A fall victory for Barack, or just a fall?

Michael Young | April 24, 2008

A few months ago, the conventional wisdom was that if Hillary Clinton were nominated by the Democrats, this would considerably enhance John McCain's chances of winning in the fall, on the grounds that it would mobilize an "anti-Hillary" vote. Now, the New York Times wonders (better late than never, eh?) whether Barack Obama would not be more of a liability to Democrats come the November election. 

Comments

Gulper Gastron|4.24.08 @ 1:40AM|#

Do you actually think "America won't elect a black guy" hasn't been a thought in Democrats' minds since Obama began running and became a serious contender? He's too black, he's too white--my god, try looking past his skin color. And I seem to remember a political event in Iowa at the beginning of the year that dispelled many of these notions, at least in the minds of the millions of people who have put him in the lead in delegates in the Dem primary.

What is this "better late than never" crap, btw? The paper endorsed Hillary in the NY primary!

stephen the goldberger|4.24.08 @ 2:03AM|#

Im done with this shit.

Anonymoose.|4.24.08 @ 2:09AM|#

He's too black, he's too white--my god, try looking past his skin color.

I have and I see nothing that makes me want to vote for him.

|4.24.08 @ 2:13AM|#

Do you actually think "America won't elect a black guy" hasn't been a thought in Democrats' minds since Obama began running and became a serious contender?

Sure. And it gives the Dems whining rights if he loses. They can credit the loss to Americans being A Nation of Racists. Knowing the Dems, being able to scream "Racists!" will give them nearly as much satisfaction as winning the damn election. It's a win-win...

|4.24.08 @ 2:13AM|#

This is such a stupid post. As if the fact that there are some people who don't like black people is a good reason that Barack Obama shouldn't be the democratic nominee or that it's proof that he can't win. The truth is he has higher favorability ratings than McCain or Clinton, and he's doing fine in hypothetical match up polls. It's not like the people who have voted for him or say they will don't realize he's black.

He doesn't need the racist vote. He's doing fine with the total vote.

masterroni|4.24.08 @ 2:32AM|#

"And it gives the Dems whining rights if he loses."

Yeah, no one has ever whined when they lose an election--that's so unAmerican! And hey, didn't we get rid of racism when, like, we gave MLK a holiday? I mean, nobody would do such a thing as not vote for someone based on skin color, right? Or, say, rumors of a black child?

|4.24.08 @ 2:36AM|#

He's too black, he's too white--my god, try looking past his skin color.

I can't get past the (D) next to his name....

That and him saying NAFTA shipped all our jobs to Mexico.

bill|4.24.08 @ 2:44AM|#

Not only will America not elect a black guy they won't elect a women either. This race was over the minute the last white male Dem dropped out.

|4.24.08 @ 3:07AM|#

Jorgen wrote: "This is such a stupid post. As if the fact that there are some people who don't like black people is a good reason that Barack Obama shouldn't be the democratic nominee or that it's proof that he can't win."

I don't usually respond to stupid comments, but I prefer to nip in the bud any notion that I'm insinuating that Obama's being black is why he shouldn't be the Democratic nominee. I certainly didn't make that case in the post, and the New York Times article offers a much more detailed explanation for Obama's problems than that. I also happen not to care who the Democratic nominee will be, so whether it's Obama or Clinton is the same to me. Finally, as the post makes clear, Obama's "blackness" was not the problem earlier when Hillary was seen as the Democrats' liability.

But I do find interesting that all the comments have focused solely on Obama's color, when in fact the obstacles he faces may be linked to other unrelated factors--that he's too liberal, that voters don't know him, that he's an "elitist", etc.

Mama said stupid is as stupid |4.24.08 @ 3:45AM|#

"the New York Times wonders (better late than never, eh?)"

yep, no mentions of electability in the NYT prior to this week. (Ok I admit I stretched on that last link; first of all it's Brooks, and it's mostly about Edwards.)

"I certainly didn't make that case in the post"

I agree, you made no comment whatsoever in your post; you just linked to a NYT without any substantive comment. Hey, this technique makes Glen Reynolds some money, so I'm not knocking it, per se.
But the reason(!) I like this site because people tend to do their own analysis and opinions, or link to longer works of theirs. Even your Mid East posts contain original thought, your only value added in this is just half-assed media criticism. Unless you think none of your colleagues have yet brought up the fact that Obama - and Clinton, and McCain, but recently mostly Obama - have liabilities going into the November election.

"I also happen not to care who the Democratic nominee will be"

So then, what *was* the point of the post if the topic doesn't even interest you? Filling a quota?

|4.24.08 @ 5:06AM|#

IT'S TIME AMERICA:

It's time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.

Hillary Clinton seemed almost somber at her victory speech. As if part of her was hoping Obama could have defeated her. And proved he had some chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources. In all honesty. I felt some of that too.

But it is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up.

Hillary Clinton say's that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Mr. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World.

Mr. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Mr. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton's have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.

If Mr. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human.

Sincerely

Jacksmith... Working Class :-)

|4.24.08 @ 7:49AM|#

"I also happen not to care who the Democratic nominee will be, so whether it's Obama or Clinton is the same to me."

Is that because you see little difference between the two, or because you could never see yourself voting for a Democrat?

I think Obama's weakness in the general election is pointed to by the fact that he has done poorly in some states that traditionally have been crucial to a Democratic victory (i.e., Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania). So he makes the Dem's lose Alabama and Georgia by 10 instead of 20 points, if he can't win those key states he is a worse candidate than HRC...

Of course, I think both of them are really, really terrible candidates. The Dems have only themselves to blame for this, since the mood in the nation favored them, but even with such a mood they should not have chosen two candidates with such inexperience and political liabilities (Obama's race and HRC's high negatives).

Joe points out here all the time that they have been getting high turnout and big fundraising. Well, of course, they are candidates in which the group of people supporting them can get really excited about supporting them (for liberals and blacks Obama is the strongest liberal and black ever, and many women have been wanting a woman to win the White House their entire lives). But the problem is that for every person they energize to an unusual level they also have a voter who will rule them out off hand. And their liabilities are easy prey for the GOP which has one of the most well focused attack machines along with a ready made and compliant media structure (Fox, Limbaugh, National Review, et al.,) for getting these attacks out. They're toast, whichever is chosen.

|4.24.08 @ 8:01AM|#

Reading that story, you'd never know that Barack Obama's lead vs. Clinton is larger than it has been at any point in the race, and that he's leading McCain in the matchups.

www.realclearpolitics.com

There's the media narrative, and then there's the American public, and it's incredible how far apart the two seem to be.

|4.24.08 @ 8:11AM|#

We've been seeing the GOP attack machine go after Obama for weeks not, MNG.

The result has been that he has risen in the polls, vs. both HIllary and McCain.

Another interesting story at www.gallup.com today. They got their highest level of opposition to the Iraq War since they began polling it in 2002. This, after literally months of the GOP noise machine trumpeting its great success.

The old grey mare, she ain't what she used to be. Ain't what she used to be. Ain't what she used to be. The fact that GOPers can imagine a line of attack doesn't necessarily mean it's going to work any more.

JohnD|4.24.08 @ 8:11AM|#

Who cares about his skin color (well, maybe some do), the real problem is he is an empty suit. Ultra liberal, elitist and an America hater. I make that aligation based on outlandish comments by his wife and his pastor and "mentor" of 20+ years.

|4.24.08 @ 8:18AM|#

Sounds an awful lot like what the all-powerful GOP attack machine said about Bill Clinton in 1992.

Did you know that that liberal elitist dodged the draft, protested against his country overseas, was a Rhodes Scholar, and had all sorts of hard left acquaintances from way back?

Of course, it's totally different this time. The economy is worse and there is a major, unpopular war going on.

|4.24.08 @ 8:46AM|#

1. There are two strong candidates in the Democratic race. There were no strong candidates in the Republican race.

2. The Democratic Primaries are proportional.

3. Clinton started out with a commanding lead, and the story is how nearly all blacks and many whites have left her.

It doesn't take a lot of reflection to see why this post is asinine.

Episiarch|4.24.08 @ 8:49AM|#

We've been seeing the GOP attack machine go after Obama for weeks not, MNG

O Rly? I don't think you've seen anything yet, joe.

However, I must thank Michael for posting another entry on Obama so that all those who have become emotionally invested in him can post their knee-jerk defenses of perceived insults.

|4.24.08 @ 8:59AM|#

Knee-jerk defense, links to polling data.

You know, same-same.

|4.24.08 @ 9:00AM|#

We didn't see anything after the Wright video aired?

Orly?

|4.24.08 @ 9:01AM|#

I think this is the greatest Michael Young political prognostication post since he wrote that Hezbollah had rendered itself irrelevant to the future of Lebanses politics, on the day they staged the largest demonstration in Lebanese history.

Episiarch|4.24.08 @ 9:02AM|#

NO WAI

If we try hard, we can turn H&R into SomethingAwful.

Oh sure, there are attacks from the right. But if Obama gets the nom they will increase exponentially. The GOP has not even remotely brought all its guns to bear on anybody yet.

|4.24.08 @ 9:06AM|#

Normally, I'd agree, Ep. But the GOPers haven't been terribly shy over the last couople of months about making it clear how much they want to face Hillary in the general election.

Normally, I'd agree, they save up their ammunition for the general - but if Operation Chaos!!!!eleven!!1 demonstrates anything, it's that they are starting hostilities early, to try to pick their preferred opponent.

Episiarch|4.24.08 @ 9:12AM|#

It seems more like they are letting their partisan operatives do the mudslinging for now. The right blogosphere has gone pretty mental over Wright, Bittergate, etc. but not much from the GOP itself. Do they really prefer to face Hillary? I don't know if even they know that. I think they're probably wondering themselves, and will wait and see just like the rest of us.

"Op Chaos"--paging Neil.

|4.24.08 @ 9:19AM|#

We've been seeing the GOP attack machine go after Obama for weeks not, MNG.

I haven't noticed. Guess it was lost in the sheer volume of attacks coming from the Clintons.

-jcr

|4.24.08 @ 9:24AM|#

With Hillary meeting Scaife like that, I'm not even sure there's a difference anymore.

It's like Hillary rented the VRWC. I wonder if she'll get her deposit back.

|4.24.08 @ 9:36AM|#

We're going to soon see what I've always believed to be the case: White male Democrats are way less likely to vote for a person of color that white male Republicans. Lynn Swann and Ken Blackwell prove that Rust belt Republicans are more tolerant that rust belt Democrats.

oscar98|4.24.08 @ 9:43AM|#

Do you actually think "America won't elect a black guy" hasn't been a thought in Democrats' minds since Obama began running and became a serious contender? He's too black, he's too white--my god, try looking past his skin color. And I seem to remember a political event in Iowa at the beginning of the year that dispelled many of these notions, at least in the minds of the millions of people who have put him in the lead in delegates in the Dem primary.

I think you're probably correct about the Dems. I remember in the early going of this primary (Gawd, it fills like so damn long ago) Hillary was way ahead in the upper echelons of the black communities (if not the community as a whole) b/c they actually thought Obama was unelectable. I don't know if the Dems actually believe this, though. Or... do they just want everyone else to believe it? I don't have the exact numbers, but I've seen multiple surveys where something like 60% of Americans said their fellow Americans wouldn't elect a black (or woman), BUT it was well over 80, if not 90% that said the interviewees would actually vote for a black (and about the same for a woman). Of course there could be a Bradley effect here, but the Dems have much to gain by playing up the victim card. Again... does the party brass actually believe their b.s.?

|4.24.08 @ 9:46AM|#

oscar98,

I think people's minds have changed on that question over the course of the campaign.

|4.24.08 @ 9:46AM|#

The GOP has not even remotely brought all its guns to bear on anybody yet.

This kind of statement reflects the general cockiness of Republicans that they can easily destroy Obama, but I'm thinking they better whip out those guns soon.

They just lost a Congressional election in friggin' Mississippi and lost Dennis Hastert's seat a while back, too. In February, the Democrats raised $70 million to McCain's $15 million. While Clinton and Obama tear each other apart in trench warfare, McCain still only manages to run even with them in the polls. The public is in a sour mood in regard to Republicans right now.

Maybe race, which has always been powerful in American politics, combined with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers will be the silver bullet for Republicans, I don't know. I do know that this "empty suit" is beating the Clinton Machine in the Democratic Party. No small feat. Overconfidence on the part of Republicans is not warranted right now.

|4.24.08 @ 9:49AM|#

Mr Nice Guy:I think Obama's weakness in the general election is pointed to by the fact that he has done poorly in some states that traditionally have been crucial to a Democratic victory (i.e., Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania). So he makes the Dem's lose Alabama and Georgia by 10 instead of 20 points, if he can't win those key states he is a worse candidate than HRC...

But is he? The competition in Ohio et al. was Hillary, not McCain. How many Clinton Dems are *really* that disaffected that they would stay home, much less switch once the conventions are over and the general comes around? I know there have been polls saying it would be substantial, but one thing we should take to heart is that the polls have become less and less accurate. OTOH, I think Obama's supporters would be more likely to stay out if he lost because they would despise what they see as Rove-style tactics used by Clinton. And the harsh truth is that if African-Americans stay home, Hilary will be in a world of hurt.

Finally, one of Obama's strengths has always lain with independents and its with them that the battleground lies in November, IMO.

I hope this makes some sort of coherent point. I need more caffiene.

|4.24.08 @ 9:58AM|#

Obama won Missouri, Virginia, Minnesota, and Iowa, Colorado, and Wisconsin. All battleground states.

Neil|4.24.08 @ 10:00AM|#

Joe the attacks on your golden boy have just started. When this race is over he will look like Michael Dukakis.

Im sure back in '88 you thought "OH the GOP can never attack Dukakis! Hes winning!" Yeah howd that work out?

BTW McCain is tied with Obama in Mass LOL!!

Episiarch|4.24.08 @ 10:02AM|#

Comsymp! Op Chaos!

Neil|4.24.08 @ 10:04AM|#

Obama cant win Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, or New Hampshire in the fall.

Joe Virginia is a battleground state?? LOL its a very conservative state and McCain is way ahead!

http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/survey-usa-state-polls-mccain-vs-obama/

I cant believe you think a Louis Farakkah/Al Sharpton/Jessie Jackson liberal could win there.

|4.24.08 @ 10:08AM|#

Oh, look, Neil can cherry-pick a poll.

Yup, Massachusetts is tottering right on the edge. It could really go either way. Not.

LOL its a very conservative state A "very conservative state" that just elected one Democratic Senator, a Democratic governor, and which is about to elect a second Democratic Senator. I know it's movement into the blue column has been quite dramatic, Neil, but I'd still put it down as a battleground state.

But thanks for the statement about Massachusetts. It really puts your argument into perspective.

13|4.24.08 @ 10:08AM|#

Reads like an argument over which professional boxer has a better chance in the ring against Stephen Hawkin, when it's obvious that either boxer would thrash the cripple.

McCain's married to the surge, he's toast come November.

Neil|4.24.08 @ 10:11AM|#

Joe my state of North Carolina has elected many Democats to the Governors office, Democrats control the state legeislator, and we've had Democrat US Senators before. But that doesnt mean it would go Democrat in a Presidential election LOL.

State politics doesnt mean anything on the federal level. NC like Virginia maybe could elect a conservative Democrat but would never vote for a far-left Al Sharpton liberal like Barack Obama.

|4.24.08 @ 10:47AM|#

BTW McCain is tied with Obama in Mass LOL!!

IIRC, in 2004, Bush got ~40% of the Mass vote. (and Kerry got ~40% of the Texas vote). If McCain is tied in Mass now, I imagine he will get 40-45% in November no matter who the Dem nominee is, and the Dem will carry the state.

Rhywun|4.24.08 @ 11:12AM|#

I wish Hillary or Obama would drop out so someone could finally start paying some attention to McCain. The guy is one popped blood vessel and/or ethnic slur away from eliminating himself, and the longer Hillary and Obama continue their bitch-fest, the less likely it is I'll get to enjoy such a richly rewarding scenario.

Alice Bowie|4.24.08 @ 11:16AM|#

jacksmith,

I applaud ur "Dear America" thing.

The fact is that the rift between Barak/Hillary is too great. Yes, Democrats will vote for a whoever wins the ticket. But the Independents are going with McCain...and so are the Jesus Freaks, War Hawks, the general conservatives, whites, etc., etc. etc.

I really don't want a republican...BUT IT's THE FUTURE !!! Prepare for it !!!

|4.24.08 @ 11:44AM|#

But the Independents are going with McCain

Independents look like Democrats when polled on the Iraq War and fiscal/economic policy these days. That's why they went so heavily for the Dems in 08.

|4.24.08 @ 11:44AM|#

Er, 06.

I keep getting the two confused.

Don't know why.

|4.24.08 @ 11:46AM|#

Neil,

I don't think that it is controversial to note that both Virginia and North Carolina have been more and more "blue" since sometime in the early to mid-1990s. Whether that means that either state is "in play" in this election I can't say, it does mean though they are fast becoming "battleground states."

|4.24.08 @ 11:53AM|#

How Neil thinks John McCain will win Virginia:

"This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, Osama, or whatever his name is. He's my opponent. He's following us around everywhere. And it's just great. ... Let's give a welcome to Osama, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."

alan|4.24.08 @ 12:09PM|#

I just wanted to point out because Neil mentioned he comes from my neck of the woods, he is not me under a pseudonym. I do the performance art bit from time to time, but I couldn't do it consistently for over a month much less an hour with a straight face.

|4.24.08 @ 12:11PM|#

Joe, without that gaffe, it isn't likely Webb would have had a chance. And I might have had a conservative, a goofy one, but a conservative that I could vote for for president. Damn Youtube!

|4.24.08 @ 12:13PM|#

State politics doesnt mean anything on the federal level. NC like Virginia maybe could elect a conservative Democrat but would never vote for a far-left Al Sharpton liberal like Barack Obama.


You forgot the correct name for Barack: it is (as you keep reminding us) Barack Hussien Obama :-)

|4.24.08 @ 12:30PM|#

Sounds an awful lot like what the all-powerful GOP attack machine said about Bill Clinton in 1992.

There was no GOP attack Machine in 1992.

And Bill had the nomination tied up by this point in the race.

Oh yeah and the junk on Hilary and Obama that has come to light over the last 4 months is coming from those camps and their respective camps in the media.

|4.24.08 @ 12:34PM|#

Oh, look, Neil can cherry-pick a poll.

He learned that from watching you.

|4.24.08 @ 12:42PM|#

There was no GOP attack Machine in 1992.

Really?

Because I was living in Washington when the Times ran the story about his student trip to Russia being a cover for his recruitment as a KGB mole.

He learned that from watching you. Nope, I always quote the RCP average and list the last several polls at Pollingreport.com, to make up for the problem of outliers, because they aggreate multiple polls.

I also quote the Gallup daily tracker, but just to describe trends.

a million|4.24.08 @ 1:15PM|#

"And I might have had a conservative, a goofy one, but a conservative that I could vote for for president."

So you'd have been happy to vote for someone who hung a noose in his law office along with the Stars and Bars? Yikes.

Webb did everyone a favor by finishing him off, but it was people like Ryan Lizza who did the dirty work.

NP|4.24.08 @ 1:34PM|#

Yet another brainless Michael Young thread. It's almost as enlightening as observing watchdog groups trying to outdo each other on the gotcha meter.

Now as for the NYT article--which is, btw, neither by Michael Young nor a prediction but an analysis--I'm not very convinced that Obama will be more of a liability than Hillary. Obama has never ranked high on the working white dudes' voting list. Add to this the fact that he has been steadily gaining on Hillary despite his recent "cling" gaffe, and you have another reason to be skeptical of his liability vis-à-vis Hillary's (though with McCain it's another matter, which is part of the NYT analysis). Obama just needs to do enough damage control until the Dem convention so that the Republican firing squad will have the least amount of ammo to burn.

|4.24.08 @ 2:11PM|#

@joe

Nope, I always quote the RCP average and list the last several polls at Pollingreport.com, to make up for the problem of outliers, because they aggreate multiple polls.

Aggregations are only as good as the data aggregated. Considering that in most cases it's questionable whether the polls are even measuring the same thing (variances in sample size, polling methodology, registered voters vs. likely voters), what you're saying is that you're getting an accurate reading by corrupting good data with bad data. What kind of track record do aggregations have predicting election results? I can pretty well guarantee I can pick out several independent pollsters who got it closer than any aggregation.

|4.24.08 @ 2:28PM|#

Sure, PM, but looking at a number of polls is still better than looking at just one.

If we knew, beforehand, which poll is the good one, it would make things so much easier, but we don't. We don't know which data is good, and which is corrupting - but by looking at a number of different polls, it increases the chances that the bad data which skews one way will be balanced by bad data that skews it another way.

Not to mention, it is still a better practice than picking whichever poll is highlighted on Red State because its numbers support that day's talking point, which is what Neil does.

TallDave|4.24.08 @ 2:33PM|#

I think Obama will probably win and might even be a pretty good President. It will definitely help put to rest the notion this is a racist country (which, ironically, was a main theme of his mentor).

Speaking of whom, I see the NYT is still talking about Wright's extremism being a liability. Heh.

|4.24.08 @ 2:46PM|#

there you go

walk it back

smart man

TallDave|4.24.08 @ 2:48PM|#

I'm not walking anything back.

Unlike you, I actually think about political issues.

TallDave|4.24.08 @ 2:51PM|#

I know, it's a novel concept for someone who just regurgitates partisan spin that Wright helps Obama, or the Wright story is dead.

But some of us do actually think for ourselves. Give it a try sometime!

TallDave|4.24.08 @ 2:55PM|#

The fact is that the rift between Barak/Hillary is too great. Yes, Democrats will vote for a whoever wins the ticket. But the Independents are going with McCain

I doubt it. Independents are squishy. As many liabilties as Obama has, the media has found their savior and that's going to be almost impossible to overcome.

At this point, he could announce he's running as a Communist and the media would immediately accuse anyone who criticized the annoucnement of McCarthyism.

TallDave|4.24.08 @ 2:58PM|#

And that's before we even get to the money advantage Obama will have after breaking his promise to use federal matching funds.

Anyways, the GOP had their run. Now it's time for the Dems to try being a serious party again.

alan|4.24.08 @ 4:17PM|#

It is pretty much McCain's race to lose, and he is fully capable of doing that.
The numbers at http://www.electoral-vote.com don't look so promising for Obama. It shows him neck and neck, and somehow North Carolina is counted as a toss up which I strongly doubt is the case. Progressives in Raleigh and Guilford are canceled out by stuck in the mud Democrats along the eastern half who are waiting for the second coming of Harry Truman but until then will keep voting for GOP presidents, leaving Charlotte (Wall Street by the Peach Grove) to decide the win.

However, to TallDave's point that if Obama were to win that would be a magical solvent for the racial problems in this country. Nope. Until Obama's race is something no one believes is worth mentioning beyond sociological curiosity, than we wont have that magical moment you are pining for, but ask yourself what are you really looking for in that magical moment. A better America, or a means of disarming the arguments of the left concerning race? Or, perhaps these two goals are not mutually exclusive in your mind as much social discard is created from the cynical manipulations of the left bent (ignore Helm's and Nixon coughing in the corner for the moment).

I'm optimistic though, teen age kids today look at race in an entirely different prism than even Gen-Xer's like me. However, lacking Gen-X skepticism will they prove to be more bovine when called upon to join mass movements, and new forms of international political disasters take root? Odd how I turned an optimistic point into a caveat.

TallDave|4.24.08 @ 4:38PM|#

but ask yourself what are you really looking for in that magical moment. A better America, or a means of disarming the arguments of the left concerning race?

LOL I don't know about a magical solvent. I'd settle for fewer nuts like Wright, though. They do more harm to blacks than the KKK could ever hope to.

The numbers at http://www.electoral-vote.com don't look so promising for Obama

Wait till after the Dem race is over, and see if you still think so.

WTF|4.24.08 @ 4:52PM|#

Uh what? Wright has done more harm than a terrorist group that killed thousands of people? Try turning the TV off sometime.

|4.24.08 @ 4:59PM|#

alan,

Until Obama's race is something no one believes is worth mentioning beyond sociological curiosity, than we wont have that magical moment you are pining for

And how, exactly, do you think the social perception of race is going to change, if not by undoing those factors that created and sustained that perception?

Invisible Finger|4.24.08 @ 5:27PM|#

my god, try looking past his skin color.

Next you'll be telling me to look past the fact that he's a rich lawyer with connections to Chicago Machine politics.

Invisible Finger|4.24.08 @ 5:29PM|#

when in fact the obstacles he faces may be linked to other unrelated factors--that he's too liberal, that voters don't know him, that he's an "elitist", etc.

No, those are all code words for "he's black".

Just like "I moved to the suburbs because of the good schools."

alan|4.24.08 @ 5:34PM|#

And how, exactly, do you think the social perception of race is going to change, if not by undoing those factors that created and sustained that perception?

You will have to be more specific.

Peter K.|4.24.08 @ 5:36PM|#

Conservatives want Hillary because they know Obama will mop the floor with McCain.

Russ 2000|4.24.08 @ 5:36PM|#

I'm pretty sure neither Obama nor McCain wants to get in a three-way with Hilary.

Invisible Finger|4.24.08 @ 5:40PM|#

Conservatives want Hillary because they know Obama will mop the floor with McCain.


They're certainly concerned about Obama's ability to raise funds.

|4.24.08 @ 5:55PM|#

The question is who's going to stay home more? Disaffected Republicans like me who won't vote for McCain, either because he doesn't believe in free speech or because he favors a realistic approach to immigration. Or male blue collar Democrats who see Obama as either black, elitist, unpatriotic, shallow, sexually threatening or just plain inexperienced. My bet is the Democrats stay home more.

TallDave|4.24.08 @ 7:03PM|#

Uh what? Wright has done more harm than a terrorist group that killed thousands of people?

The KKK was a serious problem long ago, but they haven't been much more than a bad joke for decades. People like Wright, otoh, are still actively spreading paranoid delusions of racial persecution.

GILMORE|4.24.08 @ 7:32PM|#

Dave you make me feel warm and fuzzy when you put a cap on the LOL fest.

Really.

WTF|4.24.08 @ 8:02PM|#

So, um, how many black people has Wright killed? You said he's done more harm to black people than the KKK could ever hope to.

Get some perspective.

TallDave|4.24.08 @ 9:55PM|#

LOL Gilmore, this is just for you:

One month on and Iraq's leader can justifiably claim to have scored a stunning victory, probably the first of its kind by the post-Saddam Iraqi army. The most notorious areas of Basra are now under government control, the Mahdi Army of Moqtadr al-Sadr has been roundly defeated and the long suffering people of Basra are celebrating freedoms they did not enjoy during the four years of British military rule in the city.

PIC Men in black vanish and Basra comes to life

So how did a military novice, using untested troops, succeed where thousands of British forces had failed?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3671819.ece

TallDave|4.24.08 @ 9:59PM|#

You said he's done more harm to black people than the KKK could ever hope to.

No, I said he is doing more harm. I used the present tense. The KKK is not currently killing thousands of people; it barely exists. Wright's brand of paranoia, though, is alive and well and doing mroe harm to blacks than the KKK could ever hope to.

|4.25.08 @ 12:33AM|#

Obama's problem is not just that he's a negro, but that he's a pompous, uppity negro. Four years after the debacle of 2004, the Dems not only find a candidate more aloof and condescending than John Kerry (an almost impossible task) but they find one who also happens to be black. Bravo, idiots.