Lets start with I think you are totally diregarding race as a major factor in the election.If you beleive race has not and does not play a role in such things then we just see things very differently.
Race is definitely a factor and it can be manipulated both ways.
If you go back and read my posts, I never said that race was not a factor (in fact I specifically said it certainly was). What I questioned was - the ability to claim that it was the *deciding factor*.
First it was stated that it could be determined by the size of the margin (which we know is not correct). Then it was claimed that it could be determined by comparing the final results with polls (which you said cannot be taken as accurate).
The fact that a person (black, white, or otherwise) "catches on" or wins by a certain margin is not automatically evidence that racism was the deciding factor.
On the Clintons and the charges that they were injecting race into the campaign by Obama and his supporters with things like seizing on what Ferraro said as being racist we actually agree.I thought that was very calculated by the Obama side and were basically unfounded unfair charges.
Agreed.
But thats what politics is you use whatever helps you to win.Its not about how you play the game but who wins
Why is this defense of Machiavellian tactics used to defend Obama? Should we accept such a line of reasoning from anyone else regarding a Republican candidate? Any Democratic candidate?
Is there a double standard here?
and if your Obama (who BTW was not my choice for nominee at all,supported Edwards then Hillary) since you know your race is going to be something that hurts your chances in some ways it is understandable to try to turn that around and use it to your advantage where you think you can.
We agree race *did* hurt Hilary's chances (see above). Is it therefore understandable for her to use it to her advantage? Why not? I don't think anyone is justified in being racist or using race to win. Based on what Obama says, he would agree.
I want a democrate to win.This is suppose to be a year the dems should win the white house easily and the fact that the polls are so close is disturbing and IMO is mainly based on white fears of a black president.
I understand that you want a Democrat to win. I can even understand why.
I am aware that it is your opinion that it is due to racism (rather than views on size of government, taxation, experience, social policies, illegal immigration, etc..).
--- Haven't you noticed it is the exact same States that Kerry carried that Obama now holds. ---
In Kerry's case those same States were voting on the issues - but this time the exact same States are basing their decisions on race???
We still have no explanation for the evidence that we could use to say (beyond personal assumptions) that race is the deciding factor.
There is perhaps more reason to think people are voting based on ideologies as before.
It is also more likely that Obama is faring better in previous "red" states based on his positions on issues and his ideological views.
Back to Hillary ,yes I think there was an extreme amount of sexism involved against her.I saw it everywhere,Obama campaign engaged in some of it but not nearly as much as the media and just people in general did.There was a ton of it here that came from the right ,the middle and the Obama supporters who all thought calling her Hildebeast or disparaging her with all kinds of other BS was totally acceptable.And that was done in ways that would have been never tolerated if they had been done based on lets say race .I really lost a lot of respect for people who did that to her as I thought it was really a bad wrap and that she has done little in her life to be ashamed of and actually has done lots of good work everyone should acknowledge her for.
Well said.
Again I come back to how this should be a year the dems win relatively easily,all the polls show that people generically want dem president by much wider margin than what the margin in polls is between Obama and McCain.And I just don't see how some experience difference between them explains that.
When each person thinks of their "ideal generic democratic candidate" they have different things in mind.
That "imaginary candidate" will always agree with them on *all* of their important issues.
Different issues and capacities matter to different voters. Obama may meet some of them but fail on other important ones - different mismatches to different voters - thus losing support of those who would both otherwise vote for an "ideal generic democratic candidate."
Furthermore, as we all know, McCain is not a generic Republican. People have always agreed that he has unquestionable appeal among a great number of Democrats and an even greater number of independents.
These two factors alone go much farther toward explaining the closeness in the polls than any assumed nationwide racism.
You have still never answered my comparison to 1992 when Bill Clinton who not only looked vastly inexperienced to Bush Sr. but also was able to overcome a sex scandle and be elected.People's concerns about the economy and the issue of is the country on right or wrong track are at least as strong now as they were in 92 are they not? So if a dem(Obama) doesn't win I think we need to look at some other factor than he wasn't experienced enough.
Experience and party affiliation are not the only factors that people look at when deciding for whom they will vote. You erroneously assume that just because people may think that the Bush administration has been bad for the economy - that they will automatically conclude or assume that Obama will be good. People are not this simplistic. Bill Clinton is not this simplistic. Nor should they be.
For one thing, Bill Clinton was not only inspiring, he did a better job of explaining his positions. Almost anyone who has worked with Bill knows that he loves the details and has a mind to understand a wide array of topics. Some people find the details "boring" (which hurt Hillary initially in the Dem primary) but others want to know who their president is and what he will and can do. Bill is a smart guy and has been widely praised for helping the economy during his watch (although not all of it is warranted or directly attributable to him).
Just because people voted for Bill over Bush Sr. does not mean that they would vote for Obama over McCain (or Hillary over McCain for that matter.) Nobody knows *for certain* if Bill Clinton will *actually* vote for Obama.
If Bill (who many African Americans endearingly called "our first black president") does not vote for Obama, will that mean he is a racist? Or could it possibly mean that he thinks someone else may be better based on issues and abilities. We should give him (and the American people) the benefit of the doubt.
