Obama being black - how much could that influence the election.

BenjAii

I am struck my the constant refrain from media commentators (who wouldn't think of themselves as racist) asking, "Is America ready for a black President ?"

There is a certain amount of offensiveness to the assumptions behind this.

Firstly, after 200 hundred years of black people being almost a fifth of the US population, just when will white people feel ready enough. Secondly, what more do black people have to do to make the white population feel "ready" enough.

Obviously the white population isn't one homogenous lump that all thinks the same on this issue, but I just wonder who they are speaking for when they ask this question.

Also, historically there is a definite trend of white voters, wanting to appear to pollsters as non-racist and therefore pollsters over-reporting support for black candidates. I wonder is that a phenomena in the current election, where Obama appears to lead consistently in electoral college votes.

FatherTed

Unfortunately there is still a lot of racism left in the US. There are a lot of people who publicly say they that race will not affect their voting but in the voting booth would never vote for a black person.

brianthebard

First the black population of the US is 13% of the general population. Second I imagine they are talking about the states were this figure is much much lower, much of the midwest for instance. I think its a valid question, minorities do not get elected to government all that much, and especially not to the head of the government. How many black senators are there in the US at present? Can you name any governments where the head is a member of a minority of some sort? Possibly Morales, thats all I can think of. You op?

Pocono Joe

Yes there are those who will not vote for Obama because he is black, as those who will vote for him because he is black.

I find it strange that the only ones commenting on the racial issue are the Obama campaign and the traditional media who have shown an obvious preference for Obama. I think it's just a ploy to distract from the important issues at hand.

The republican party does not draw many African American, and therefore are labeled racist by many in the media. It is perplexing to me, as history indicates that the democratic party has done little to improve African American's situation in our country. Yet it's the republican party that has put African Americans into the highest offices in our country's history.

The same has been said about republican attitudes towards women, yet they now have put a woman into the number two slot, and will undoubtedly champion her as our next republican president if McCain wins.

I guess there's a big difference between perception and reality. Overwehlimgly, I believe come November 4th, the majority of American voters will be color blind when they pull the lever.

BenjAii

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Yes there are those who will not vote for Obama because he is black, as those who will vote for him because he is black.

I find it strange that the only ones commenting on the racial issue are the Obama campaign and the traditional media who have shown an obvious preference for Obama. I think it's just a ploy to distract from the important issues at hand.

Thats amusing. The people who are in fact using "ploys" to distract from the issues (economy, healthcare, jobs, the War) and will most obviously benefit from it are the Republicans.

Pocono Joe wrote: »

The republican party does not draw many African American, and therefore are labeled racist by many in the media. It is perplexing to me, as history indicates that the democratic party has done little to improve African American's situation in our country. Yet it's the republican party that has put African Americans into the highest offices in our country's history.

It is certainly true that George Bush as been responsible for having more black people at the very highest level of government. vis a vis Ms Rice and Colin Powell, in my eyes one of the very few brights spots in an otherwise bleakly bad record of his.

However you have to go back to the Civil War for the time when the Republican party was the party of black peoples interest. It is historical fact that the Civil Rights movement and its profound changes were aided by the Democratic Party legislating for desegregation and equal rights in the 1960's. It's silly to try and claim this for the Repulicans.

First the black population of the US is 13% of the general population. Second I imagine they are talking about the states were this figure is much much lower, much of the midwest for instance. I think its a valid question, minorities do not get elected to government all that much, and especially not to the head of the government. How many black senators are there in the US at present? Can you name any governments where the head is a member of a minority of some sort? Possibly Morales, thats all I can think of. You op?

But why is "Is American ready for a black president" a valid question ? Your post doesn't answer this.

You make the point that black people are historically vastly under-represented, which is true.

But the only reason you give for it is "because people don't do it".
We know why people haven't done it in the past, the history of black people in America from slavery to only recent racial desegregation is why it hasn't happened - we know that.

Why shouldn't they now?

And why do some commentators (even if addressing largely white mid-west states) wonder if they are "ready" ?

What do they need to be "ready", another century or so to see if this desegregation experiment really works out before they're sure a black person is up to the job ?

brianthebard

Pocono Joe wrote: »

The same has been said about republican attitudes towards women, yet they now have put a woman into the number two slot, and will undoubtedly champion her as our next republican president if McCain wins.
.

You actually believe that a party that blocked the equal rights amendment is pro women?

Ben, surely the answer is self evident-its a valid question because its never happened before. Everything else can be answered by the fact that you are referring to 24 hour news commentary. They have to talk about something, may as well be this.

snow scorpion

brianthebard wrote: »

You actually believe that a party that blocked the equal rights amendment is pro women?

The Equal Rights Amendment was a bit before my time, but as I understand it there are already is an equal rights amendment - the 14th Amendment - which guarantees equal treatment under the law.

Just out of curiosity, how did the Republicans "block" the ERA?

Pocono Joe

BenjAii wrote: »

It is historical fact that the Civil Rights movement and its profound changes were aided by the Democratic Party legislating for desegregation and equal rights in the 1960's. It's silly to try and claim this for the Repulicans.

I would never argue that those profound changes were not strongly aided by the Democratic Party.

Something interesting to note regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, initiated by Democratic President John F. Kennedy, is how the various versions were voted on, which ultimately made it law.

The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

snow scorpion

Joe,

when I saw the comment by Ben I immediately thought, "Joe is going to throw the percentages of party support at him."

Well done, dude.

BenjAii

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Something interesting to note regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, initiated by Democratic President John F. Kennedy, is how the various versions were voted on, which ultimately made it law.

The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

I know Kennedy was a flawed character in many ways; but what you are illustrating here- him facing down the bigoted elements of the Democratic Party (the Dixiecrats) shows him at his very best IMHO. Brave enough to put his principles above his fear of his party losing votes.

And I take your point, that prior to this the Republicans were the repository of many black votes thanks to the Dixiecrats & the historical legacy of the Civil War. What did a century of black support for the Republicans do for them ? Sweet FA really, its no record for Republicans to be proud of.

However it was Kennedy & Johnston who saw in these changes (I don't know what Nixon would have done had he won in 1960). Since then it has served the interests of black people to align them selves with progressive/left ( or "liberal" to the haters) politics (read 'The Democratic Party') as it has feminists in the 70's, gays & other minorities.

The right has merely reacted to these developments in society, usually with a pattern of coming round to progress eventually after a lot of complaining; It has rarely been the initiator or leader in these changes.

brianthebard

snow scorpion wrote: »

The Equal Rights Amendment was a bit before my time, but as I understand it there are already is an equal rights amendment - the 14th Amendment - which guarantees equal treatment under the law.

Just out of curiosity, how did the Republicans "block" the ERA?

14th amendment guaranteed equal rights for former slaves.

ERA, a proposed amendment to guarantee equal rights regardless of sex.

The Republicans made it about abortion and same sex marriage, which it wasn't, and managed to slow down its ratification, leading to it being abandoned. I can't remember the name of the woman who was in charge of this strategy atm.

snow scorpion

Really? The 14th Amendment applies only to former slaves?

You might to read it again and refresh your memory:

14th Amendment to the Constitution

brianthebard

Did you read it? Did you see how it guarantees male suffrage but not universal suffrage? There's no reference to women in it.

snow scorpion

brianthebard wrote: »

Did you read it? Did you see how it guarantees male suffrage but not universal suffrage? There's no reference to women in it.

That was in 1868.

The ERA was the early or mid-1970s. By the 1970s the 14th Amendment guaranteed equality to all - including women. It still seems to me that the argument "The ERA was unnecessary because the 14th Amendment already guaranteed women equal protection under the law" is a valid one.

brianthebard

snow scorpion wrote: »

That was in 1868.

This is the point. The ERA is necessary because the 14th amendment does not refer to women's rights at all.

The ERA was the early or mid-1970s. By the 1970s the 14th Amendment guaranteed equality to all - including women. It still seems to me that the argument "The ERA was unnecessary because the 14th Amendment already guaranteed women equal protection under the law" is a valid one.

I disagree. Where are you getting that quote from?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Who was?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Denmark and Ireland.

Were you planning to answer the question?

Pocono Joe

Here is an excellent read on the matter by a leading feminist and stanch democrat... Camille Paglia.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/

alastair

Paglia is about as right on Palin's feminist credentials as she was with Madonna's. It's indicative of the low expectations in US politics (and we're no-one to talk) that an effective Dan Quayle in lipstick can come out, read a speech essentially written before she was the chosen candidate, throw a few sarky straw dog jibes and be considered a vibrant force for conservatism.

She's not proven herself in hustings, national or foreign politics, nor engaged with any actual, you know, policy or issues. I know the VP often doesn't get anywhere near this stuff, and just acts as a mouthpiece for slagging off the opposition, but jeez - so few crumbs can't make a satisfying meal for anyone - whether they want to believe or to deride.

I don't care for her supposed personal politics, but doubt she has it in her to make much of these coattails shes currently riding. The debates will hopefully help form some sort of substance to the spin.

Pocono Joe

"substance to the spin"... unbelievable! I mean how much more substance can a person get than an 80%+ approval rating from her constituents as Governor. Where the dang asprin?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

BenjAii wrote: »

"Is America ready for a black President ?"

Doubtful.

alastair

Pocono Joe wrote: »

"substance to the spin"... unbelievable! I mean how much more substance can a person get than an 80%+ approval rating from her constituents as Governor. Where the dang asprin?

She's managed to drop from a 90% approval rating (on taking over from an unpopular and corrupt Republican Governor) to a 65% rating over a pretty short period. Her legacy as Governor isn't exactly inspiring on that basis.

But that's not the point. She hasn't engaged with any actual issues as VP candidate so far - she's an empty vessel that people are filling with their own perceptions.

alastair

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not really. Obama has a raft of policies out there for you to determine if he's for you or not. He's proven himself in hustings, has both national and foreign policy experience, and won the mandate of his party and national democrats.

is_that_so

Considering how "new" she is, it makes sense that she hasn't been doing more than make speeches and news headlines. She has her first interview tonight.