I am looking forward to the Democratic Convention. Perhaps the delegates will nominate a compromise candidate.

chsw

Preaching to the choir. I’m not sure who you’re arguing with, or about what. But I doubt many people here are going to take issue with the general thrust of your comments.

I don’t think that there is a cabal saying “We must put forward a Black candidate!” and I don’t think that any of his supporters are consciously saying “Oh good, a Black candidate, I’ll support that one!” But the fact that he’s Black (or half-Black, really) does make him more interesting, more modern…it makes him a more compelling “candidate for change”, which is exactly the role he’s trying to play. If he were White, he’d look a lot more like just another politician.

And that is the problem. I am not debating the false paradigm of Republican/Democrat or liberal/conservative, distractions from the real problem. I debate that people’s idea of government is WRONG, theft by proxy (government) through taxation and inflation is still theft for “the majority’s” pet program. Democracies (mob rule) ALWAYS fail. This country has not been a Constitutional republic for well over a century, and thus our demise will come in our lifetime or the next. No country lasts forever, and the USA will be no exception.

Right, especially considering that Edwards likely cost the Dems the White House in ‘04 and Hillary has by far the highest negatives. The Dems, much like libertarians, are just sorry as hell at winning elections.

And who constituted Obama’s major primary opposition? A one-term Senator who had no prior political experience, and a one-and-one-third-term Senator who had no prior elected experience (but who did have a famous last name). In a race between three non-”Jerry Smiths,” one of them eventually was going to pull ahead, and I can hardly fault Obama for being the one.

I think the bigger question in this Democratic primary race was why the three candidates with the least experience led the pack, while the candidates with far more experience (Richardson, Biden, Dodd) were pulling single digits at best.

The simple fact is, the majority of people in the United States believe the government has the right utilize coercion against individual citizens to achieve social ends. When a Democrat votes for a candidate who promises more redistributive government programs, they ARE voting their principles. When a Conservative hawk votes for stealing more of your money to give to the military industrial complex they ARE voting their principles.

Most people in the United States are in favor of more government centralization in some areas, and greater restrictions on individual liberty in some areas.

When white people vote for white candidates, it’s because they like what they have to say. When Black people vote for Black candidates, it’s because they’re black, get it? It couldn’t at all be because Obama speaks to issues that the majority of Blacks care about, and addresses the issue of race openly.

After all, Alan Keyes didn’t split the black vote during his Senatorial campaign against Obama just because he was black. He got killed because he fell on the wrong side of the issues that the majority of black voters cared about.

IIRC, he and Hillary were splitting the black vote for the first few (2?) primaries.

Obama’s popularity isn’t because he’s black. His popularity is because hes articulate, eloquent, knowledgeable, and could charm the scales off a cobra. He was popular when he won the Senate seat in Illinois by a landslide, winning 55% of the vote in the Senatorial primary against 6 other people (that means they split the other 45%!) and then went on to win by the biggest margin ever, earning 70% of the vote in the popular election.

The man was popular before he started his Presidential bid and it spilled over into it. It’s not because he’s black, it’s because of his personality.

Zeb made my point better than I did.

I’m not underestimating Edwards’ phony factor… I can’t stand the guy. However, Obama’s been caught doubletalking about many issues (decriminalizing marijuana and free trade are a couple I can think of off the top of my head) and he seems to get a free pass. Is this because he’s black? I don’t know, but it makes me wonder. I guess ultimately I have two points:

1.) The issue here isn’t whether Obama would be successful if he weren’t black. The issue is whether he would be THIS successful if he weren’t black. I think it’s an important distinction.

2.) Regardless of one’s personal speculation on the question (and that’s all it is… speculation), I think Radley goes too far in saying the idea is “silly.” He may disagree with it, but I think a sufficiently rational argument can be made that his race has been the difference between great politician and superstar politician to qualify the idea as, at the very least, “defensible.”