<p>You didn’t answer my question. </p>
<p>If Obama was a white man would he be getting 90% of the black vote?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where did I say that! You’re putting words in my mouth just like you claim you aren’t. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re not, then please point to where “I myself said” that I’m outraged blacks are voting effectively in a bloc.</p>
<p>“if black pigment were all it took for a person to lead in his party’s race for the Presidential nomination, Jesse Jackson would have done so back in the late 80’s”</p>
<p>:) My (earlier) point precisely.</p>
<p>(Merely confirming that the real outrage – spoken over & over on this thread, is that the great sin of the black voters in this race is that they dare to vote for a candidate who counts. Imagine that.) There was no outrage when JJ ran, because JJ was not a real threat.</p>
<p>Jackson didn’t get the black vote? Are you sure?</p>
<p>"Jesse Jackson’s focus on the underclass and poverty didn’t win him the Democratic nomination in 1988, but Obama would surely like to win the 90% of the black vote in most states that Jackson did. "</p>
<p>[Can</a> Obama Count On the Black Vote? - TIME](<a href=“http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1581666,00.html]Can”>http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1581666,00.html)</p>
<p>So Obama and Jackson both got an unheard of % of black voters…I wonder why that is?</p>
<p>How Jackson fared on Super Tuesday 1988*</p>
<pre><code> White voters Black voters
</code></pre>
<p>Alabama 6% 95%
Arkansas 6 93
Florida 7 87
Georgia 6 93
Kentucky 7 –
Louisiana 6 96
Maryland 11 88
Massachusetts 16 –
Mississippi 6 92
Missouri 12 –
North Carolina 7 94
Oklahoma 8 84
Rhode Island 16 70
Tennessee 5 95
Texas 14 92
Virginia 14 95</p>
<p>[Obama</a> 2008 vs. Jackson 1988 - Behind the Numbers](<a href=“http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/01/obama_2008_vs_jackson_1988.html]Obama”>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/01/obama_2008_vs_jackson_1988.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody is saying black pigment is all it takes. But in a close election like this it certainly doesn’t help when 90% of the black vote goes for you. It sure as hell made the difference in certain states. Especially when delegates are given out in terms of proportional vote, meaning inner cities (where the black vote is the strongest) often go to Obama due, in some part, to the large % of black voters compared to white.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…wonder why you’ve become obsessed with this issue. If you’re not “outraged”, what word would you use instead, LaxAttack?</p>
<p>I’m already on record multiples times as having been an Edwards supporter. I voted for Obama because I couldn’t vote for Edwards (He had suspended his campaign prior to the Virginia Primary). My opinions about Hillary Clinton’s candidacy are also on record here in the cafe. </p>
<p>Oh, and in case you haven’t figured it out, I’m black;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where do you guys get this “outrage?” I’m not outraged…I’m just saying that I agree with Ferraro. If Obama wasn’t black he wouldn’t be where he is. I’m not mad about it just like I’m not mad about McCain being where he is because of his POW past. </p>
<p>This is the problem with talking about something like this. I bring up two black candidates and point out that they got 9/10 black voters. This is a fact. I think this is because they are black…and I’m sure most would agree. I’m not mad about it, I’m not disgruntled about it, I’m simply POINTING IT OUT. Yet because I bring this up, and imply a correlation that surely APPEARS to exist, I’m “outraged at blacks” or racist</p>
<p>And poetsheart, recall that I also brought up a recent episode wherein I heard a group of young black first-time voters discussing <em>Edwards’</em> candidacy, regretting that they could not vote for him, and instead choosing to support Obama over Clinton.</p>
<p>Oh wait: I guess their votes shouldn’t have counted because they didn’t check first with some posters on this thread, as to whether anyone approved of their first and second choices. Perhaps they should have registered instead as SBV’s (Stereotype Black Voters).</p>
<p>Why is it that so many want to not include ALL OF Ferarro’s comments. She also said that had SHE NOT BEEN A WOMAN, she most likely wouldn’t have been the vp nominee when she ran. Why is she racist? Maybe she should be called a sexist. AGAINST HERSELF.</p>
<p>momof2inca; based on your opinion of Obama being this once in a lifetime candidate, based on his QUALIFICATIONS you stated, I should be running for president. Except for going to Harvard, every one of the attributes you stated, I not only have, but probably exceed him on. Yes I don’t consider myself qualified to be president. Maybe I’m being humble. I’ve had the single parent, lived in 14 countries, speak 3 languages, 2nd generation American, 3 degrees, etc… I can even even play the military card that he can’t. Then again, I guess if Obama can be president, just about anyone can.</p>
<p>Sorry, you are most definitely allowed your opinion of the candidates and vote for whomever you want. No arguing that. Just that I personally don’t see Obama as that qualified. He’s definitely a good public speaker. Then again, so was Jim Jones. While I don’t think Hillary and McCain are the greatest choices in the world, I think both have more tangible experience in important areas that will help them be a better president than Obama. The Obama crowd is very much like watching “American Idol”. It goes from a “TALENT CONTEST” to a “POPULARITY CONTEST”. The winner is good, but not the best. That’s the problem. Too many people living the “Survivor”, “American Idol”, etc… type of lives. The winner of survivor is a popularity contest. The only thing they survived was negative appeal. They couldn’t survive nature and the elements if they tried. Obama is mostly popularity. If that’s what you want, then fine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This really makes you look childish. I’m only 21 but I feel like I’m the one sticking on point, sticking to the issues, and you’re the one throwing out outlandish claims. I thought maturity came with age…</p>
<p>Christcorp, you have 10 years of legislative experience? Wow, I’m impressed!----wait, wait…oh, you don’t do you?</p>
<p>Blackness alone won’t make blacks vote for you. You’d best believe neither Michael Steele, Secretary Rice, or General Powell would get the level of black support Obama has.</p>
<p>
Notice how Romney had <em>less</em> experience as a public figure but many viewed him as the most qualified candidate.</p>
<p>The number of years does not determine experience level.</p>
<p>The only reason they probably wouldn’t get the same amount of black support; although they probably would get more than say McCain; is because they are republicans. The vast majority of blacks vote democratic, just as a large percentage of union workers.</p>
<p>Personally, I am very glad that Obama has been a major influence on getting more black voters to the polls. I’d like to see more voting participation among all Americans. Our turnout is very low but the complaints of citizens still comes from many who don’t vote.</p>
<p>You are correct that I don’t have 10 years of legislative experience. My point was that all the “great” things the poster wrote of Obama’s qualifications, most times are attributes that many people have. They aren’t anything special. As far as his time in the Illinois senate, that isn’t all that impressive. Why? Because traditionally, senators rarely ever get elected president. That’s because there’s a big difference between being a legislator and an executive. Plus, the opposition both also happen to be senators, with more experience, so that sort of negates the “wow” factor. Yes, he’s more qualified than me; but that is the same as discussing his qualifications against Clinton or McCain.</p>
<p>I’m glad Obama is running. He brings a position that forces the candidates to address certain topics. That’s good. I happen to think he is the least qualified of the 3 however. If he was running now against Edwards, I don’t think race would have been as big of an issue. Why? Because Edwards didn’t have the traditional lock on Blacks that Hillary has had. She had it in her senate races as well as her husband during his presidential races. But that’s not a problem. Just like Hillary tends to get the women’s vote and McClain probably would get a larger portion of the military vote. Anyone running for office will usually attract directly with a certain group within the voters. Whether it’s blacks, hispanics, woman, military, elderly, etc… As a whole, each group might lean a certain direction. The only reason the black vote and Obama has been brought up is because it is a group that was actually taken away from another candidate that probably would have had them</p>
<p>Had Colin Powell been running for the republican nominee, there’s a good chance that the military vote would have been a much more talked about issue. It would have negated McCain’s “POW/War Hero/Commander in Chief” edge. As said earlier, the black issue probably wouldn’t have been a topic because republicans don’t normally get as large of black support that democrats do. </p>
<p>Personally, I would have loved it if Powell or Rice had been running. I even think they could jump in as a 3rd party right now and make a significant impact . I wouldn’t even think twice about supporting either one of them. Their experiences go so far beyond Clinton, Obama, or McCain that it’s almost a no brainer. The problem with this election is that all 3 of the current candidates suck. We are arguing basically about who has “MORE” of something of 3 very weak candidates. Basically, who’s the better of 3 very weak candidates. McCain has more experience; Obama has more personality, etc… They are all weak. That’s why it’s rare to see a senator succeed in the race for the presidency. They have so little to work with.</p>
<p>What do you mean Romney had “LESS” experience as a PUBLIC FIGURE. If you mean IN GOVERNMENT; I’ll give you that. He was just a Governor. But no one is saying that experience is ONLY important as an elected official. Romney also had experience in the business world, with economics, as an executive, and many other areas. Just like Obama is where he’s at because of his ability to split the vote from the rest of the pack; McCain is where he is at because Huckabee, Paul, and Romney were splitting the conservative vote. If it had been McCain against any ONE other, I don’t believe McCain would even be where he is now.</p>
<p>Did you guys read the article in Time Magazine about Hillary’s experience? I thought it was excellent. Pardon me if it’s already been linked:</p>
<p>[Clinton’s</a> Experience Debate - TIME](<a href=“TIME | Current & Breaking News | National & World Updates”>http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1721966,00.html)</p>
<p>“Obama ran the the campaign as white.”</p>
<p>He ran the campaign as white? What does that mean?</p>
<p>Regarding post 108:
I am merely echoing the logical reaches of your arguments about the supposed implications of analyzing voting decisions on the basis of voting “blocs.” You demonstrate a limited appreciation of the complex aspects of diversities, plural, in this country, and how historically that has and has not affected outcomes. With age/experience comes a deeper understanding & fewer assumptions about categories & their supposed import. Voting decisions are more complex than “the numbers” or artificially defined voting blocs would indicate. </p>
<hr>
<p>But again, a general comment on the tone the debate on the Cafe has taken since the Ferraro comment emerged…
We, the previous debaters, had been discussing the merits of the candidates as candidates and campaigners, largely. Then the Ferraro Affair happened, and suddenly it’s fair game to scrutinize the race of a candidate as an element of qualification (i.e., Watch Out: who’s voting for you may determine just how qualified you are, in the eyes of those who believe they have a right to judge why others do & do not vote the way they do).<br>
This is parallel to what happens on the Forum when the debate shifts from student entrance qualifications to AA, and suddenly a minority’s qualifications – or more likely an entire generic group of “minorities” – come under intense questioning quite unlike that given to non-minority candidates.<br>
Just an observation…</p>
<p>“I don’t know if any of you who keep banging on the fact that Obama has garnered as much as 90% of a given state’s black vote have noticed, but African Americans only comprise about 10% of the total U.S. population. Ten Percent. This means that even if he’d netted 100% of the black vote, but not substantially enough of any other demographic, he’d not have a snowball’s chance in you-know-where of beating Hillary Clinton for the nomination”</p>
<p>10% nation wide is true, but in VA, MD, SC, AL, LA, MS they make up 30-40% of demcratic voters.</p>
<p>I don’t have stats for other states, but MS he got 90%+ of black vote. Black vote was 44% of total vote. Go figure.</p>
<p>well zoosermom: here is the summary:</p>
<p>She rarely appeared at meetings in which officials hashed out important policy trade-offs, but when the discussion centered on issues that were among her priorities, she sent her aides — much the way Vice President Al Gore did. “There were certain issues they kind of owned,” recalls Gene Sperling, who headed economic policy in the Clinton White House. The First Lady’s top concerns, he says, were children’s issues, health care, and foster-care and adoption policies.
…</p>
<p>One of her biggest achievements, Clinton often tells voters, is the multibillion-dollar health-care program that provides coverage for children whose parents are too rich for Medicaid but unable to afford health insurance on their own</p>
<p>After Bill Clinton signed the bill into law that August, Kennedy said at a press conference, “Mrs. Clinton … was of invaluable help, both in the fashioning and the shaping of the program and also as a clear advocate.” </p>
<p>THE BOTTOM LINE: The record suggests Clinton did indeed lobby for children’s health coverage but that many others were responsible as well. And it also shows that her husband nearly killed the idea before it ever got off the ground. </p>
<p>…</p>
<p>On the campaign trail, Clinton has claimed she “helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland” in the 1990s. </p>
<p>Clinton’s words are very carefully chosen. She has never claimed to have actually negotiated the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which paved the way toward power-sharing in Northern Ireland. Her involvement was more about generating public and private support for peace talks in the months leading up to that agreement</p>
<p>She has never claimed to have actually negotiated the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which paved the way toward power-sharing in Northern Ireland. Her involvement was more about generating public and private support for peace talks in the months leading up to that agreement. </p>
<p>It’s a key distinction. There is no question that the First Lady encouraged women from Protestant and Catholic neighborhoods to push their political leaders toward the bargaining table. She traveled to Northern Ireland twice by herself in the mid- to late 1990s and praised those who stood up for peace. She engaged in particular with a group of women peace activists who were largely cut out of the male-dominated negotiations and encouraged them to keep the pressure on. </p>
<p>Clinton was working on the outside, said several involved in the process. “She was helpful with Vital Voices,” said Jean Kennedy Smith, former ambassador to Ireland,</p>
<p>THE BOTTOM LINE: Clinton played a role in hearing the concerns of Irish women left out of the peace process, and in encouraging them to put pressure on their countrymen to pursue negotiations. </p>
<p>…</p>
<p>“I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” Clinton has asserted when asked to identify an example of her foreign policy experience. </p>
<p>When Clinton arrived in the middle of the situation in that May, diplomats on the ground expected an ineffectual high-profile visit. But they were wrong. “She was quite at ease and professional,” says a diplomat who served in the Macedonian capital, Skopje, at the time. Clinton visited refugees in camps on the border and held talks with the Macedonian leadership. </p>
<p>When the Prime Minister complained about American companies terminating textile contracts with local firms, Clinton promised to urge the businesses to change course. Five weeks after her trip, Clinton returned to the country with a pledge from Liz Claiborne to support textile manufacturing there. </p>
<p>THE BOTTOM LINE: In the case of Macedonia, Clinton engaged in personal diplomacy that brought about change.</p>
<p>That TIME article was interesting. Here’s part of it:</p>
<p>"Clinton’s shorthand version of her role in the 1999 refugee crisis in Macedonia is accurate but oversimplified. She did discuss open borders with the President and Prime Minister of Macedonia on May 14, 1999. (Borders between that country and Kosovo had been opening and closing for weeks.) She did support requests for economic help that the Macedonians were making. </p>
<p>But keeping the borders open was a key U.S. diplomatic project at the time, and her initiative was but a part of the larger effort. During the NATO war with neighboring Serbia that spring, the fate of Kosovars fleeing Serbian ethnic cleansing was a pressing issue on the international stage. If a flood of refugees overwhelmed Macedonia, a wider regional war could erupt. No one, however, wanted to leave the Kosovars to the mercy of the Serbs. So finding a temporary home for them was crucial. </p>
<p>When Clinton arrived in the middle of the situation in that May, diplomats on the ground expected an ineffectual high-profile visit. But they were wrong. “She was quite at ease and professional,” says a diplomat who served in the Macedonian capital, Skopje, at the time. Clinton visited refugees in camps on the border and held talks with the Macedonian leadership."</p>
<p>See, here’s my thinking. Regardless of how TIME characterizes the outcome of what Hillary’s done, the fact remains that she has negotiated with and dealt with diplomats, presidents and heads of state of foreign nations, as well as being in the thick of White House/Congress legislative battles (that children’s health care thing) and even if that was being part of a team effort or the issue was resolved in the end by others, or whatever, it’s still more experience than Obama has.</p>
<p>How many foreign nationals, heads of state, diplomats has Obama dealt with? Hillary has more experience than he does in these areas and the TIME article convinces me of it, even tho’ that wasn’t their intent.</p>
<p>Simba, we cross posted.</p>
<p>"How many foreign nationals, heads of state, diplomats has Obama dealt with?:</p>
<p>Big fat zero because he could not give them change they could believe in.</p>