Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion
In a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit DiscussionIn a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
In 1972 I was 21 years old, town campaign manager for the McGovern Presidential campaign,and as idealistic and devoted to McGovern as any young Obama supporter today. What a high we experienced the night that McGovern won the nomination; what disappointment we felt the night of the election. In time, information was discovered that the Republicans had hoped for, indeed, planned on a McGovern candidacy, as they viewed him as the weakest candidate. Yes, McGovern enjoyed tremendous support from a new generation of young voters; and yes, we couldn’t have made the Republicans — and I do mean Richard Nixon et al — happier.
One of the most disillusioning revelations post-election 1972 was that many Republicans had influenced the outcome of primaries by registering as Democrats precisely in order to vote for McGovern. It was, in fact, the first time that voters were allowed to switch their party on primary day in NJ, and the Republicans evidently took advantage of it. Over time, I learned the painful truth that political decisions do not necessarily reflect the will of the supporters of any position or candidate; elections and voters can be and are manipulated in many ways. Voter idealism is an opportunity for exploitation by manipulators with less than idealistic goals.
In 2008, I see this blind idealism again in the young, first-time-voters and caucus participants in Iowa and elsewhere. And it raises for me the same concerns that I wish I had seen in 1972 but could only perceive and understand retrospectively some years later.
Specifically, I find it alarming that, as of January 2nd, 70-something-% of Iowans who supported Obama and were polled were first time caucus-participants. 20% were reported to be Republicans who planned on changing party to support Obama in the caucus. And I believe around 30-40% were Independents who had not been drawn into a caucus ever before.
While this all sounds quite positive for Obama, lets stop and consider, first of all, that 20% of his supporters are Republicans. How likely is it that Republicans in Iowa — a state which has never elected a woman governor, congressman or senator, no less a Black one — are switching parties to vote for the first serious Black Democrat contender? Were they closeted progressives all these years, just waiting for the most sincere and true Democrat for change to run? If so, how did they miss Howard Dean in 2004? I think that the 20% Republican support can be explained as well if not better by the hypothesis that the Republicans are again trying to tip the caucus in favor of a candidate who ultimately would have great difficulty in winning the national election.
The 30-40% Independents who have never before found a candidate of either party to support at a caucus are equally, if not more, suspect. Mind you, these are people who would have not even come out to support Iowa favorite son Tom Harkin when he ran in the past in Presidential primaries. Most Independents I know are proudly and stubbornly independent — they’re suspect of politics in general, eschew registering allegiance to ANY party, Dem, Repub or 3rd party, and do not mind one bit not being able to choose a party candidate during the primaries by maintaining their independent status. Are we to believe, without question, that such a large number of Independents have somehow shaken loose from their prized independent status because Obama is such a great candidate? I don’t think so.
Which brings us down to the great NON-QUESTION of the 2008 primaries: are Caucasian Americans really ready to vote for a Black/minority president? Well maybe this is less of a non-question than it is the non-discussed question of the season. Listening to a panel of supposed election experts from the far-right Enterprise Institute discussing possible primary outcome scenarios, I was almost convinced, as they insisted, that there just was no reason at all to think that race would influence voter preferences. I actually had to stop and think: wait a minute, there still is a serious underclass in the U.S., isnt there? and that underclass contains most of the 16% of Americans who are Black, right? (As Obama correctly noted recently, there are still more college-age young Black men in prison than there are in college — a statistic that has not changed since I first heard it reported 20 years ago.) Of course other minorities are found in the underclass, but the majority of Blacks are found there.
Who keeps Blacks in the underclass? Certainly predominately white communities, companies, law firms, professional schools, etc. But it happens daily in many ways and is ignored and hence implicitly supported by most Caucasian Americans. Support for Obama is very real in some sectors, very politically correct in others. Don’t tell me that MANY Americans, of both parties, have not considered the possibility of and experience some trepidation when they envision a government dominated by Black Americans.
I’m not saying I’m among them. But when it comes to evaluating Obama’s true chances for winning a national election that requires winning the hard South and Conservative Western states, one simply can’t ignore the issue of race and how it could influence the outcome of the election.
Prove me wrong. Let’s start a real discussion of this important issue NOW, while the primary season is in its infancy. Let’s be conscious of the possibility of cynical manipulation of our youngest and often our most idealistic voters. Let’s pick a presidential candidate with our eyes, ears and minds open to the most critical question of electibility in November 2008.
(117 votes, average: 3.09 out of 5)
Irregular Times
New Button Designs
68 queries. 1.146 seconds
Top Article Last Week
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Maybe this makes me young and naive, but I don’t agree with you. I think America by individual progression and by generational replacement has changed. I think Barack Obama offers people a story of social, political and personal redemption that is tempting. I think the hard-core racists would never vote for a Democrat in the first place. And I think that we collectively tried the “electability” strategy in 2004 with John Kerry. Voting for someone “who can win” gave us someone who did not win. How about just voting and seeing if a person does win? An election is the ultimate test of electability.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Time will prove you right or wrong, jerseydem. Stick around and watch. Your article is a rather hopeless endorsement of Hillary Clinton, though… or is it Edwards?
I think Americans are ready to stop thinking of Barack Obama as of one race or another, and to start thinking of him as Barack Obama.
Are Caucasian Americans really ready to vote for a Black/minority president? They just did, in Iowa.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:41 am
Jim suggests that Obama is electable because “America by individual progression and by generational replacement has changed.” But how does this reconcile with the fact that America has a long-standing underclass populated in large part by minorities, Black, Latino and other? My whole point is that we should not just hope America has changed, all the while ignoring the evidence to the contrary.
Jclifford points to the Iowa caucus as proof that America is really ready to vote for a Black/minority president. This, too, ignores the reality of the Black underclass. It also ignores the fact that what happened in Iowa was that a Black candidate got 38% of the votes casted (still a minority of Iowa voters), meaning that 62% went to Caucasian candidates. And remember that Iowans did not elect Obama president; they did not even vote to give him all of the delegates that Iowa is entitled to send to the National Convention; just 38% of them.
In the Summer of 1972, the overwhelming majority of Democratic primary voters chose McGovern as the Democratic presidential candidate. In November 1972, McGovern carried just 1 state: Massachusetts. My question remains: will Obama do better? His success in the Iowa caucus does not foretell how he would do in a general election in November, when the majority of votes will be cast by Caucasian Americans who are, unfortunately, quite comfortable with the ongoing underclass.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:43 am
Yes, we make the six hour drive to Sioux Falls to see McGovern concession speech in person.
Then there were the Dirty Tricks to get rid of Muskie, the best Democrat in the pack. Some of the cash money the Watergate plumbers were running around with in their pockets–who was it died in that plane crash with all that cash on them?–that was for dirty tricks against Muskie.
The Republicans now are more tricky than during Watergate, they have the war rhetoric to excuse anything. They have legal wiretapping in place, does anyone really think they will not use it for political gain?
Perhaps the question to ask about Obama is not whether Americans will accept a black but whether blacks can be leader for all of America and not just that small minority. Google Obama’s church and tell me whether it is racist.
If Obama is such an incredibly smart person, why is he listening to Jesse?
January 4th, 2008 at 1:57 am
Iroquois asked: “Perhaps the question to ask about Obama is not whether Americans will accept a black but whether blacks can be leader for all of America and not just that small minority.”
Whether or not we like it, I think that this is a question that many Caucasian-Americans will ask themselves between now and election day November 2008. I also think that rationally or not, many voters will wonder whether there would be a backlash from the Black community if Obama is elected.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:13 am
On the whole I think whites know a lot more about blacks than blacks know about whites. Most whites have an idea that there are a lot of different types of blacks, but what blacks know about white is that the White Man (and this includes women) is The Oppressor. No room there for any variation between individuals. Gosh, isn’t that the definition of prejudice? but that’s not a question one can ask out loud. It will be asked in the voting booth of course.
Edwards and Clinton both are now paying lip service at least to “the middle class,” but Obama belongs to a church that is against the “middle class.” Does Obama get it? If he is going to be president he had better get it.
I used to think Obama was incredibly capable, after all he is American African black not African-American, a huge difference when it come to attitude, but why is he spending so much time in NC with the holy roller crowd? His spin doctors are telling him the wrong thing and he is paying attention, where is his judgment?
It’s like walking into a music store and heading straight for the Gospel section and ignoring the 90 percent of the other music in the store. He’s not acting like presidential material any more.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Perhaps the question is whether people of the Iroquois-jerseydem generation will accept a mixed race candidate like Obama.
The rest of us have moved on past the race issue.
jerseydem, Obama won, and I don’t think that John Edwards and Hillary Clinton got the votes they did because of Obama’s mixed ethnic heritage.
This is not 1972. I don’t know anyone with a black and white television set or mindset.
I am concerned with Obama’s willingness to use religion and to associate with gay-bashers. I have other concerns with other candidates too, though, and is the only candidate who can win who opposed the Iraq War from the start.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Generation? I don’t think that’s it.
Do you live in an urban area, jClifford? Do you ride the bus, the train, with people who look just like you, or do you actually interact socially with any black people? Have you ever been to Obama’s church? Do you really think Obama ‘gets it’ about what has to happen with the country? Neighborhoods like his are quiveringly eager to attract a Walmart even though you can drive through white rural America and see the devastation this has brought to the local economies.
Jerseydem’s point is that Obama was not elected by Democratic Iowans who were attracted to his politics. He was elected by Republican Iowans who think he is the easiest Democratic candidate to beat.
If it is indeed true that 20% of Obama’s support was from Republicans and 30-40% from ‘independents’ who are becoming politically active for the first time, that is quite frightening.
Ultra-liberal, anti-war McGovern didn’t just carry Massachusetts after the Republicans picked him to run against their candidate. He carried South Dakota as well. Two states. McGovern was perfectly all right as senator for conservative South Dakota, where his foreign policy views didn’t affect his votes for farm issues. In the same way, Obama’s home state has no problem with his liberal politics. For McGovern that translated into a big, historically astronomical loss when it came down to the presidential vote.
It’s too bad the Democrats don’t have those cigar-smoking strong-arm political hacks behind the scenes to make sure that this time, they get a candidate that is electable.
That means Clinton for vice president and Obama for secretary of state.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Iroquois correctly states my concern that Obama’s votes in Iowa may well have come from Republicans who view him as the most defeatable Democrat. (and he correctly states that McGovern also won South Dakota in the 1972 general election)
Remember that in 2004, the Republicans, including Jeb Bush, joked about Howard Dean when Dean was at the height of his popularity, literally saying (sarcastically): Oh yeah, by all means, do run Dean against George W. We’re really scared of him as an opponent.” Only after the general election did Karl Rove, no less, confess to the press that Howard Dean was the Republicans’ greatest fear as an opponent.
Look at what’s happening now: Hillary is hotly being demonized (literally) by unnamed sources on the internet and Obama has drawn no serious fire. Just go to Cafe Press and pull up all the political campaign buttons that concern Hillary. Yes, there are many pro- Hillary, but then there are a striking number of buttons depicting her as the devil, a fascist (Hitlery) in brown shirt, a screaming nut, a despot, a lesbian, PMS-ridden, a witch, a bitch, etc etc. If these items are being sold to Democrats, that’s interesting in itself and reflects a negativity in campaigning that none of the Democratic candidates has evinced so far. But it’s just possible that it comes from Republican supporters (and indeed some of the buttons pan Hillary as well as Edwards or Obama or other combinations of Democratic candidates. I think there IS strong Republican opposition to Hillary, but it just might be for the right reason, that is, that she presents the most formidable adversary to whomever the Republicans choose ultimately.
Last night, pundits finally acknowledged that the press has been in a so-called “swoon” over Obama and has given him “soft” coverage, meaning that they have not scrutinized his positions, though they have put every Clinton position under a microscope. I think that in general, political correctness has precluded not only the press but a lot of voters from articulating serious concerns about Obama’s candidacy, such as the concerns that Iroquois has raised about Black religious leaders and other Black groups that Obama seems to be heeding, and concerns about Obama’s judgment therein. Let’s hope that these and other concerns are OPENLY discussed before we get too far into the primaries to change course, if necessary, in order to ensure that the most effective Democratic candidate gets the nomination.
I’m sorry I’m raining on your parade, jclifford and Jim, but my purpose in writing this item at all is to sound an alarm to those who are buying into the appealing “story line” that Obama is selling, without considering where such story lines have led us in the past.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Iroquois, I am disturbed by Barack Obama’s church, and by what seems to his politically-calculated move away from non-theism to conspicuous Christianity. However, there’s a lot to consider in Obama’s biography when it comes to his understanding of cultural diversity than just his current Church.
Besides his time in Chicago, Barack Obama has background in Kansas, in Hawaii, in Indonesia, and at Harvard, where he was elected President of the Harvard Law Review over 18 other candidates - and wasn’t just elected by African-Americans either.
I don’t think that Barack Obama is an ideal candidate. I don’t think, however, that rejecting him on cultural grounds, or racial grounds, is an opinion that is well-founded in current social reality.
I also don’t see Hillary Clinton accepting the vice presidency under any condition. She’s had her time as Beta, and she wants Alpha for herself now, even if that means remaining in the United States Senate for 2 more decades and gaining power there.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Election as President of the Harvard Law Review hardly demonstrates presidential mettle. In fact, one area of concern for me is that Obama spent more time in law academia than he has in the U.S. Senate. Do you really think that the ivory tower is a breeding ground for political acumen?
January 4th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Hold on a minute, jerseydem - when you suggest that being elected President of the Harvard Law Review is not a shining achievement on Barack Obama’s resume, I have to question whether there’s anything he could do to please you.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Iroquois said that “Edwards and Clinton both are now paying lip service at least to ‘the middle class,’ but Obama belongs to a church that is against the ‘middle class.’”
Actually Hillary has been focusing on the middle class since at least early 2005 when she headed up the Democratic Leadership Council’s platform committee.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:26 am
JClifford, there ARE things that Obama has done that “please me,” it’s just that being President (or do you mean Editor?) of the Harvard Law Review is not one of them. I speak as former President of the student body at Washington University School of Law.
I’m also singularly unimpressed that Obama opposed the war when he was in the Illinois Legislature, which had no jurisdiction whatsoever over the war. I’m far more impressed by Dennis Kucinich, who had the integrity to vote against the Iraq War when he was in the U.S. Congress. And Howard Dean, who opposed it when he was actually running for President. We have no idea whether Obama would have opposed the war if he was then a U.S. Senator and a candidate for President. BTW, I ultimately voted for Kucinich in the 2004 primary precisely for this reason — because Kerry, Edwards and other candidates had all voted in favor of the resolution authorizing Bush to say (to the U.N.) that he had Congressional authorization to take military action in Iraq. I think it was a relevant issue in 2004, not in 2008.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Kucinich? If you like UFO’s.
There is a difference between ideal policy and politically possible policy.
A lot of people liked Ralph Nader’s green policy ideas. Maybe even some of the people writing for this site voted Green. Bad idea. A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush.
Now, I have voted for Obama on a number of occasions, but is he electable? Maybe a vote for Obama in the primary is a vote for Huckabee in the general election.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
If Obama was just continuing on his same path, his record of getting things done, playing nicely with the other children and building multicultural coalitions would speak nicely to his becoming president. But look what he is doing.
First of all, Jesse and the other so-called black leaders said Obama wasn’t “black enough”. (Look at a picture of Jesse and tell me how black he looks.) True, Obama’s support was mostly among whites. But blacks don’t vote anyhow. That’s one of the reasons Jesse has traditionally had so many problems. He can’t walk into a politicians office and say “I can deliver so many votes” because blacks just don’t show up to vote in elections. You can’t count on them.
So what did Obama do? He spend all that time in NC hanging out with Gospel choirs and stereotyping himself. He has decided he is not an American candidate, he is a black candidate. In pandering to this group who will not do anything for him politically and who are harming themselves by accepting the anti-white program of their leadership, Obama has turned his back on the people who traditionally vote for him and compartmentalized himself as a one-ethnic candidate.
If Jesse really had that good of political advice, he would have done better in his own presidential race. Jesse is not a person Obama should be listening to.
Obama has added considerably to Jesse Jackson’s political currency, while devaluing his own.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Iroquois, there are a lot of people who find Kucinich the most appealling candidate when it comes to positions, but who lament his short stature, which appears to be a major factor in his weak odds of winning the primary. Really, the American people are just that superficial.
In any event, in 2004, he was the only primary candidate in New Jersey (Howard Dean had already withdrawn his candidacy) who had voted against authorizing military action in Iraq. That was my basis for voting for him then, although I ultimately held my nose and voted for Kerry in the general election.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Kucinich is just too tin hat for me. I have never stood next to him, so have no way of judging his height.
I can see you fit right in with the people who write this thing, who I’m sure are fine people, but I’m not convinced you can discount the terrorist threat just because Dubya thinks it exists. I’m also not convinced we need to pull troops out immediately–even if that were physically possible–and leave the Iraqi government to sink or swim. We do have strategic interests in the area we cannot just blow off no matter how much we don’t like war. Don’t forget the soldiers over there are all volunteers, at least technically. Kucinich does not have a nuanced approach, which I think the situation calls for.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:58 am
You really have no basis for concluding where I “fit in,” Iroquois. I’m not now, nor have I ever been a Kucinich supporter. I have not been convinced that he represented the view of enough people in this country to get elected. That said, I still respect him for voting, in 2003, against authorizing Bush to say he had authorization to take military action in Iraq.
I haven’t said anything about discounting the terrorist threat; to the contrary, I am highly critical of Bush for failing to take appropriate steps within our borders to fill the holes in our armor.
But my focus, in signing on to participate on this website, is to discuss Election 2008 issues. I think that when it comes to Iraw, Obama, Clinton and Edwards were all pretty close on their positions.
I find a lot of what you contribute to discussions interesting and thought provoking, and would like to keep our comments friendly. Hope you agree.
January 5th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Well, jerseydem, if you were working for McGovern in ‘72, that does sort of, just kind of, tell me where you think you might, maybe, just possibly, “fit in”, unless you have had some sort of subsequent vision on the road to Damascus.
I don’t really care if people agree with me or not, as long as I can see their reasons or they post links so I can see how they came to their conclusions, even if I come to different conclusions. That’s why I read this blog, to be challenged.
I am hearing that a lot of people are tired of Clinton influence in DC, the entourage that supports the Clintons–along with some hints about what in Chicago they call “family” connections–and the Clinton domination of the DNC and associated control of jobs. (Howard Dean got a position, but not the Dean supporters.) The “change” some people want is not just about ideology, it’s about patronage.
January 5th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Iroquois wrote: “Well, jerseydem, if you were working for McGovern in ‘72, that does sort of, just kind of, tell me where you think you might, maybe, just possibly, “fit in”, unless you have had some sort of subsequent vision on the road to Damascus.”
Well, we’re coming full circle here. If you don’t understand that I’ve had some “subsequent vision,” go back and read my original posting.
January 6th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Oooh, jerseydem, why so touchy? It doesn’t look to me like you’ve changed your politics at all, just your pragmatism about implementing it.
January 6th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
What irritated me about the last election is that I had a choice between George Bush which is unconscionable and his distant cousin John Kerry. It’s gotten to such a point that if you don’t want to vote for some moron then one of his relatives are offered up. I read somewhere that Obama is somehow related to Dick Cheney. Good grief. Can’t we get candidates that are not related to assholes and that actually want this country to be a good place to live in?
January 6th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
[…] recent diary post here questioned the high turnout for Obama among first-time, former-Republican, and independent […]
January 7th, 2008 at 6:38 am
Re: New Hampshire Independents - separate posting
Points well taken, Frank and Iroquois. Though of course, at this point, we can’t tell any better than we did in January 1972 who the Republican switch-overs were in Iowa.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:05 am
There are two separate parts to the can-Obama-get-elected question. 1)can a black get elected 2)can someone from the progressive wing of the party get elected
When the questions are asked together, they are answered together with something like “how dare anyone not vote for someone just because they are black” while the second question, that of issues, goes largely unaddressed. If you are comparing Obama to McGovern in terms of political ideology–and I think the comparison is apt–can he get elected without being more mainstream?
BTW, I don’t see the choice of Kerry over Dean to be one of ideology or electability. He was done in by media frenzy picking up on something that didn’t really happen–the “screech” over a yelling crowd that was not miked.
Have any of the writers here addressed the issues of where all that money is coming from? Clinton and Obama are both spending huge amounts of money, Edwards much less. Where does that money come from? I know a lot of Edwards’ support comes from labor unions–he has gotten some major endorsements in New England, although I suppose you could say a lot of his potential supporters have been outsourced to China.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Bingo. You hit my comparison to McGovern on the head. Even at this point, it seems fair to say that there’s another phenomenon going on apart from Repubs switching parties like they did in 1972.
Iroquois, you point out another question that I think is worth considering: who are Obama’s kingmakers? We have a pretty good idea of Hillary’s and Obama’s contributers, but who picked Obama to make a presidential bid this year? I presume that there’s never just one dedicated candidate that decides to do it. There has to be considerable support in terms of bucks early on to even become a blip on the map.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Obama was elected by a coalition of blacks and white progressives. He beat out the Democratic machine’s candidates, who were truly dismal, in a six-way primary race. He was endorsed by the Chicago Tribune. The last time I checked, the Trib was a stodgy Republican pro-business rag.
Where he or Hillary get their money I have yet to hear.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
My union rep is saying–and I didn’t hear the broadcast myself–that voters coming out of the Iowa caucuses said they voted for Obama in order to defeat Hillary, so their real candidate, Huckabee, could beat Obama. They are saying Obama cannot beat Huckabee and Hillary can.
This was supposedly on Channel 7 TV (ABC) and on “news radio” (probably NPR affiliate WBEZ)
January 18th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
I think it’s time to reheat this discussion, as we come up to the Nevada caucuses, and with South Carolina not far behind.
Time for a few predictions. With Obama Hillary and Edwards in a three-way dead-heat in South Carolina, well anything could happen. But I’ll venture a prediction that we’ll have a similar outcome to Iowa, with Obama ultimately prevailing, followed by Hillary and Edwards, still in a a statistical dead-heat — meaning it will be so close between those two that it won’t matter who came in 2nd and who came in 3rd.
I don’t think this will affect Hillary’s chances for the nomination, as I think she will do just fine in the February primaries.
Ooops, almost forgot about Nevada. Well, I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that with the caucuses being made so casino-worker-friendly, and the casino worker’s union having endorsed Obama, that Obama will walk away with the blue ribbon in this one. Hillary strong 2nd, the rest won’t really matter.
January 20th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Jim, I wholeheartedly agree with your comment posted Jan 3rd, however, I’m disappointed that you have not posted any comments since then…
January 20th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Well, I think jerseydem’s question: “are Caucasian Americans really ready to vote for a Black/minority president?” has been answered empirically by the caucuses and primaries. Not only has Obama won the support of Democrats, but he’s also attracted a large swing vote of independents. It’s happened in three states, and when I hear independents who have voted or caucused for Obama explain themselves, I hear something genuine in their voices, not some kind of KarlRovian plot.
January 20th, 2008 at 10:37 am
You saw the Zogby poll saying Obama is the only Dem who could beat McCain–although any of the other dems could beat the other republicans? Of course Zogby doesn’t take into account the–what is it called–”Bradley effect”. The exit-poll thing where people say publicly they voted for a black but they really didn’t.
My gut feeling is Edwards wants to be VP for Obama, and wants to get enough delegates to be able to make some sort of a trade at the convention.
January 20th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Jim said (post 32) :Well, I think jerseydem’s question: “are Caucasian Americans really ready to vote for a Black/minority president?” has been answered empirically by the caucuses and primaries.
I beg to differ, Jim. McGovern won the 1972 nomination; it’s not a question of whether Obama can win individual primaries or caucuses. The question is whether he could win in a national election. I’ll reiterate one of the major facts underlying my question about Obama: the United States is a racist country with an underclass comprised largely of Black Americans.
With that in mind, is America going to elect a black President?
BTW, a significant fact about Iowa that must always be considered when evaluating the outcome of the Iowa caucus is that the voters from that state have never elected a woman governor, U.S. senator or Congressperson.
January 20th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Well, you have your conclusion in your question, so you’re not going to be convinced otherwise.
January 20th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
It’s not a matter of being “convinced”. Jerseydem is trying to measure and predict a potential outcome, assuming the voters are static; Jim is trying to influence a potential outcome through prediction, assuming the voters are fluid. These two approaches will always be at odds, but both are necessary.
February 10th, 2008 at 9:02 am
[…] the night of the Iowa caucuses, Jerseydem wrote that since white people just won’t vote for a black man for president, perhaps we shouldn’t vote for the black man for president. Since then, Barack Obama has […]
March 4th, 2008 at 1:27 am
Well, I must stand corrected. I think that events have shown a phenomenal rise of support, from all segments of voters, including Republicans, for Obama’s campaign. RIn short, Obama’s campaign has been nothing less than a sensation.
Moreover, he has demonstrated an unusual — almost unique — ability to deflect any questions about his ability to achieve any of his goals. (A source of consternation to me — see my new posting on “The Damn Press - Too little, too late.”) E.g., he has so far managed to fend off any real scrutiny of his abilities and/or requests for specifics of what and how he will achieve his goal of a non-partisan government.
If he can sustain his uncanny aptitude for avoiding answering hard questions during the campaign leading up to the general election, he should be able to deflect McCain handily.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Oooops, maybe I spoke too soon. It seems that the press is actually taking an interest in exploring Obama’s background. Why I actually even heard a CNN pundit ask him what types of decisions he’s made that might suggest he would be a good commander-in-chief. When asked the same question, Senator Clinton was able to point to very specific instances during her husband’s terms as president, when she was assigned to engage in negotiations on behalf of the country (e.g., Ireland and Bosnia).
Not so for Obama — he just went back to his broken record about how he showed the best judgment in 2002 by opposing the occupation of Iraq. So far, he doesn’t seem to be able to take the heat — the scrutiny — that presidential candidates are ultimately subject to.
As to the outcomes in Texas and Ohio, What A Relief! For a while there, it looked like everyone had been drinking the Kool-Aid.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
You didn’t post a link to your article, Jerseydem.
Didn’t Barack look a little depressed last night? I bet the obamabots who hang out here are depressed too. What you need is a little music. There is a new La Bamba Obama song going around but it is terribly depressing too, here is one a little livelier.
http://www.latinalista.net/palabrafinal/2008/02/the-lyrics-sing-obama-but-the-tune-strum.html