Unlike Casey, Wales, I'm loving your posts!

I like Wales posts too, especially the ones that are about the issues..

He is...but you would think if the GOP was controlled by the religious right, then they would have thrown all of their power behind, say Mike Huckabee...advertising dollars, grass root efforts..If a certain group "controlls" a party then you would think they would have the means to use that power to shut down a campaign that did not further their agenda...

I don't think we've seen or heard the last of Mike Huckabee. He'll pop up again at some point. I think where McCain has stumbled (ie: negative campaigning hurting his reputation), Mike Huckabee by comparison seems the real deal. I have liberal (and I mean Liberal with a capital "L") speak highly of Huckabee -- not of his stand on issues, of course, but on the man himself. He is respected...

I like Wales posts too, especially the ones that are about the issues..

Now, Casey... don't be hatin' on Wales. Wales is fast becoming one of my fav posters!!

I think Dr. Sniderman's experiment and survey was very revealing. I think the reason that the results of the experiment were couched heavily in terms of Democrats is because the African-American candidate is a Democrat.

Wales, I don't know why this is even an argument, but there is no doubt Religious conservatives are in control of the Republican Party. The Republicans acknowledged their influence when they said Gov. Palin solidied "the base" of the party.

Wost, I could have supported Hillary in the general election, although I supported Obama in the primary. Either in my opinion would make a fine president.

I agree with you that racism is a problem in American politics. I think sexism remains a problem. Racism and sexism are a problem period. But Barack Obama is doing a lot to address racial disparities. He is running for president and is the first African-American to lead the ticket. He also is an outspoken advocate of programs that address needs that disproportionately affect African-Americans and other non-Anglo citizens. For whatever reason, lack of health care, education and income seem to be more prevalent in minority communities.

As far as Condi Rice and Colin Powell, they would be fine candidates. I would not vote for Rice because I do not agree with her politics, pure and simple. That does not mean she would not be a fine candidate or a fine president. I could vote for Colin Powell easily. He would be a great candidate IMO and a great leader. I am voting for Obama because I think he will make a good president and I like his stand on the issues.

Hi Greg...

What is it Barack is doing to address racial disparities? And I'm not talking about just "talking" -- because Bill Clinton talked about it for eight years but accomplished absolutely nothing...

Why would Condi be bad? Is it because she veers more right than Colin does, or because she is a woman? I wasn't basing my opinion on ideology... Colin Powell is moderate to left-leaning -- but his knowledge of the world and issues at home are vast, making him the most qualified candidate not running for office!

I've posted a couple of things earlier. His plans are very detailed at barackobama.com, but include ending racial disparity in pay, sentencing and racial profiling. Strengthen enforcement of civil rights and hate crimes.

My reasons for not liking Condi have nothing to do with her being a woman. It is because she leans more to the right for my liking. But IA with you on Colin Powell. I've always admired him and would probably vote for him regardless of what initial appeared behind his name.

GGL tell me I need to leave because I can't help myself.....I want to answer this question.....he's running for president.

Chime in, Wales. Feel free to give more details than I did.....

Negative campaigning is the media's fault? IA that the media feed into the negativity because it makes for great press. But to say they are the reason for it? I dunno.

Obama looks indecisive because he "can't seem to make up his mind with the negative aspect"? So how does that make McCain look - someone that pledged to not run a negative campaign and then turned around and was the first one to lob one out there? IMO it makes him look like he's gone back on his promises.

Did you hear about the interview he did that involved his gaffs on Spain? He repated the same phrase 3 times becuase it came off like he didn't know what to say.

But, negative campaigning being the MSM's fault.......that would imply that neither candidate should take responsibility for the negative attacks on one another. Because, IMO, it can't be Obama is the only one running negative ads and McCain is the innocent victim defending himelf.

I see the McCain campaign being all over the place, and the only thing they can do is sling mud. That's what happens when you don't have a message to campaign on.

Does Barack getting elected mean we've broken through a barrier in race issues? And does that mean the old "affirmative action" programs are effectively dead?

By the way... I'm intrigued at the notion that if Barack loses, it will likely be DEMS who can't get past the race issue... Republicans wouldn't vote for Barack anyway because he's a liberal Democrat -- so any perceived bias or bigotry by Reps is off the table with this one...

Yes Barack getting elected does mean we've broken through a barrier in race issues. I think the old "affirmative action" programs have been dead for years. You know, bigots are not going to vote for Barack and it doesn't matter what party they are a part of. I maintain that the people who would not vote for an African-American candidate are probably not supportive of Democrats anyway. A big reason for the shift in the south from Democrat to Republican in the 1960s was because Democrats pushed the Civil Rights Act. And No, I do not think the Republicans represent the party of bigots. You know, the Democrats have nominated an African-American. No matter how you argue it, that does put them a step ahead of the Republicans in regard to acceptance of African-American candidates for the presidency. I think Colin Powell would have done very well in a Republican Primary, however. I think he would have done well in a Democratic Primary. Also, they almost nominated a woman. Had it not been for Hillary and her campaign, I have to wonder whether McCain would have selected Palin. Democrats are not going to take a hit for Barack not getting elected.

Edited September 20, 200817 yr by Jess

I've posted a couple of things earlier. His plans are very detailed at barackobama.com, but include ending racial disparity in pay, sentencing and racial profiling. Strengthen enforcement of civil rights and hate crimes.

My reasons for not liking Condi have nothing to do with her being a woman. It is because she leans more to the right for my liking. But IA with you on Colin Powell. I've always admired him and would probably vote for him regardless of what initial appeared behind his name.

Chime in, Wales. Feel free to give more details than I did.....

I would have to hear Powell's views before considering to vote him.

Condi Rice? She f'ed that up with me during Katrina when she spent more time going to plays, buying shoes and playing tennis than she did doing her job. Also, as hard as she pushed this Iraqi War, I don't trust her for one second.

I think all parties involved in negativity seem distracted. I didn't know that McCain pledged to not go negative..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2BA_9QJRrE

Here ya go. Look at this on YouTube.

If Hillary had been the nominated candidate for the Dems, McCain would NOT have picked Palin. Yes, I believe that... <<waits for gasps to subside>>

IA. We would have never heard of Sarah Palin had Hillary been chosen for the VP slot.

With regards to racism, this issue more problematic today for two reasons. One is the disparity between African-Americans and caucasions on the status of race relations today. The majority of caucasions feel as though they have improved, while the majority of black people feel that they are about the same or worse than 30 years ago.

Secondly, because it's no longer socially acceptable to be overtly racist, a lot of people harbor these feelings and you never know it. IMO, that makes racism inherently more problematic.

He is...but you would think if the GOP was controlled by the religious right, then they would have thrown all of their power behind, say Mike Huckabee...advertising dollars, grass root efforts..If a certain group "controlls" a party then you would think they would have the means to use that power to shut down a campaign that did not further their agenda...

Not necessarily although I should use the word "influence" instead. They clearly cannot contribute to or appear to be contributing to a political party if they have tax exempt status. Influencing the ticket is not as big or difficult of a task. I don't know about Mike Huckabee's alignment but maybe they preferred a situation where the candidate might be more indebted to them.

But by switching to influence instead of control, I am no longer over stating what their role may be.

Did you hear about the interview he did that involved his gaffs on Spain? He repated the same phrase 3 times becuase it came off like he didn't know what to say.

But, negative campaigning being the MSM's fault.......that would imply that neither candidate should take responsibility for the negative attacks on one another. Because, IMO, it can't be Obama is the only one running negative ads and McCain is the innocent victim defending himelf.

I see the McCain campaign being all over the place, and the only thing they can do is sling mud. That's what happens when you don't have a message to campaign on.

ITA in regards to McCain's campaign. I did see his mis-statements on Spain and it was pretty funny.

I would have to hear Powell's views before considering to vote him.

Condi Rice? She f'ed that up with me during Katrina when she spent more time going to plays, buying shoes and playing tennis than she did doing her job. Also, as hard as she pushed this Iraqi War, I don't trust her for one second.

I think Wost is mostly right. Colin Powell tends to be more moderate or left-leaning but you're right. Of course we would have to know his stance on the issues before casting a vote for him. You hit the nail on the head IRT Condi.

He also is an outspoken advocate of programs that address needs that disproportionately affect African-Americans and other non-Anglo citizens. For whatever reason, lack of health care, education and income seem to be more prevalent in minority communities.

As far as Condi Rice and Colin Powell, they would be fine candidates. I would not vote for Rice because I do not agree with her politics, pure and simple. That does not mean she would not be a fine candidate or a fine president. I could vote for Colin Powell easily. He would be a great candidate IMO and a great leader. I am voting for Obama because I think he will make a good president and I like his stand on the issues.

Okay, I'm lovin' Jess' posts now, too... I appreciate and respect your thoughts on Condi versus Colin.

As for Obama, I think I'm looking for something he has done more than just "advocate" for programs that address the needs of minorities. I'm looking more for bills he has authored (okay, fine, even co-sponsored) that reflect action rather than just talk. I can see how Obama just running for the presidency might be inspiring to some in the black community... but action is the key.

I've posted a couple of things earlier. His plans are very detailed at barackobama.com, but include ending racial disparity in pay, sentencing and racial profiling. Strengthen enforcement of civil rights and hate crimes.

My reasons for not liking Condi have nothing to do with her being a woman. It is because she leans more to the right for my liking. But IA with you on Colin Powell. I've always admired him and would probably vote for him regardless of what initial appeared behind his name.

Thanks Greg. I like your description of his plans... most important to me, though, is strengthening enforcement of civil rights and hate crimes. That's key for me.

Why oh why won't Powell run? I once heard that his family absolutely did NOT want him doing so... But I think he is precisely who we need. He transcends parties, is respected by all, and knows the issues.

ITA in regards to McCain's campaign. I did see his mis-statements on Spain and it was pretty funny.

I think Wost is mostly right. Colin Powell tends to be more moderate or left-leaning but you're right. Of course we would have to know his stance on the issues before casting a vote for him. You hit the nail on the head IRT Condi.

See, I didn't find it funny per se'. I found it sad. And, if you can find the clip from Real Time last night, Andrew Sullivan said that he tried finding anything foreign policy related on Sarah Palin. Any stance that she took.

And he did.

He said he found ONE COMMENT from an interview she did for an Alaskan newspaper, where she said she saw the developments in Iraq on the television.

And this is who I'm supposed to trust with national security? These two people?

I don't think so.

With regards to racism, this issue more problematic today for two reasons. One is the disparity between African-Americans and caucasions on the status of race relations today. The majority of caucasions feel as though they have improved, while the majority of black people feel that they are about the same or worse than 30 years ago.

Secondly, because it's no longer socially acceptable to be overtly racist, a lot of people harbor these feelings and you never know it. IMO, that makes racism inherently more problematic.

Yup, I agree...

It wasn't that long ago that I saw quite a long thread that ultimately got locked about race and bigotry, etc., but I don't remember everything that was there... if this has been discussed, I apologize for bringing it up again, but do you feel Greg that bigotry is a two-way street? Some people don't believe that a minority can harbor racist feelings... for example, a black person bigoted against a white, etc.

Does Barack getting elected mean we've broken through a barrier in race issues? And does that mean the old "affirmative action" programs are effectively dead?

I'm doing some chores so I'm kind of back and forth and I feel that I meant to respond to something else you posted but I lost track.....on top of my generally short attention span and maybe I shouldn't multitask. I'm a very silly person and I think you've picked up on that I make silly responses at times.

Yes, it would mean that we've broken through a huge barrier to some degree, in that we would have gotten to the point of recognizing that a black man can be capable of undertaking huge responsiblities and is smart enough. It merely means that the question of whether a black man will ever be president of the country can be set aside for the next question.

There shouldn't be the need for "affirmative action" programs in the first place. I can't recall the name of the man working in California against them but the fact that they should not be needed is the ideal. The reality is that some people would not have been afforded an opportunity without them. I think addressing the disparities in education will go along way towards taking care of situations where people may be lacking in skills or knowledge but if and when the person doing the hiring is prejudiced then it's hard to move forward. Maybe that's a bit of a not exactly type No in answer to your question.

By the way... I'm intrigued at the notion that if Barack loses, it will likely be DEMS who can't get past the race issue... Republicans wouldn't vote for Barack anyway because he's a liberal Democrat -- so any perceived bias or bigotry by Reps is off the table with this one...

Uhmmm no, it doesn't let the Republicans of the hook. Those Republicans that are guilty of race baiting, selling monkey shirts or buttons or whatever those little racist buttons are in no way off the hook. They're just trying to appeal to any racist tendencies some Democrats may have. But nice try.