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.

For the majority of the US, we are ready! Honestly , the only way we as Americans are ever going to be FULLY ready is to JUST DO IT!

There is still far too much racial hatred, often hiden behind smiles and acting polictially correct. But just a look at far too many churches and other groups, I will not name denominations, but in how many cities are there black and white churches of this type of that type. And in one local church here, that has a racial mix, there is still serious racial issues because of a new black pastor ( all the previous have always been white)

So many in America still does not accept a mixed race couple.

On the surface America puts on a happy face of racial love but in many places in the south, the AMERICAN LEGION still have separate white and black POSTS, So just like those of the other party will not accept anything Bush wants because he or his party wants it, you will have the issues that the other party will be against anything he wants just because he or his party wants it, but every thing he does will be second thought from a racial view point

I agree with you on the southern states of the US, FrChuck... 100%. However, there will ALWAYS be racial issues; they will never dissipate. It's either now or never; something has to get the ball going.

I am ready to vote BEYOND racial or gender identities. I think it insulting to the candidates that they are being voted for first and foremost based on their race or gender. Is this really "post racial" MLK ideals?

I will vote for the candidate that I agree with most on the majority of issues - Economy, taxes, health, Iraq/Afghanistan/terror, abortion, immigration, 2nd amendment, energy, freedom of speech, property rights etc...

I know I was in real America today * the local Dollar Store and Walmart** and they were not even calling the people by name, they were talking black ( or worst) and women and they were voting not for what the people stood for but because of race or sex. I asked them some questions on issues and was called a rasist by the Obama supporters for questioning his stand on some subject.

The answer is yes, but not for Obama or Hillary. Colin Powell could run as a Democrat or Republican and win, as long as he stayed 'middle of the road', at least in this election cycle. Colin Powell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell)

Not what I have seen as an outsider looking in! Unfortunate!

I see another side of it. I see that in some cases so many go overboard with PC... so I think that there are plenty who would vote for someone because they are black or female.

Not what i have seen as an outsider looking in! Unfortunate!
Some of you need to wake up and smell the roses, so to speak. I live in a small community, Deep South, probably 75% white; the local city government, with district wide voting, elected its first black commissioner thirty years ago! Claims of cultural shift in deep south put to test | World news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/09/usa.barackobama1)
Why don't you give some serious consideration to who Obama is? Do you believe he just appeared out of thin air to run for president? Do you believe Jimmy Carter appeared in 1974 when he announced his candidacy? Remember this is the USA, with many powerful people and institutions. Obama did not just wake up one day and decide, "Hey, I'm running for president."
He is first and foremost a Democrat, as is Hillary. Without beginning to research this subject, it stands to reason that very powerful Democrats did not want Hillary, who thought she had the nomination in the bag by Super Tuesday. And how were they going to sell Obama to America's gullible and uninformed public? Why Obama is a man of the people; he gets five and ten dollar donations over the internet; why, Obama is part white, a true American of mixed races. And, he is bi-partisan.
Obama was provided with a veneer that has been seriously worn and undermined. But he is a creation of the anti-Clinton Democrat activists who decided they had enough of that crowd. Obama has none of the qualities that would qualify him as a serious contender for the office he seeks. Remember, the Democrat Party is controlled by the far left, and after eight years out of office, the Clinton machine has been practically immobilized.
The Jimmy Carter race is the closest thing I can compare this year's contest with. Carter v. the unelected Gerald Ford. It was a matter of shaming Republicans with the mistakes of Nixon, and contrasting that image with the intelligent, reform-minded, governor of Georgia. The parallels are already in play with Democrats taunting McCain as a third term for Bush. The fact is that Bush is really more of a centrist Democrat than a Reagan Republican; but that's another subject.

You can kiss the woman part bye-bye: Hillary is 404 (http://www.hillaryis404.org/)

I voted yes . There are many experienced and competent Blacks and Females I'd have no problem voting for. Had Condi Rice decided to run we would've had a Black Female competent experienced candidate . It would have been interesting to see if the Dems would've then called the election historic.

Hell yes, America is more than ready, if for no other reason than fixing what is broken. Not pointing fingers, but..!

Curlyben
Bottom line is that there is a high degree of probability that the Democrat candidate will win . McCain is going out of his way in the last couple of weeks to put a fork in his candidacy by alienating his Republican base.

I guess the big positive of that will be that questions about the gender or race of the American President will be consigned to the trash heap.

If we can survive 4 years of their nanny-state policies perhaps we will follow the lead of Europeean countries like France ,Germany , Italy ,(even London!! They got rid of "Red Ken") and say goodby to the socialist leaning governments .

I voted yes . There are many experienced and competent Blacks and Females I'd have no problem voting for. Had Condi Rice decided to run we would've had a Black Female competent experienced candidate . It would have been interesting to see if the Dems would've then called the election historic.
It's funny: Bill Clinton is "blacker" than Condi Rice or Clarence Thomas, not to mention numerous black intellectuals who are ignored by MSM.

Curlyben
Bottom line is that there is a high degree of probability that the Democrat candidate will win . McCain is going out of his way in the last couple of weeks to put a fork in his candidacy by alienating his Republican base.
I believe your prediction is based more upon emotion than intellect. What are they saying in Vegas? It is almost six months before election day, more than an eternity in politics. We may be in a period of historic realignment; give McCain some slack. He can run against Congress, something Obama can't do. My prediction is that voters will be sorely tired of Obama by November.

Curlyben
Bottom line is that there is a high degree of probability that the Democrat candidate will win . McCain is going out of his way in the last couple of weeks to put a fork in his candidacy by alienating his Republican base.

Tomder, don't get me wrong, but I'm glad to see American politics join the 21st Century.


I guess the big positive of that will be that questions about the gender or race of the American President will be consigned to the trash heap..

They would go down in history for being a FIRST in America, like our own Margaret_Thatcher.
The only thing that really matters is that they are American.

Tomder, don't get me wrong, but I'm glad to see American politics join the 21st Century. They would go down in history for being a FIRST in America, like our own Margaret_Thatcher.
The only thing that really matters is that they are American.
Neither Obama or Hillary, or the combination of both, compare to Thatcher; I'm willing to wait until someone of that substance is ready.

I meat that either would be a FIRST in American history, that was the only comparison I was drawing here ;)

I believe your prediction is based more upon emotion than intellect.

Perhaps ;if his historic realignment leaves conservatives out of the tent then even if he wins we lose.
Yeah ;there was a lot of emotion when I heard him smack down the NC Republicans for using an ad that had Rev Wright video in it. And last night I was steaming when he flipped on his promise to make border enforcement his immigration priority . He is now back saying the same stuff about "comprehensive reform " that we already know is code for amnesty.



He can run against Congress, something Obama can't do.


True in the sense that he makes a good case about not requesting earmarks . However ;he has a big footprint himself in Congress and his name is up front on a lot of legislation I'm not thrilled about.
The other day he was making some sound arguments about judicial apointments then he blew it by reminding us that he was one of the leaders of the "Gang of 14" .

Don't get me wrong . He is heads and tails above the Democrats in the issue of national security and the war by jihadists on us. He also has a better resume and is right about government spending .So he will get my vote. But it would be nice to know that he considered my vote for him important.

McCain will appear on O'Reilly tonight, 9 pm and 12 am, EDT. He's neither black nor female, and he comes from the warrior class, so expect O'Reilly to be penetrating.

McCain will appear on O'Reilly tonight, 9 pm and 12 am, EDT. He's neither black nor female, and he comes from the warrior class, so expect O'Reilly to be penetrating.Actually I expect O'Reilly to lob fluffy questions at him. They're on the same side :)

Actually I expect O'Reilly to lob fluffy questions at him. They're on the same side :)
How silly, but certainly you can have your own opinion. Lately, O'Reilly blushes every time Obama's name comes up. And did you see his interview with Hillary? They got along very well, and the interview was better than any other that I saw.

I see another side of it. I see that in some cases so many go overboard with PC...so I think that there are plenty who would vote for someone because they are black or female.


Good point it is clear that exit polling has not given the same results as voting data . I think the early caucus format clearly launched Obama's campaign and there was a PC element to the results .

Wrechard at Belmont Club has some interesting observations about the Democrat primary
The Belmont Club: "Death is lighter than a feather" (http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2008/05/death-is-lighter-than-feather.html)

Hillary's campaign has transformed the politics of this nomination from a contest between individual candidates to a contest between the coalition partners of the Democratic Party. The downside of Hillary's efforts to portray Obama as the "Black Candidate", helped along not a little by Obama himself and Jeremiah Wright means that he is the Black Candidate now.
For that reason Obama will be almost invulnerable to personal criticism among the factions which supports him. After decades of loyally supporting a liberal white candidate, the emergence of a viable "Black Candidate" means a significant bloc of the Democratic Party now feels entitled to take their turn. Hillary's people have no standing in selecting who this bloc candidate is going to be. Any objection that Obama, at 46 can wait his turn, misses the point. It's not Obama's turn. It is the Black Voter bloc's turn. The Faustian bargain has come due. And Hillary is welshing.
This might have been a good thing if Barack Obama were a moderate Democrat. But in addition to being the Black voter's candidate, he is also the chosen representative of the Party's Left. They too feel it is "their turn".
Hillary's campaign was one of those classic cases where the political past was used to predict the future. What worked in the past would work again. This time, though, the Clintons came across a discontinuity. A literal Black Swan. Past trends no longer held. The quiescent Black votes bloc has surged to the front of the bus and demanded their seat from the liberal white party elite.

Actually I expect O'Reilly to lob fluffy questions at him. They're on the same side :)

I will guarantee O'Reilly will be tough on him.

There will always be racial issues in this country, and I see it coming from both sides.

With the black theology preachers who continue to spread the hatred, and white sepratisist groups who do the same, it will take hundreds of more years for this issue to fade.

I do have one question that never seems to be addressed when it comes to the issues of our history of slavery.

Who is more responsible for slavery?

The black men who sold their own people into slavery?

Or,

The white men that bought them?

Before you answer, lets try a side by side comparison:

Who is more responsible?

The man who stole your car?

OR,

The man that bought it from the man who stole it?

If this seems too far away from the intended survey here, move it, I only ask here because this issue seems to be at the root of all the racial issues we face in the United States.

Your analogy is not on point unless you stipulate that the purchasers of stolen cars have a right to purchase stolen cars. Having said that, I believe 'affirmative action' is wrong, and I believe a large number of Dems have a guilt complex about the circumstances of how blacks got to the U.S. and the poor treatment some endured.

I believe we are ready, for the most part.
I am afraid for Obama's life, considering there are still people out there willing to kill based on race alone.
I will not vote for Hilary, to me she is the worst candidate...
I have mixed feelings on McCain...
This is the toughest vote ever, and I am anxious to see what we all do in the upcoming election!

I think America is ready for a black or female president, I just don't if they're ready for the current choices. I just want the best and I don't think any of the three major candidates are the best - but the old white guy comes closest. What's curious in all this talk about race and gender, it's blacks that are less likely to vote for someone else. Obama won some 90 percent of the black vote in both states Tuesday. Imagine if 9 out of 10 whites had voted for Hillary...

I agree Speechless...
The choices are just not there and it seems RickJ may have hit it on the head when he said it very well could be about the gender or the race. I could really care less, if we could get one good son of a gun in there and do the right stuff to make America come to life! ;)
Ohhh I am so full of ideas but not many people are willing to give up their second car, or their manicures so it just won't work... lol
Ok, I just really wanted to take the poll and have my say so I am out of here...

Imagine if 9 out of 10 whites had voted for Hillary...
Maybe not for Hillary, but how about Ron(Reagen) or GeorgeI, II. That's the way its always been, so why call foul now??

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

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

In 2004 (http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_04.html), 58% of whites voted for Bush, 41% for Kerry, and 88% of blacks voted for Kerry.

In 2000 (http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_00.html), 54% of whites voted for Bush, 43% for Gore, and 90% of blacks voted for Gore.

In 1988 (http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_88.html), 60% of whites voted for Bush, 40% for Dukakis, and 89% of blacks voted for Dukakis.

In 1984 (http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_84.html), 62% of whites voted for Reagan, 38% for Mondale, and 91% of blacks voted for Mondale.

In 1980 (http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_80.html), 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.

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.

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 :)...

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.

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.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v89/mhking/blog/condicartoon_1.jpg

http://home.twcny.rr.com/sampierce/condi_whitey.jpg

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?

The question is what does it say about blacks and their inexplicable devotion to Democrats?

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?

Why is the far majority of KKK members registered Republican?? OK! I'm not going there! :p 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."

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.

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.

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.

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 (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/clinton-touts-white-support/)

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?

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.

One of the wonderful things about America, is that it is so diversified.

Some will vote along party lines, some racial, some gender, but I believe most, will vote for who they think is the best canadate regardless of race or gender.

To me, it's the media that focuses on gender and race, not the majority of Americans, who want the best darn candidate for our country.

We want to hold our heads up high and be proud once again and it matters not what the look like, but more what they stand for.

Americans are longing for a change and longing for the best canadate who will bring all of us worldwide, the most positive one.

Well said Allheart. If more people thought like you, we would already have a great happy country.


The question is what does it say about blacks and their inexplicable devotion to Democrats?

As your graphics point out, when your choices are Reagen or Bush, a Democrat is much more appealing, given their fiscal policies. Unless McCain can separate himself from Bush, he is in deep do-do!