Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Has everyone on Salon's staff been in a coma? Was that a dumber question than the one above? Of course Obama can win in America. Can a black candidate win in the southern state where the US Civil War was launched? Hell yes! Even suddenly-crazy Bill Clinton, who had to have seen some advantage in saying so, has expressed a belief that Hillary won't win there -- and that Obama will. Is Obama blacker than Bill clinton? Is Bill the one running for President? Is this all crazy shit we should have dispensed with years ago?
People are not voting for a black candidate; they are voting for Barack Obama. Despite the very real and legitimate points Mr. Fielding raises, not just any black candidate could win this thing. It is the candidate at hand who will carry the day, not his color. (Jesse Jackson couldn't do it!). The fact that it will be a black man also will be historical, but will not be the reason he succeeds.
By the same token, the reason Hillary doesn't win won't be on account of her gender; it will be because she represents business as we have known it for ages and where all that stale, conventional thinking has led us. That and the fact that she has not reined in her hubby, who was once her greatest asset and now is her greatest liability.
The time has come, and somebody had to be The One. His name happened to be Barack Obama.
I can't believe that there are Democrats saying they can't vote for Hillary if she is the candidate. Of course, they should vote for her...Do we want McCain or Romney or any Republican in the White House again? They have dragged this country down so far, it is incredible. McCain insists that Iraq is absolutely necessary...Romney, too. It is so disheartening to see political rancor get in the way of good sense. Hillary is a Democrat...she is not perfect, nor his Obama!
No, I do not believe that a black candidate will be elected...not anytime soon.
The thing is, this Primary campaign has shown me that HRC is close to 4 more years of Bush. More years of lying, more years of unchecked executive power.
We need to trust our next president to give back ALOT of powers that this administration has stolen. Do you think Hillary would do it? Honestly?
Edwards wouldn't because he would want to use those powers to help people, leaving the door open for when someone with less laudable goals holds that office.
Obama I could see doing it, because of his background as a constitutional law professor, and his reverence for the Constitution.
After getting the chronology of the debate wrong, Walter omits to mention that Sen. Obama ran against Alan Keyes, another African American, in his 2004 Senate race. So the question of whether ``white'' people would vote for African-Americans was rather moot and I am perplexed by what Michele meant about that race.
So far as far as I can tell Obama has more deligates than Clinton does--so clearly America already has started electing a black person as president.
The worse Clinton behaves the more likely she is to lose supporters. The fact that she is a woman can only earn her so much forgiveness for her behavior.
Any dem will do, black white male female, don't make any difference, as long as its not a republicunt
Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?
Other than that I have no strong feelings either way
just asking.
Because Edwards's anti-corporate agenda won't fit with Hillary's policies and he wouldn't help Obama. Obama would be wise to sign up Biden, with all his foreign policy experience and his gray hair. To add gravitas.
Let's face it, Edwards is out of the race, which does say how far we've come. He's the white man.
Outside of the worthless cable news and places like Salon I've heard no one so far, at the primary level, intra party mention race as an issue. It really looks like a concoction whipped up by sites like this who think they can run with it.
And the 5 black South Carolina women who were asked on CNN who they will vote for seemed noncommittal at best. None of them offered up an opinion either way. And do you know why?
Because everyone has sucked deep from the flagon of PC Liberal non offensive 'every opinion is valid, every point of view is just as nice as any other, I'm sure that if I express all the sides of every story at all times, everything will think I am tolerant and broadminded, yaay Me!'
Or, it's simply that the differences between the candidates is roughly the slim distance between the upper thighs of a Brazilian prostitute that allows a crack of sunlight to pass when her legs are (rarely) together.
Have been great. Have you seen him mention any of even a small percentage of Clinton's "baggage"? The only thing he's criticized her for is her Walmart board seat and her congressional record. That's pretty above board. He made no comment about her crying. Although he has widely and loudly and grossly blamed for calling her a racist over her remarks over MLK he did no such thing. He kept a low profile. His campaigners apparently went so far as to write a memo about it (how macchaivelian!) but they did nothing. This so far has been his mudslinging career. Tell me if I've missed anything.
Now Clinton's mudslinging might have Rove rewriting his book on tactics. Rove only sent out a flier saying that McCain fathered an illegitimate black child. He didn't state that McCain was a muslim intent on destroying the country. (A Clinton campaigner might be resigning over this--you can read it on Huffington Post). Rove didn't say that McCain was a drug dealer, as a supporter did at a well publicised clinton event--with the audience chuckling along. Rove didn't call McCain's war record a "fairy tale" as Bill did to Obama. Let me see...Rove did successfully disenfranchise voters in Florida...and Clinton less successfully tried to do the same thing by stopping the caucuses right after she lost a key union endorsement.
So play for play, the claim for high ground for the Clinton's is really getting to be a stretch. Is her credibility with the public much better than Bush's? The way she has been running this campaign, I don't see anything different than what we've had over the past eight years. I'm voting for something--someone better.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
