of old white dudes. Lets flip it up!
Jesus, Brendan, if Obama and McCain are just a flip of the coin for you, maybe you should stay home when it's time to vote... they're very different candidates.
McCain is nowhere near the moderate that a lot of voters who think he has an appealing personality want to see him as.
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
I don't disagree with your assessment though I do think these kind of responses are notable and reflect - to a limited degree - a sign that attitudes have shifted over time. Whether or not American would REALLY be ready for a Black or female President will only get proven at a ballot box.
I don't dispute that a shift has occurred--if nothing else, white people now feel some pressure to lie about how they really feel. But I don't think the shift is nearly as great as people on SoulStrut would apparently like to believe.
They feel pressured by anonymous pollsters calling anonymous numbers?
Absolutely.
I know lots of white people that wouldn't have the intestinal fortitude to tell an anonymous voice on the other end of the phone how they really feel. They'd say something like, "I vote based on the issues, not on the candidate's skin color," and then when all alone in the booth they'd vote against the Black candidate whose position on most of "the issues" matched their own.
I can't believe that people who have spent upwards of two decades in this country don't know and understand this.
Pseudoliberals are not exempt either. They're down with "the cause" until Jamaal comes over to pick up Emily for a date. Then, that true redneck, cracker with a sheet on under the business suit and good manners comes out.
I think I might vote for a black man just because hes black.
I mean, unless he had some political position i was super opposed to, or i had serious questions about his charachter.
I like McCain too, and i wouldnt be mad at him in the white house, but if it came down to choosing between the two, id probably vote for obama. Mostly cause hes black.
Why? Cause we've never had a black president. And i think we need one. And i think he might have a better understanding of the sort of problems facing our society.. Just on the basis of him being a black man living in america.
Mabye thats an uneducated opinion, but im sick of old white dudes. Lets flip it up!
I think I might vote for a black man just because hes black.
I mean, unless he had some political position i was super opposed to, or i had serious questions about his charachter.
I like McCain too, and i wouldnt be mad at him in the white house, but if it came down to choosing between the two, id probably vote for obama. Mostly cause hes black.
Why? Cause we've never had a black president. And i think we need one. And i think he might have a better understanding of the sort of problems facing our society.. Just on the basis of him being a black man living in america.
Mabye thats an uneducated opinion, but im sick of old white dudes. Lets flip it up!
Please tell me this was a joke post
Yeah, it kinda was. Faux is probably right about mccain though. I guess i havent really done my research there. But Obama being black would probably factor in to my decision, i cant lie.
In truth, im pretty sure all of these politicians are pretty much slime bags, but i dont like hilary. And i think obama is a good dude, and i think it would be positive to have a black guy be the president.
I think I might vote for a black man just because hes black.
I mean, unless he had some political position i was super opposed to, or i had serious questions about his charachter.
I like McCain too, and i wouldnt be mad at him in the white house, but if it came down to choosing between the two, id probably vote for obama. Mostly cause hes black.
Why? Cause we've never had a black president. And i think we need one. And i think he might have a better understanding of the sort of problems facing our society.. Just on the basis of him being a black man living in america.
Mabye thats an uneducated opinion, but im sick of old white dudes. Lets flip it up!
Please tell me this was a joke post
Yeah, it kinda was. Faux is probably right about mccain though. I guess i havent really done my research there. But Obama being black would probably factor in to my decision, i cant lie.
In truth, im pretty sure all of these politicians are pretty much slime bags, but i dont like hilary. And i think obama is a good dude, and i think it would be positive to have a black guy be the president.
I don't disagree with your assessment though I do think these kind of responses are notable and reflect - to a limited degree - a sign that attitudes have shifted over time. Whether or not American would REALLY be ready for a Black or female President will only get proven at a ballot box.
I don't dispute that a shift has occurred--if nothing else, white people now feel some pressure to lie about how they really feel. But I don't think the shift is nearly as great as people on SoulStrut would apparently like to believe.
thats a nice little ideological construct youve crafted for yourself there. It allows you to hold onto your beliefs irrespective of any measure of evidence to the contrary. Even if a black president were elected im quite sure youd develop a rationale(im guessing it would be something along the lines of the elected president being the acceptable face of the black community and not really representative) which would see you continue your soft prejudice and self satisfied moralising. Squawking about racism at every turn is a very easy way to set yourself up, in your own mind at least, as some righteous defender of liberty and opponent of injustice.
Please be serious. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that the American electorate is simply too dumb or uninformed to vote based on personal interest. Why do you suppose poor white people vote for Republican candidates? Or well-off people voting for liberal canddiates, whose economic platform usually runs counter to their interests? No, Americans generally vote based on how the candidate makes them feel, and a Black candidate will make a lot of white voters feel uncomfortable.
people don't vote based on personal interest? of course they do. what you mean to say is that people mistakingly vote for the wrong candidate. americans are ignorant but they are smart enough to be selfish. poor white people voted republican because their priests told them to. rich people vote for liberals because some of them have a conscious. MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WILL VOTE FOR A BLACK CANDIDATE. please show me data which says they will not. You don't think Colin Powell could have been elected instead of bush??
Get real. Nobody but Hillary actually thinks she has a shot at beating McCain.
Get real, a lot of political strategist don't even think McCain will be the republican candidate. Aside from all the skeletons in his closet (he was a POW who gave up information), his sound bites will crush him as he continually flip flops on his support of the white house. When it serves him, he criticizes bush like a dem, but when he needs republican money, he goes and speaks at an evangelical college. He also is not pro-corporation enough for the GOP. The right wing will not support him in the primaries.
Meanwhile, HIllary has raised more money than all of the other candidates combined. New Yorkers were skeptical before she had a seat in the senate but now her approval ratings are extremely high among them. She is a brilliant speaker, reminds people of the prosperous years under her husband, is tough on terrorism, and critical of bush but not radical like Dean or the present Gore. Like Bill, she is a moderate dem who will appeal to the Southerners, as well as women in both parties. Of course she has a shot at winning. Give the people who have spent millions on her some credit. They have done the studies, you havent.
Please be serious. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that the American electorate is simply too dumb or uninformed to vote based on personal interest. Why do you suppose poor white people vote for Republican candidates? Or well-off people voting for liberal canddiates, whose economic platform usually runs counter to their interests? No, Americans generally vote based on how the candidate makes them feel, and a Black candidate will make a lot of white voters feel uncomfortable.
people don't vote based on personal interest? of course they do. what you mean to say is that people mistakingly vote for the wrong candidate. americans are ignorant but they are smart enough to be selfish. poor white people voted republican because their priests told them to. rich people vote for liberals because some of them have a conscious. MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WILL VOTE FOR A BLACK CANDIDATE. please show me data which says they will not. You don't think Colin Powell could have been elected instead of bush??
Get real. Nobody but Hillary actually thinks she has a shot at beating McCain.
Get real, a lot of political strategist don't even think McCain will be the republican candidate. Aside from all the skeletons in his closet (he was a POW who gave up information), his sound bites will crush him as he continually flip flops on his support of the white house. When it serves him, he criticizes bush like a dem, but when he needs republican money, he goes and speaks at an evangelical college. He also is not pro-corporation enough for the GOP. The right wing will not support him in the primaries.
Meanwhile, HIllary has raised more money than all of the other candidates combined. New Yorkers were skeptical before she had a seat in the senate but now her approval ratings are extremely high among them. She is a brilliant speaker, reminds people of the prosperous years under her husband, is tough on terrorism, and critical of bush but not radical like Dean or the present Gore. Like Bill, she is a moderate dem who will appeal to the Southerners, as well as women in both parties. Of course she has a shot at winning. Give the people who have spent millions on her some credit. They have done the studies, you havent.
I can't stand McCain. He gets alot of mileage out of this "maverick" persona, but is just as conservative as Bush. However, this...
Aside from all the skeletons in his closet (he was a POW who gave up information),
...needs to be qualified by the fact that he was tortured extensively, and as a result has a number of permanent disabilities. I may not like the guys politics, but you can't reasonably dispute his miltary service.
Please be serious. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that the American electorate is simply too dumb or uninformed to vote based on personal interest. Why do you suppose poor white people vote for Republican candidates? Or well-off people voting for liberal canddiates, whose economic platform usually runs counter to their interests? No, Americans generally vote based on how the candidate makes them feel, and a Black candidate will make a lot of white voters feel uncomfortable.
people don't vote based on personal interest? of course they do. what you mean to say is that people mistakingly vote for the wrong candidate.
You're free to disagree with me, but please don't tell me what I "mean" to say. I know exactly what I mean and I stand by it--Americans do not vote out of personal interest; if they did, they would take the time to familiarize themselves with the issues.
americans are ignorant but they are smart enough to be selfish. poor white people voted republican because their priests told them to. rich people vote for liberals because some of them have a conscious.
Both examples that more clearly support my position than yours. Voting for a candidate that professes to share your faith is not at all the same as voting for a candidate that has offered a platform that serves your interests--it's voting based on how the candidate makes you feel.
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WILL VOTE FOR A BLACK CANDIDATE. please show me data which says they will not.
And? "Millions" is a meaningless figure in a vacuum. Millions of Americans will vote for any credible candidate--that has nothing to do with the numbers necessary for a victory.
You don't think Colin Powell could have been elected instead of bush??
Maybe. It would have been a longshot, but please see my earlier post in this thread about the Republican party being the only realistic path to the presidency for a Black candidate. He certainly couldn't have been elected as a Democrat or an Independant.
Aside from all the skeletons in his closet (he was a POW who gave up information),
...needs to be qualified by the fact that he was tortured extensively, and as a result has a number of permanent disabilities. I may not like the guys politics, but you can't reasonably dispute his miltary service.
yea, but you have a lot of hardcore republicans who would like to think that if they faced the same situation, they would rather die than give up crucial information...which is exactly what he did. mccain also supported the recent bill that allows torture. talk about not having any principles...
Aside from all the skeletons in his closet (he was a POW who gave up information),
...needs to be qualified by the fact that he was tortured extensively, and as a result has a number of permanent disabilities. I may not like the guys politics, but you can't reasonably dispute his miltary service.
yea, but you have a lot of hardcore republicans who would like to think that if they faced the same situation, they would rather die than give up crucial information...which is exactly what he did. mccain also supported the recent bill that allows torture. talk about not having any principles...
I found that particularly ironic. He should have been ashamed of himself.
Americans do not vote out of personal interest; if they did, they would take the time to familiarize themselves with the issues.
Being selfish and being ignorant are not mutually exclusive. The average voter wants to know what each candidate will do for them. Lower my taxes? Take away my right to choose? Leave my son in Iraq for 4 more years? Unions have been pushing democrats forever because dems are pro-union and repubiclans are controlled by big business. Many union workers vote democrat for this reason only. I have volunteered for a campaign with guys who hated democratic principles but were literally working for free for a democrat because of the union issue.
Some people's personal interest is to better society. These people aren't necessarily altruistic, they might just feel guilty. Regardless, they have a personal interest in the election. Its not as superficial as how a candidate makes them feel. They want to know the issues. Maybe they are evangelical christians and they only want to know about abortion, gays in the military, and funding for faith based programs. However, to say that people don't care at all about the issues is really pushing it. Not everyone follows politics, but most should be able to tell you the general difference between dems and republicans. Even if they are only voting on one issue.
Americans do not vote out of personal interest; if they did, they would take the time to familiarize themselves with the issues.
Being selfish and being ignorant are not mutually exclusive. The average voter wants to know what each candidate will do for them. Lower my taxes? Take away my right to choose? Leave my son in Iraq for 4 more years? Unions have been pushing democrats forever because dems are pro-union and repubiclans are controlled by big business. Many union workers vote democrat for this reason only. I have volunteered for a campaign with guys who hated democratic principles but were literally working for free for a democrat because of the union issue.
Some people's personal interest is to better society. These people aren't necessarily altruistic, they might just feel guilty. Regardless, they have a personal interest in the election. Its not as superficial as how a candidate makes them feel. They want to know the issues. Maybe they are evangelical christians and they only want to know about abortion, gays in the military, and funding for faith based programs. However, to say that people don't care at all about the issues is really pushing it. Not everyone follows politics, but most should be able to tell you the general difference between dems and republicans. Even if they are only voting on one issue.
We'll we're at a deadlock, because I simply don't agree with you--you cannot convince me that a majority of Americans care to know what a presidential candidate will do for them. Or can articulate the general differences between Democrats and Republicans. If that were the case, all of our elections would be predetermined, because there is no such thing as a swing voter that truly understands the difference or has any real understanding of the issues. Elections are determined by feelings and little more. An informed electorate could never elect (or even "elect") Clinton and W within four years of each other.
besides the routine "he speaks so well" comments and time magazine articles, fat chance of ever seeing a minority on any level as prez...man, even a caucasian person with a minority mentality would not stand a chance of being elected.
Many African-Americans near me, if only jocularly, claimed Bill Clinton as "the first black President." Otherwise, I don't know what you mean by "minority mentality." Is that like "acting black?" You might want to re-think your position.
dude, i'm a visible minority. and there's no need to be politically correct here, there is such thing as a minority mentality, you would know it if you went through life as one. and i ain't talking just black. its funny how people always go, "oh man, can you just imagine a black president", yet no other minority would enter their hypothetical contemplation, like i dont know, a latino prez or something. but i digress, i would say that to have any specific person representative of a massively diverse population is just not rational. so i guess you choose the lesser of the evils. the key would be for someone with the right heart in his/her place to work within the system, and not turn a blind eye to those that struggle,lower incomes, mid incomes etc, AND not getting the people that supported him/her pissed off for being rigid in his/her beliefs, should he/she not choose to be flexible for corporations/businesses/wealthy AND be charismatic enough to appeal to the mass population. thats asking too much of a human. and i know all that sounded like someone from grade 10 who just watched the corporation or something, but thats how i feel.
Please be serious. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that the American electorate is simply too dumb or uninformed to vote based on personal interest. Why do you suppose poor white people vote for Republican candidates? Or well-off people voting for liberal canddiates, whose economic platform usually runs counter to their interests? No, Americans generally vote based on how the candidate makes them feel, and a Black candidate will make a lot of white voters feel uncomfortable.
people don't vote based on personal interest? of course they do. what you mean to say is that people mistakingly vote for the wrong candidate. americans are ignorant but they are smart enough to be selfish. poor white people voted republican because their priests told them to. rich people vote for liberals because some of them have a conscious. MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WILL VOTE FOR A BLACK CANDIDATE. please show me data which says they will not. You don't think Colin Powell could have been elected instead of bush??
Or maybe it might be that some people just don't care about economic prosperity, or that they vote based on a moral calling espoused by whichever candidate fits the bill. In other words, they vote for values that differ completely from his, and he has no way to understand it other than to say, of course, they're simply too dumb or uninformed.
Please be serious. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that the American electorate is simply too dumb or uninformed to vote based on personal interest. Why do you suppose poor white people vote for Republican candidates? Or well-off people voting for liberal canddiates, whose economic platform usually runs counter to their interests? No, Americans generally vote based on how the candidate makes them feel, and a Black candidate will make a lot of white voters feel uncomfortable.
people don't vote based on personal interest? of course they do. what you mean to say is that people mistakingly vote for the wrong candidate. americans are ignorant but they are smart enough to be selfish. poor white people voted republican because their priests told them to. rich people vote for liberals because some of them have a conscious. MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WILL VOTE FOR A BLACK CANDIDATE. please show me data which says they will not. You don't think Colin Powell could have been elected instead of bush??
Or maybe it might be that some people just don't care about economic prosperity, or that they vote based on a moral calling espoused by whichever candidate fits the bill. In other words, they vote for values that differ completely from his, and he has no way to understand it other than to say, of course, they're simply too dumb or uninformed.
Wow, dude, real deep analysis. You honestly think there is anyone that can't wrap their mind around the idea of voting against their own personal interest simply because they feel it's the right thing to do?
Let's return to KVH's original contention: "most people vote a certain way based on what that candidate will do for them as individuals"
This is what we're arguing about, and to the extent your observation relates to it at all, it contradicts his claim.
And, seriously, you seem like a bright guy--do you really want to put yourself in the position of defending the American electorate? I mean, really?
Please be serious. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that the American electorate is simply too dumb or uninformed to vote based on personal interest. Why do you suppose poor white people vote for Republican candidates? Or well-off people voting for liberal canddiates, whose economic platform usually runs counter to their interests? No, Americans generally vote based on how the candidate makes them feel, and a Black candidate will make a lot of white voters feel uncomfortable.
people don't vote based on personal interest? of course they do. what you mean to say is that people mistakingly vote for the wrong candidate. americans are ignorant but they are smart enough to be selfish. poor white people voted republican because their priests told them to. rich people vote for liberals because some of them have a conscious. MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WILL VOTE FOR A BLACK CANDIDATE. please show me data which says they will not. You don't think Colin Powell could have been elected instead of bush??
Or maybe it might be that some people just don't care about economic prosperity, or that they vote based on a moral calling espoused by whichever candidate fits the bill. In other words, they vote for values that differ completely from his, and he has no way to understand it other than to say, of course, they're simply too dumb or uninformed.
Wow, dude, real deep analysis. You honestly think there is anyone that can't wrap their mind around the idea of voting against their own personal interest simply because they feel it's the right thing to do?
Let's return to KVH's original contention: "most people vote a certain way based on what that candidate will do for them as individuals"
This is what we're arguing about, and to the extent your observation relates to it at all, it contradicts his claim.
And, seriously, you seem like a bright guy--do you really want to put yourself in the position of defending the American electorate? I mean, really?
I don't think either of us can pin down the American electorate, but we try nonetheless.
I think we're getting confused about what is one's well-being.
Here's what I'm saying: What you and I consider our well-being are oftentimes not what others consider their well-being. Of course, vice versa, too.
besides the routine "he speaks so well" comments and time magazine articles, fat chance of ever seeing a minority on any level as prez...man, even a caucasian person with a minority mentality would not stand a chance of being elected.
Many African-Americans near me, if only jocularly, claimed Bill Clinton as "the first black President." Otherwise, I don't know what you mean by "minority mentality." Is that like "acting black?" You might want to re-think your position.
dude, i'm a visible minority. and there's no need to be politically correct here, there is such thing as a minority mentality, you would know it if you went through life as one. and i ain't talking just black. its funny how people always go, "oh man, can you just imagine a black president", yet no other minority would enter their hypothetical contemplation, like i dont know, a latino prez or something. but i digress, i would say that to have any specific person representative of a massively diverse population is just not rational. so i guess you choose the lesser of the evils. the key would be for someone with the right heart in his/her place to work within the system, and not turn a blind eye to those that struggle,lower incomes, mid incomes etc, AND not getting the people that supported him/her pissed off for being rigid in his/her beliefs, should he/she not choose to be flexible for corporations/businesses/wealthy AND be charismatic enough to appeal to the mass population. thats asking too much of a human. and i know all that sounded like someone from grade 10 who just watched the corporation or something, but thats how i feel.
I have the firm belief that eventually, a non-white male will be elected as the President of the United States. I'm not going to say that Obama will assume the Presidency in 2012, but he and perhaps Powell certainly have come the closest of any non-white males in the history of this country. That we are even seriously debating the issue is a sign of progress; 30 years ago, this discussion would have been a pipe dream or a Richard Pryor movie. Small steps - closer and closer. I believe it's more incumbent on the law of averages than codes of bias over the long long haul. It might take decades and decades, but I trust that it's gonna transpire. Perhaps I need depressing long-term statistics to sully my hope, but I'm thinking: we're just over 50 years past Rosa Parks' stand and separate drinking fountains. I'm not at all attempting to invalidate your experience, but there has been progress made, however acute. The added fact that the country is becoming more diverse will only add to the percentage.
I still don't share everyone's pessimism about Obama's chances:
The audacity of the Democratic hopeful By Jacob Weisberg
Published: October 26 2006 19:32 | Last updated: October 26 2006 19:32
Political assumptions can remain constant for long periods and then change very quickly. And so they have in approximately 10 days since the publication of Senator Barack Obama???s book The Audacity of Hope. In the brief time he has been on a book tour, Mr Obama has overthrown much of the reigning conventional wisdom about what is likely to happen in the 2008 US presidential campaign, how shrewd politicians ought to behave and what the informal rules of the American system really are. Consider the following statements thought true by the political class in early October, but called into serious question by month???s end.
Hillary Clinton is the Democratic front-runner: Mrs Clinton has raised a formidable amount of money, lined up extensive backing and has the country's top political strategist for a spouse. Mr Obama's bigger advantage is that the party is actually excited about him and thinks he could win. If Mr Obama decides later this year to enter the presidential race, I expect that he, not Mrs Clinton, will rapidly become the de facto Democratic front-runner. If Mr Obama chooses not to run, he may still sap Mrs Clinton's strength the way Colin Powell did Bob Dole's in 1996, by reminding Republican voters that their favourite candidate was not available.
John McCain can beat anyone the Democrats put up: Our sense right now is that McCain would beat any Democrat, including Hillary Clinton, say the political gurus Mark Halperin and John Harris in their book The Way to Win. Mr Obama upsets that prediction because of his crossover appeal to independents and moderate Republicans. Like Mr McCain, the candidate he would be most likely to face in 2008 if he won the Democratic nomination, Mr Obama attracts support more through his approach to politics, his personality and his inspiring biography than by his specific positions on issues. Last week, New York Times columnist David Brooks, a longstanding fan of Mr McCain's, nearly announced his defection to Mr Obama in an admiring column. As for Mr McCain himself, he would evidently prefer to run against Mrs Clinton than against Mr Obama.
Democrats have a problem with religion: in 2002 and 2004, evangelical Christians and regular churchgoers voted overwhelmingly for George W. Bush. Neither Al Gore nor John Kerry was comfortable talking about their faith or employing a religious idiom, leading many to conclude that Democrats were doomed to function as the secular party in a still-religious nation. Mr Obama is the rare Democrat who talks easily about faith and values and who does so without worrying those alarmed by the mixture of religion and politics. In a thoughtful speech last summer that also forms the basis of a chapter of his book, Mr Obama explained his own religious motivation and defended the use of spiritual language in a political context. He argues that his party should explicitly try to win over spiritual followers of the more moderate evangelical leaders.
Old liberalism is dead: closely allied to the assumption that Democrats cannot win because they are too secular is the view that they cannot win if they are too liberal. Somehow, this precept seems not to apply to Mr Obama, despite his liberal views and voting record. Mr Obama is close to unions and voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. His positions are consistently towards the left of his party???s on issues such as national healthcare and other social policy issues. He was a dove on the Iraq war. None of this seems off-putting to centrist Democrats and liberal Republicans, who would quickly dismiss almost any other candidate with Mr Obama's views.
Extreme partisanship works: Mr Obama can thrive as a liberal because of another paradox: the resonance of his moderate, deliberative style and his calls for "common ground". Mr Obama rejects the lesson from recent elections that bipartisanship is dead and that polarisation works. The main theme of his book is that something has gone wrong with American politics because of how divided, absolutist and bitter it has become. He invariably tries to see issues through the eyes of his opponents, sometimes to the point of self-parody. Though the plea for bipartisanship is the quintessential Washington platitude, it does not sound that way coming from Mr Obama. He somehow makes civility, moderation and compromise into rallying cries.
Politicians must tread carefully: watching Mrs Clinton over the past few years, one could get the idea that a single miscalculation or misstatement is fatal to American political careers. But like Mr McCain in 2000, Mr Obama simply declines to play the cautious or calculating game. His approach is one of disarming frankness. At a conference this week in Phoenix, I watched David Remnick of The New Yorker interview Mr Obama on a stage. Mr Obama declined to deeply regret his much-publicised youthful indiscretions with drugs. He suggested that believing in angels is a sign of irrationality. And he acknowledged that his wife does not like his choice of career.
The bubble must pop: we have lived through swoons of this sort before, including for Mr McCain in 2000. Mr Obama could turn out to be just another liberal fad, like Howard Dean, whose moment did not last beyond the first Democratic primaries in 2004. Once he decides to run, the cynics tell us, Mr Obama???s halo will crack. Maybe so. But this time, maybe not.
Friedman and Brooks are both on Meet The Press right now claiming Obama is the guy for 2008.
On CBS Sunday Morning, there was a very un-funny "humorist" named Mo Rocca who spent 5 minutes riffing on what a goofy name Obama is. It was some really rascist shit and seemed politically charged. And the guy casting the first stone calls himself Mo Rocca.
Comments
Absolutely.
I know lots of white people that wouldn't have the intestinal fortitude to tell an anonymous voice on the other end of the phone how they really feel. They'd say something like, "I vote based on the issues, not on the candidate's skin color," and then when all alone in the booth they'd vote against the Black candidate whose position on most of "the issues" matched their own.
I can't believe that people who have spent upwards of two decades in this country don't know and understand this.
Jesus, Brendan, if Obama and McCain are just a flip of the coin for you, maybe you should stay home when it's time to vote... they're very different candidates.
McCain is nowhere near the moderate that a lot of voters who think he has an appealing personality want to see him as.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
Please tell me this was a joke post
Yeah, it kinda was. Faux is probably right about mccain though. I guess i havent really done my research there. But Obama being black would probably factor in to my decision, i cant lie.
In truth, im pretty sure all of these politicians are pretty much slime bags, but i dont like hilary. And i think obama is a good dude, and i think it would be positive to have a black guy be the president.
Why is that so bad?
Alan Keyes ran in 2000, did you vote for him?
If you were in North Carolina would you vote for Vernon Robinson?
people should educate themselves on what the candidates stand for and not punch a ballot for a dude just cause skin is a different color.
Obama is stirring the pot, see what pops up.
Hilary is going to run (maybe). Watch the DNC catch a heart attack (definitely).
thats a nice little ideological construct youve crafted for yourself there. It allows you to hold onto your beliefs irrespective of any measure of evidence to the contrary. Even if a black president were elected im quite sure youd develop a rationale(im guessing it would be something along the lines of the elected president being the acceptable face of the black community and not really representative) which would see you continue your soft prejudice and self satisfied moralising. Squawking about racism at every turn is a very easy way to set yourself up, in your own mind at least, as some righteous defender of liberty and opponent of injustice.
whats his platform?
people don't vote based on personal interest? of course they do. what you mean to say is that people mistakingly vote for the wrong candidate. americans are ignorant but they are smart enough to be selfish. poor white people voted republican because their priests told them to. rich people vote for liberals because some of them have a conscious. MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WILL VOTE FOR A BLACK CANDIDATE. please show me data which says they will not. You don't think Colin Powell could have been elected instead of bush??
Get real, a lot of political strategist don't even think McCain will be the republican candidate. Aside from all the skeletons in his closet (he was a POW who gave up information), his sound bites will crush him as he continually flip flops on his support of the white house. When it serves him, he criticizes bush like a dem, but when he needs republican money, he goes and speaks at an evangelical college. He also is not pro-corporation enough for the GOP. The right wing will not support him in the primaries.
Meanwhile, HIllary has raised more money than all of the other candidates combined. New Yorkers were skeptical before she had a seat in the senate but now her approval ratings are extremely high among them. She is a brilliant speaker, reminds people of the prosperous years under her husband, is tough on terrorism, and critical of bush but not radical like Dean or the present Gore. Like Bill, she is a moderate dem who will appeal to the Southerners, as well as women in both parties. Of course she has a shot at winning. Give the people who have spent millions on her some credit. They have done the studies, you havent.
I can't stand McCain. He gets alot of mileage out of this "maverick" persona, but is just as conservative as Bush.
However, this...
...needs to be qualified by the fact that he was tortured extensively, and as a result has a number of permanent disabilities. I may not like the guys politics, but you can't reasonably dispute his miltary service.
You're free to disagree with me, but please don't tell me what I "mean" to say. I know exactly what I mean and I stand by it--Americans do not vote out of personal interest; if they did, they would take the time to familiarize themselves with the issues.
Both examples that more clearly support my position than yours. Voting for a candidate that professes to share your faith is not at all the same as voting for a candidate that has offered a platform that serves your interests--it's voting based on how the candidate makes you feel.
And? "Millions" is a meaningless figure in a vacuum. Millions of Americans will vote for any credible candidate--that has nothing to do with the numbers necessary for a victory.
Maybe. It would have been a longshot, but please see my earlier post in this thread about the Republican party being the only realistic path to the presidency for a Black candidate. He certainly couldn't have been elected as a Democrat or an Independant.
yea, but you have a lot of hardcore republicans who would like to think that if they faced the same situation, they would rather die than give up crucial information...which is exactly what he did. mccain also supported the recent bill that allows torture. talk about not having any principles...
I found that particularly ironic. He should have been ashamed of himself.
Being selfish and being ignorant are not mutually exclusive. The average voter wants to know what each candidate will do for them. Lower my taxes? Take away my right to choose? Leave my son in Iraq for 4 more years? Unions have been pushing democrats forever because dems are pro-union and repubiclans are controlled by big business. Many union workers vote democrat for this reason only. I have volunteered for a campaign with guys who hated democratic principles but were literally working for free for a democrat because of the union issue.
Some people's personal interest is to better society. These people aren't necessarily altruistic, they might just feel guilty. Regardless, they have a personal interest in the election. Its not as superficial as how a candidate makes them feel. They want to know the issues. Maybe they are evangelical christians and they only want to know about abortion, gays in the military, and funding for faith based programs. However, to say that people don't care at all about the issues is really pushing it. Not everyone follows politics, but most should be able to tell you the general difference between dems and republicans. Even if they are only voting on one issue.
We'll we're at a deadlock, because I simply don't agree with you--you cannot convince me that a majority of Americans care to know what a presidential candidate will do for them. Or can articulate the general differences between Democrats and Republicans. If that were the case, all of our elections would be predetermined, because there is no such thing as a swing voter that truly understands the difference or has any real understanding of the issues. Elections are determined by feelings and little more. An informed electorate could never elect (or even "elect") Clinton and W within four years of each other.
dude, i'm a visible minority. and there's no need to be politically correct here, there is such thing as a minority mentality, you would know it if you went through life as one. and i ain't talking just black. its funny how people always go, "oh man, can you just imagine a black president", yet no other minority would enter their hypothetical contemplation, like i dont know, a latino prez or something. but i digress, i would say that to have any specific person representative of a massively diverse population is just not rational. so i guess you choose the lesser of the evils. the key would be for someone with the right heart in his/her place to work within the system, and not turn a blind eye to those that struggle,lower incomes, mid incomes etc, AND not getting the people that supported him/her pissed off for being rigid in his/her beliefs, should he/she not choose to be flexible for corporations/businesses/wealthy AND be charismatic enough to appeal to the mass population. thats asking too much of a human. and i know all that sounded like someone from grade 10 who just watched the corporation or something, but thats how i feel.
Or maybe it might be that some people just don't care about economic prosperity, or that they vote based on a moral calling espoused by whichever candidate fits the bill. In other words, they vote for values that differ completely from his, and he has no way to understand it other than to say, of course, they're simply too dumb or uninformed.
Wow, dude, real deep analysis. You honestly think there is anyone that can't wrap their mind around the idea of voting against their own personal interest simply because they feel it's the right thing to do?
Let's return to KVH's original contention: "most people vote a certain way based on what that candidate will do for them as individuals"
This is what we're arguing about, and to the extent your observation relates to it at all, it contradicts his claim.
And, seriously, you seem like a bright guy--do you really want to put yourself in the position of defending the American electorate? I mean, really?
I don't think either of us can pin down the American electorate, but we try nonetheless.
I think we're getting confused about what is one's well-being.
Here's what I'm saying: What you and I consider our well-being are oftentimes not what others consider their well-being. Of course, vice versa, too.
Don't you agree with that?
I have the firm belief that eventually, a non-white male will be elected as the President of the United States. I'm not going to say that Obama will assume the Presidency in 2012, but he and perhaps Powell certainly have come the closest of any non-white males in the history of this country. That we are even seriously debating the issue is a sign of progress; 30 years ago, this discussion would have been a pipe dream or a Richard Pryor movie. Small steps - closer and closer. I believe it's more incumbent on the law of averages than codes of bias over the long long haul. It might take decades and decades, but I trust that it's gonna transpire. Perhaps I need depressing long-term statistics to sully my hope, but I'm thinking: we're just over 50 years past Rosa Parks' stand and separate drinking fountains. I'm not at all attempting to invalidate your experience, but there has been progress made, however acute. The added fact that the country is becoming more diverse will only add to the percentage.
Now: a non-white Pope? Hah. Fat goddamn chance.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/467300p-393261c.html
I still don't share everyone's pessimism about Obama's chances:
The audacity of the Democratic hopeful
By Jacob Weisberg
Published: October 26 2006 19:32 | Last updated: October 26 2006 19:32
Political assumptions can remain constant for long periods and then change very quickly. And so they have in approximately 10 days since the publication of Senator Barack Obama???s book The Audacity of Hope. In the brief time he has been on a book tour, Mr Obama has overthrown much of the reigning conventional wisdom about what is likely to happen in the 2008 US presidential campaign, how shrewd politicians ought to behave and what the informal rules of the American system really are. Consider the following statements thought true by the political class in early October, but called into serious question by month???s end.
Hillary Clinton is the Democratic front-runner: Mrs Clinton has raised a formidable amount of money, lined up extensive backing and has the country's top political strategist for a spouse. Mr Obama's bigger advantage is that the party is actually excited about him and thinks he could win. If Mr Obama decides later this year to enter the presidential race, I expect that he, not Mrs Clinton, will rapidly become the de facto Democratic front-runner. If Mr Obama chooses not to run, he may still sap Mrs Clinton's strength the way Colin Powell did Bob Dole's in 1996, by reminding Republican voters that their favourite candidate was not available.
John McCain can beat anyone the Democrats put up: Our sense right now is that McCain would beat any Democrat, including Hillary Clinton, say the political gurus Mark Halperin and John Harris in their book The Way to Win. Mr Obama upsets that prediction because of his crossover appeal to independents and moderate Republicans. Like Mr McCain, the candidate he would be most likely to face in 2008 if he won the Democratic nomination, Mr Obama attracts support more through his approach to politics, his personality and his inspiring biography than by his specific positions on issues. Last week, New York Times columnist David Brooks, a longstanding fan of Mr McCain's, nearly announced his defection to Mr Obama in an admiring column. As for Mr McCain himself, he would evidently prefer to run against Mrs Clinton than against Mr Obama.
Democrats have a problem with religion: in 2002 and 2004, evangelical Christians and regular churchgoers voted overwhelmingly for George W. Bush. Neither Al Gore nor John Kerry was comfortable talking about their faith or employing a religious idiom, leading many to conclude that Democrats were doomed to function as the secular party in a still-religious nation. Mr Obama is the rare Democrat who talks easily about faith and values and who does so without worrying those alarmed by the mixture of religion and politics. In a thoughtful speech last summer that also forms the basis of a chapter of his book, Mr Obama explained his own religious motivation and defended the use of spiritual language in a political context. He argues that his party should explicitly try to win over spiritual followers of the more moderate evangelical leaders.
Old liberalism is dead: closely allied to the assumption that Democrats cannot win because they are too secular is the view that they cannot win if they are too liberal. Somehow, this precept seems not to apply to Mr Obama, despite his liberal views and voting record. Mr Obama is close to unions and voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. His positions are consistently towards the left of his party???s on issues such as national healthcare and other social policy issues. He was a dove on the Iraq war. None of this seems off-putting to centrist Democrats and liberal Republicans, who would quickly dismiss almost any other candidate with Mr Obama's views.
Extreme partisanship works: Mr Obama can thrive as a liberal because of another paradox: the resonance of his moderate, deliberative style and his calls for "common ground". Mr Obama rejects the lesson from recent elections that bipartisanship is dead and that polarisation works. The main theme of his book is that something has gone wrong with American politics because of how divided, absolutist and bitter it has become. He invariably tries to see issues through the eyes of his opponents, sometimes to the point of self-parody. Though the plea for bipartisanship is the quintessential Washington platitude, it does not sound that way coming from Mr Obama. He somehow makes civility, moderation and compromise into rallying cries.
Politicians must tread carefully: watching Mrs Clinton over the past few years, one could get the idea that a single miscalculation or misstatement is fatal to American political careers. But like Mr McCain in 2000, Mr Obama simply declines to play the cautious or calculating game. His approach is one of disarming frankness. At a conference this week in Phoenix, I watched David Remnick of The New Yorker interview Mr Obama on a stage. Mr Obama declined to deeply regret his much-publicised youthful indiscretions with drugs. He suggested that believing in angels is a sign of irrationality. And he acknowledged that his wife does not like his choice of career.
The bubble must pop: we have lived through swoons of this sort before, including for Mr McCain in 2000. Mr Obama could turn out to be just another liberal fad, like Howard Dean, whose moment did not last beyond the first Democratic primaries in 2004. Once he decides to run, the cynics tell us, Mr Obama???s halo will crack. Maybe so. But this time, maybe not.
The writer is editor of Slate.com
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a6262c8c-6515-11db-90fd-0000779e2340.html
On CBS Sunday Morning, there was a very un-funny "humorist" named Mo Rocca who spent 5 minutes riffing on what a goofy name Obama is. It was some really rascist shit and seemed politically charged. And the guy casting the first stone calls himself Mo Rocca.