It should be a Democratic year...then why this???

[mobvok]

I don't buy Susan Estrich's argument. Look at recent history- the biggest margin any Presidential candidate can reasonably expect is +10 on election day. What's Obama? RCP has him +4 right now, Fivethirtyeight has +2, and we're still only in mid-July. It's hard to deny that Bush's actions have skewed from traditional conservative rhetoric, whether you think that's an inevitable consequence of electing conservatives is beside the point. I think many conservative-leaning people are looking at McCain and able to justify supporting him despite the last 8 years because he says he'll embrace the conservative principles that Bush pulled away from.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Well, there are people with all kinds of rationale why they would not vote for Obama, but for Powell, or not for Powell as well, or who would not vote for Powell, but for Obama, or not for Obama either, that are (un-)consciously racist, and many others with the same variety of rationales who are not in any way racist, not even unconsciously.

 

[deep]

totally rational, just complex.

as race is.

i'm not offering an answer. i'm not saying that if you don't vote for Obama you're a racist, nor am i saying that if you vote for Obama you're voting out of white guilt.

what i am saying is that race shades our perceptions, sometimes imperceptibly.

and if you're wondering, i think gender is even more complex.

it seems like we go back and forth on this

I have always said bias exist, and I believe that blatant bias is the less problematic because it is obvious.

Show me a person without any bias,

and I will show you a dead person

and yes, there are crazy racists that are agitated by Obama's rise.


These same people were probably right there spreading the swift boat lies against John Kerry. They are all part of the same pool. imo

It would be a more interesting conversation if we had two very similar candidates, with the exception of just race.


that clearly is not the case in this contest.

we have one of the least experienced candidates, in Obama

there are only 2, I would say that were less qualified

I considered W to be unqualified in 2000, even though he claimed executive experience as a Governor.
Ross Perot, was the least qualified person I can recall to get any real serious consideration.

 

[Irvine511]

if experience is all that matters,

then Rumsfeld and Cheney are your guys.

 

[Salome]

to be honest
here in The Netherlands the coverage of the Hillary - Obama race was probably something like 0.05% of what it was in the US
and I'm already sick of both of them

I think Obama would already do better by getting no media coverage for a bit

otherwise I agree mobvok
it doesn't make sense expecting landslide victories

 

[Strongbow]

You'd also have a good number of people who would/will vote for Obama but would not vote for Colin Powell if given that choice.

Especially today, Powell is really damaged goods. Pity for him.

I certainly have not seen any evidence of that, although he would not be able to win by the margins he could of won by in 1996.

 

[Harry Vest]

What's with many American's obsession with "experiance" - isn't it "experiance" that got you into Vietnam and Iraq. Maybe it's high time for someone with little or no "experiance". Something a bit more refreshing.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Well, deep's argument probably would then be that the Americans already did the experiment with the refreshing, unexperienced President eight years ago.

 

[maycocksean]

Well, deep's argument probably would then be that the Americans already did the experiment with the refreshing, unexperienced President eight years ago.

Truth be told, I can see why Deep worries about the experience issue. I never realized how much damage a truly bad president could do until Bush. So I can see how he'd be very worried about putting yet another person who is essentially unknown and untested back in office. Better the devil you know, then a maybe angel/maybe devil you don't.

For me, though I think Bush's disastorous administration had less to do with his lack of experience and more to do with with his lack of judgement and his willingness to heed the advice of people in his adminstration (who incidentally were VERY experienced) who had what basically added up to bad ideology. I've always liked the way Obama thinks--far more than his much vaunted charisma. I could never have said that about Bush. From what I've learned about Obama's thought processes and approaches to the issues, I feel comfortable with him being our president, his lack of experience not withstanding.

 

[Vincent Vega]

That's right, and that is something I often miss when the experience gets discussed. Suddenly, all focus is on only that single aspect and Bush and Obama get compared as if there was nothing else. Bush had little experience and was a bad President, Obama has little experience, ergo we can make the case he will be like Bush, when in fact that is about all they have in similarities.
That Obama seems to get a grasp on what he is talking about, seems way more knowledgeable and open-minded and gives confidence to hear everybody out sometimes gets entirely ignored. No, it's Obama the inexperienced, look at Bush.

 

[Irvine511]

I've always liked the way Obama thinks--far more than his much vaunted charisma. I could never have said that about Bush. From what I've learned about Obama's thought processes and approaches to the issues, I feel comfortable with him being our president, his lack of experience not withstanding.

i haven't heard a candidate speak in such calm, balanced, nuanced, thorough terms about any subject in my lifetime. there's very little impulse with Obama, which would be a nice change from Bush, who was all guts (who needs brains when you've got guts?)

this is why the "inexperience" label doesn't bother me in this situation.

 

[financeguy]

i think a lot of people won't vote for Obama because he's black, but they'll never acknowledge that, not even to themselves.

so they search around for reasons not to vote for him that seem detached from race, and put him under a level of scrutiny that they never would another candidate,

so that when they don't vote for him because he's black,

they can say they didn't vote for him not because he's black.

This is about as logical as saying a lot of people who voted for John Kerry must have been racists. After all, Bush had more black people in his cabinet, so the racists all voted for Kerry, clearly.

 

[Irvine511]

This is about as logical as saying a lot of people who voted for John Kerry must have been racists. After all, Bush had more black people in his cabinet, so the racists all voted for Kerry, clearly.

no it isn't.

firstly, Kerry didn't have a cabinet. you don't get one of those until you're elected.

race is a salient issue, and it manifests itself in conscious and sub-conscious ways, and quite honestly, this is something that's fairly unique to the United States, when talking specifically about black/white racial issues. there are a million subtle ways that race makes itself known in this country -- it's not all pernicious, it's not like all white people are vicious racists, not at all ... it's a subtle thing -- and i think we're fooling ourselves if we tell ourselves that we're colorblind or that race doesn't "matter."

 

[dazzledbylight]

i think a lot of people won't vote for Obama because he's black, but they'll never acknowledge that, not even to themselves.
so they search around for reasons not to vote for him that seem detached from race, and put him under a level of scrutiny that they never would another candidate,
so that when they don't vote for him because he's black,

they can say they didn't vote for him not because he's black.

sadly a partial amen..............
which IS a crying shame!

 

[dazzledbylight]

but these are rationalizations to live with the racist/sexist impulse that i don't think is even necessarily all that conscious.

unfortunatley yes..........BUT

Hoping there are LESS of them, than we might be afriad that there ARE.


I HOPE that was clear!

 

[dazzledbylight]

race is a salient issue, and it manifests itself in conscious and sub-conscious ways, and quite honestly, this is something that's fairly unique to the United States, when talking specifically about black/white racial issues.

*there are a million subtle ways that race makes itself known in this country -- it's not all pernicious, it's not like all white people are vicious racists, not at all ... it's a subtle thing -- and i think we're fooling ourselves if we tell ourselves that we're colorblind or that race doesn't "matter."

*high-lighted by dazz.

Oh, this is SO true.

How do I know this?

I am white but I have spent decades off & on listening to black people on Black/Urban/Public radio ( panel discussians/ phone-ins), similar panels on TV and my black work acquantences, & balck friends about their experiences.
And reading many Op-eds, and articles/interviews in various magazines and newspapers.

On rare occasions I've recognized it in myself, and worked on correcting that.

 

[maycocksean]

That Obama seems to get a grasp on what he is talking about, seems way more knowledgeable and open-minded and gives confidence to hear everybody out sometimes gets entirely ignored. No, it's Obama the inexperienced, look at Bush.