Should Hillary Hang It Up?

It's no secret that some people are voting for Obama largely because of his race. It's also no secret that a small minority of Americans are voting against Obama because of his race. I think, however, there is a subtle, yet important distinction between voting for someone because of his/her race and voting against someone because of his/her race.

Mindful of our not so distant past, many Americans find it thrilling to see an African-American on the cusp of becoming our nation's leader. It signals a seismic shift in politics and race relations. It also gives hope to many minorities that they can aspire to become important figures in our society. So, in a sense, I can understand why some people vote for Obama, in part or whole, because he is African-American. It may be dumb to do so, but it is understandable.

On the other hand, to vote against someone because they are African-American is simply racist. I don't think I need to elaborate on this point. So, whereas the former group votes out of hope, the latter group votes out of hate. That's a sweeping generalization and it's not so simple, but I think it captures the gist of how I see this issue.

Personally, I would NEVER consciously vote for or against anyone because of his/her race. Superficial distinctions like race should not be used as a factor in determining whether someone should ascend to the highest position of power in the world.

Finally, as Saden noted, I do not think Obama's race is what is propelling his candidacy. Jesse Jackson didn't go too far in his bid for the presidency and neither did Alan Keyes. Obama has that "it" factor that Reagan, Kennedy and FDR did.

Good points.

All you had to say was the part I bolded. The rest of the information is a nice little tidbit. But then the last line is out of place because it seems like it was an attack on the knowledge of the poster you quoted. Yet he never said anything about pre-1948.

I didn't intend it as an attack on the original poster. He was close and his general point is well taken. There has been an historical shift towards V.P.s as successor candidates. If you think that America has suffered for it, you can find hope in this years candidates. Research can be illuminating.

I think we all agree that racism, in whatever form, should cease. The question here is whether it is racist to vote for a presidential candidate in part or whole because that candidate is black.

If your answer is yes, why? I assume your response is that any decision which is affected by someone's race is inherently a racist one. If that is the case, does that mean President Nixon was a racist because his administration aggressively pushed affirmative action? Or how about people who choose not to date people from a similar ethnic background? Does that mean that people who won't adopt kids from outside their race are racist?

I think it's sometimes difficult to discern what is really racist.

There has to be an apt rational to justify in part, but to vote for someone in whole because they're black is unacceptable because to vote against someone because they're black is equally unacceptable.

Personally, I believe electing Obama as presidents is an indication that America has come a long ways since the days of slavery and jim crow. It's an indication of progress as well as hope. It tells young African Americans that anything is possible. Finally, we'll be able to stick it to rest of the world (especially Europe) and show them that we don't just talk the talk but that we walk the walk.

I didn't intend it as an attack on the original poster. He was close and his general point is well taken. There has been an historical shift towards V.P.s as successor candidates. If you think that America has suffered for it, you can find hope in this years candidates. Research can be illuminating.

I wonder when you might grace us with insight into your research and analysis of the republican electorate. You know, make up, education level, social status, NASCAR viewing habits, affinity for guns, sexual preference, etc.

There has to be a apt rational to justify in part, but to vote for someone in whole because they're black is unacceptable because to vote against someone because they're black is equally unacceptable.

Personally, I believe electing Obama as presidents is an indication that America has come a long ways since the days of slavery and jim crow. It's an indication of progress as well as hope. It tells young African Americans that anything is possible. Finally, we'll be able to stick it to rest of the world (especially Europe) and show them that we don't just talk the talk but that we walk the walk.

We could (could have?) to an extent said the same about electing Hillary. I think I've mentioned it before a while back, but we see electing a woman to be the leader of our nation as some huge step forward but there are/have been woman in charge of countries all over the world for several years. Some of the most promiment nations have had women lead them through major events throughout history (and I'm not talking about royalty)

I wonder when you might grace us with insight into your research and analysis of the republican electorate. You know, make up, education level, social status, NASCAR viewing habits, affinity for guns, sexual preference, etc.

Well you know, speaking for myself, some Nivea for Men products, MBA, big pimpin, not as much lately, I liked water guns as a kid, and often

People who say they didn't vote for Obama because of race are, to me, racist, and according to polls that was 20 percent of white voters in West Virginia. A recent Washington Post article has some pretty stunning anecdotes from some Obama volunteers Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051203014_pf.html) . Let's not get all delusional and pretend that race doesn't exist in America anymore. While it's true that not supporting Obama doesn't make you a racist, it's insane to pretend that it won't be a factor in this race - and as an American that shames me.

And come on, Toni Morrison, while a tremendous author, is neither an intellectual nor a political leader in black America. Clinton remained in office because he enjoyed broad political support in various demographic groups. If "black America" wants to support a different candidate now it's not your place to patronizingly tell "them" that they essentially are reaping what they sowed. It's crazy that you blame "black America" for the success of one of the most popular presidents in modern history, whom you happen to disagree with.

I was merely pointing out that Bill Clinton did not declare himself to be America's first black President as a previous poster was claiming. I also don't accept your claim that Bill Clinton is "one of the most popular Presidents in American history". He was elected with 43% of the vote in 1992 and 49% of the vote in 1996. Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan were all re-elected to office with nearly 60% of the vote. Clinton had high approval numbers but most Americans were extremely wary of him for obvious reasons. They should be obvious to everyone now at any rate. Bill Clinton avoided forced resignation by the skin of his teeth. If it weren't for the blindly enthusiastic support he got from the various Democratic interest groups-if any one of them had abandoned him-he would have been toast. This is why blacks feel so betrayed by him now. They had his back at the crucial hour.

If Obama and his supporters endeavor to make a habit of charging racism whenever he has difficulty, then the American people in their great wisdom will soundly reject him. He lost in West Virginia because those people take a highly pragmatic view of things. They know the Clintons and what they stand for. Obama is still largely an unknown quantity. He's never really done anything. That's the reality he has to confront. It's easier to chalk it up to racism and I think for many Liberals it actually feels good to do it, but ultimately it is not helpful. Obama would be smart to come right and say he doesn't believe it was racism. He should say that the people of West Virginia are good people, etc. etc. That's the road to victory for him. Not the quagmire of race. He needs to be post-racial. If his Liberal supporters are determined to indulge in that sort of thing, he's sunk. He needs to convince the American people that he believes in his heart that they are not racist. That will get him the votes he needs to win.

We could (could have?) to an extent said the same about electing Hillary. I think I've mentioned it before a while back, but we see electing a woman to be the leader of our nation as some huge step forward but there are/have been woman in charge of countries all over the world for several years. Some of the most promiment nations have had women lead them through major events throughout history (and I'm not talking about royalty)


Of course, I'm all for my wife, sister, mother, grand mother. I suppose if Hillary hadn't thought me retarded, stopped patronizing me, and conducted a positive campaign she would have my vote.

I wonder when you might grace us with insight into your research and analysis of the republican electorate. You know, make up, education level, social status, NASCAR viewing habits, affinity for guns, sexual preference, etc.

Based on what happened in Mississippee yesterday, I would say the Republican elecorate is down to myself, the editors of National Review, and a couple of students at Liberty University.

I was merely pointing out that Bill Clinton did not declare himself to be America's first black President as a previous poster was claiming. I also don't accept your claim that Bill Clinton is "one of the most popular Presidents in American history". He was elected with 43% of the vote in 1992 and 49% of the vote in 1996. Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan were all re-elected to office with nearly 60% of the vote. Clinton had high approval numbers but most Americans were extremely wary of him for obvious reasons. They should be obvious to everyone now at any rate. Bill Clinton avoided forced resignation by the skin of his teeth. If it weren't for the blindly enthusiastic support he got from the various Democratic interest groups-if any one of them had abandoned him-he would have been toast. This is why blacks feel so betrayed by him now. They had his back at the crucial hour.

If Obama and his supporters endeavor to make a habit of charging racism whenever he has difficulty, then the American people in their great wisdom will soundly reject him. He lost in West Virginia because those people take a highly pragmatic view of things. They know the Clintons and what they stand for. Obama is still largely an unknown quantity. He's never really done anything. That's the reality he has to confront. It's easier to chalk it up to racism and I think for many Liberals it actually feels good to do it, but ultimately it is not helpful. Obama would be smart to come right and say he doesn't believe it was racism. He should say that the people of West Virginia are good people, etc. etc. That's the road to victory for him. Not the quagmire of race. He needs to be post-racial. If his Liberal supporters are determined to indulge in that sort of thing, he's sunk. He needs to convince the American people that he believes in his heart that they are not racist. That will get him the votes he needs to win.


God help us with low information voters (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2a50425a-1f86-11dd-9216-000077b07658,s01=1.html?nclick_check=1). West Virginia is really a special place and not the good kind of special (I know, sounds terrible and it feels just as terrible to say that):

West Virginia is hostile territory for Mr Obama because it has few of the African-Americans and affluent, college-educated whites who provide his strongest support. The state has the lowest college graduation rate in the US, the second lowest median household income, and one of the highest proportions of white residents, at 96 per cent.

The ignorance is mind boggling:
7i7j3sQUusw

And of course the you have the women vote in play too:
SbkyJLiax8E