Seriously is America really ready and prepared for a Black or Female President ???

I'm not looking for political rhetoric here, just honest opinions.
Also which would be your preference.

talaniman

Maybe not for Hillary, but how about Ron(Reagen) or GeorgeI, II. Thats the way its always been, so why call foul now???

speechlesstx

Who's crying foul? Let's take a look back though since you mention it...

In 2004, 58% of whites voted for Bush, 41% for Kerry, and 88% of blacks voted for Kerry.

In 2000, 54% of whites voted for Bush, 43% for Gore, and 90% of blacks voted for Gore.

In 1988, 60% of whites voted for Bush, 40% for Dukakis, and 89% of blacks voted for Dukakis.

In 1984, 62% of whites voted for Reagan, 38% for Mondale, and 91% of blacks voted for Mondale.

In 1980, 56% of whites voted for Reagan, 36% for Carter, and 83% of blacks voted for Carter.

A little more than half of whites vote Republican, nearly 9 out of 10 blacks vote for the Democrat regardless of the candidate...and now nearly 9 out of 10 are rejecting Hillary. I just think it's worth noting that blacks seem to be the only group with little diversity in their voting habits.

talaniman

What does that say about white republican men, and their relationship with black voters? And this is the first election ever with a choice beside white guys.

tomterm8

The simple fact as I see it is that the people who would vote for obama (blacks, liberals etc) would have little choice but to vote for clinton, whereas people who vote for clinton could conceivably vote for the Republicans rather than a black president.

p.s. Thatcher wasn't thatcher until she was elected ....

speechlesstx

The question is what does it say about blacks and their inexplicable devotion to Democrats? This president has had the first black Secretary of State, the first black female Secretary of State and more black cabinet members than any other. Successful, conservative blacks are routinely mocked, caricatured, called oreos and traitors, etc. - and not just by blacks.





The thing is, many if not most blacks share Republican values yet they still vote Democratic. Why is that? What exactly have the Democrats done for blacks in America?

BABRAM

Why is the far majority of KKK members registered Republican??? OK! I'm not going there! But seriously you've asked a good question here.

Republicans have had many politicians and layman on the forefront of civil rights issues and that is well documented. Every bit as equal to Democrats in the early civil rights era. Some have even concluded that MLK Jr. himself as a social conservative (and Republican), which I believe as ambiguous as that may sound most of us are social conservatives to a certain degree. But to answer your question more specifically it was during LBJ's full term that most Blacks became routine Democrats. Just read a part of LBJ's work biography history and it's fairly clear that he was the right president, being in the right place at the right time.

"Civil rights

President Johnson signs the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964; (pictured, Martin Luther King stands just behind and slightly to the right of Johnson) In conjunction with the civil rights movement, Johnson overcame southern resistance and convinced Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed most forms of racial segregation. Johnson signed it into law on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that, as he put down his pen, Johnson told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation," anticipating a coming backlash from Southern whites against Johnson's Democratic Party.[29] In 1965, he achieved passage of a second civil rights bill, the Voting Rights Act, that outlawed discrimination in voting, thus allowing millions of southern blacks to vote for the first time.

In 1967, Johnson nominated civil rights attorney Thurgood Marshall to be the first African American Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. After the murder of civil rights worker Viola Liuzzo, Johnson went on television to announce the arrest of four Ku Klux Klansmen implicated in her death. He angrily denounced the Klan as a "hooded society of bigots", and warned them to "return to a decent society before it's too late." He turned the themes of Christian redemption to push for civil rights, thereby mobilizing support from churches North and South.

At the Howard University commencement address on June 4, 1965, he said that both the government and the nation needed to help achieve goals:

...To shatter forever not only the barriers of law and public practice, but the walls which bound the condition of many by the color of his skin. To dissolve, as best we can, the antique enmities of the heart which diminish the holder, divide the great democracy, and do wrong — great wrong — to the children of God...'.


Great Society
The Great Society program became Johnson's agenda for Congress in January 1965: aid to education, attack on disease, Medicare, urban renewal, beautification, conservation, development of depressed regions, a wide-scale fight against poverty, control and prevention of crime, and removal of obstacles to the right to vote. Congress, at times augmenting or amending, enacted many of Johnson's recommendations.


Federal aid to education

Johnson had a lifelong commitment to the belief that education was the cure for both ignorance and poverty, and was an essential component of the American Dream, especially for minorities who endured poor facilities and tight-fisted budgets from local taxes. He made education a top priority of the Great Society, with an emphasis on helping poor children. After the 1964 landslide brought in many new liberal Congressmen, he had the votes for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. For the first time large amounts of federal money went to public schools. In practice ESEA meant helping all public school districts, with more money going to districts that had large proportions of students from poor families (which included all the big cities). However, for the first time private schools (most of them Catholic schools in the inner cities) received services, such as library funding, comprising about 12% of the ESEA budget. As Dallek reports, researchers soon found that poverty had more to do with family background and neighborhood conditions than the quantity of education a child received. Early studies suggested initial improvements for poor kids helped by ESEA reading and math programs, but later assessments indicated that benefits faded quickly and left students little better off than those not in the programs. Johnson’s second major education program was the “Higher Education Act of 1965," which focused on funding for lower income students, including grants, work-study money, and government loans. He set up the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts, to support humanists and artists (as the WPA once did). Although ESEA solidified Johnson's support among K12 teachers' unions, neither the Higher Education act nor the Endowments mollified the college professors and students growing increasingly uneasy with the war in Vietnam.

War on poverty

In 1964, upon Johnson's request, Congress passed a tax-reduction law and the Economic Opportunity Act, which was in association with the war on poverty."

BABRAM

I voted "yes."

Die-hard with a blind vengeance Republicans are not voting against Barack Obama because he's an African-American, or Hillary Clinton because she's of female gender. Rather it's that both Democrats represent an ideology that opposes continuing a war in Iraq for a lengthy extended time, and the failed magic of Bush voodoo economics.

tomder55

That is true .

The question is then extended to the motivation behind the people who are voting for either of the Democrat candidates .There is little difference in policy ,so what are the factors that make a Hillary supporter say they would not vote for Obama in the general election or visa versa ?

Clinton Touts White Support - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

BABRAM

Tom-

For one Hillary lacks the trust of the people, even within her own party. The Obamists are likened to the Republicans in the sense that they've both dealt with the Clinton's head on. I agree both Democratic candidates are very similar on the issues with exception of a few wrinkles here and there. But the biggest separation between the two candidates is ability to communicate with rational. Obama's simply more stable and far more level headed to speak in any heated exchange or diplomatic confrontation.

There is plenty of time between now and November for the Hillary supporters to recognize Obama is their choice candidate over the Republican "John McCain." The only way McCain gets elected is if the DNC strips Obama of a fair victory causing a split in the party. If that happens most Obama supporters are likely to stay at home, or support him to run as an Independent, which in effect still probably gets McCain elected. Obama has a much more professional demeanor and compliments Hillary despite her actions. I just hope the DNC or someone with rank addresses Hillary for her divisive selfish attitude and unites the Democratic party before it gets out of hand. But with Howard Dean in charge, who knows what might happen?!

tomder55

Glad you feel that way . As you know ,I think Obama is the weaker general election candidate. If the Republicans has picked a better candidate we might be looking at a McGovern style whooping. But given McCain's propensity to offend his own base;we are most likely looking at a close election that could go either way.