For that matter, how can anyone lose to McCain? He obviously can't beat Obama straight up on any significant issue, and I don't think the Republicans have enough juice left to level the playing field through smear tactics. What I am missing?

I think its going to be a tight race.

M

racism and the valid fear many have that a guy like that will raise the fk out of taxes..

racism and the valid fear many have that a guy like that will raise the fk out of taxes..

That's a bit alarmist. I don't think there is any reason to feel taxes would be raised excessively, nor in a way which hurts those who are barely making it.

M.

For that matter, how can anyone lose to McCain? He obviously can't beat Obama straight up on any significant issue, and I don't think the Republicans have enough juice left to level the playing field through smear tactics. What I am missing?


you don't understand most american people. american people in general, are far more socially conservative than you seem to think, apparently. john mccain is not, but he is the candidate for the party that most recently has tried to portray itself as championing social conservativism. that counts for an awful lot. there is a very good chance john mccain will be elected. the reublican propoganda machine is going to be unleashed once this general election gets swinging, and obama will be painted as a frightening, ultra-leftist, socialist, nanny-statist, and most people will vote against that, which they find scary. i don't think obama is scary...he's only a man after all. but he's certainly a socialist, a nanny-statist, and is FAR left...so the propoganda won't be too far off the truth. the end result will be a president in mccain, who stands for nothing, and repeatedly frustrates both ends of the american political spectrum. screwed either way. the only good thing about obama being elected would be that he might be SO out in left field, his policies might just force american people to wake up from their slumber, as he betrays our national interests and sovereignty in the name of pandering to the 'global community'.

im not real worried-mine went up anyway but im just saying there are lot of people who vote on that issue alone..

The Dictatorship is running thin, The Bushes, Clintons, Kennedy, etc have sold this country to the highest bidder. Obama is not related to the whites. This being said, no one is inviting Obama to dinner, he has no connections, thus, not a dictatorship. We need a new face and color to the white house, lets paint the white house black.:p

whoa you almost sounded likePappy for a minute there..

I havent talked to Pappy in a long time. I dont think Mc Cain has a chance, matter of fact, no mention of him in my town. No one I know is voting for him

you don't understand most american people. american people in general, are far more socially conservative than you seem to think, apparently. john mccain is not, but he is the candidate for the party that most recently has tried to portray itself as championing social conservativism. that counts for an awful lot. there is a very good chance john mccain will be elected. the reublican propoganda machine is going to be unleashed once this general election gets swinging, and obama will be painted as a frightening, ultra-leftist, socialist, nanny-statist, and most people will vote against that, which they find scary. i don't think obama is scary...he's only a man after all. but he's certainly a socialist, a nanny-statist, and is FAR left...so the propoganda won't be too far off the truth. the end result will be a president in mccain, who stands for nothing, and repeatedly frustrates both ends of the american political spectrum. screwed either way. the only good thing about obama being elected would be that he might be SO out in left field, his policies might just force american people to wake up from their slumber, as he betrays our national interests and sovereignty in the name of pandering to the 'global community'.
The Republican machine has destroyed America. Nothing is left, homes are foreclosing, businesses are shutting down. Truckers are truck less. Before long, our great Repubs will have us picking merchandise off a trains because truckers will be out of business.
Wars, oil, cost of living, this isn't America, this is hell.
I have never had it this tough, and have never had it this tough in all of my adult years.I am ALmost out of business as well due to high gas prices. I guess someone will mow these peoples lawns.

as he betrays our national interests and sovereignty in the name of pandering to the 'global community'.

That's a fairly high and pure form of paranoia. Do you know what sovereignty means?

What makes you think Obama would betray our national interests? Which interests and how? Lets see if you are merely full of empty rhetoric, or if there is some substance to your attacks.

M.

That's a fairly high and pure form of paranoia. Do you know what sovereignty means?

What makes you think Obama would betray our national interests? Which interests and how? Lets see if you are merely full of empty rhetoric, or if there is some substance to your attacks.

M.

for starters, investigate the 'global poverty act', (s.2433) 845,000,000,000 dollars, dedicated to the reduction of global poverty.....this is 500,000,000,000+ dollars more than is currently spent on foreign aid. the money of course, ultimately comes from american taxpayers. cross-reference the UN's 'millennium development goal'.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2433/show

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

barrack obama is a globalist. i'm concerned about US interests.....domestic concerns....not global concerns, unless it involves an ally. so malcolm, it's not that i have no evidence of obama's desire to bring us far more deeply into the 'global community', it's that you like the idea and don't agree with my opposition to it. you have no problem with lots of aspects of socialism.....i do. i don't want a socialist president, and i would like to see us be less a part of the 'global community'.

ending poverty world-wide is a nice idea. getting along with neighbours in the world is a good idea. but they are not realities....consider, uh, world history for example. these ideas run counter to human nature. there will always be haves and have nots. there will always be people/nations/groups we oppose. i will not concede to being forced to pursue goals that are not attainable. the key word is forced. poverty should be addressed by individual charity, and 'getting along' should be pursued person to person.

for starters, investigate the 'global poverty act', (s.2433) 845,000,000,000 dollars, dedicated to the reduction of global poverty.....this is 500,000,000,000+ dollars more than is currently spent on foreign aid. the money of course, ultimately comes from american taxpayers. cross-reference the UN's 'millennium development goal'.


Why don't you go and research the cost of the Iraq war?
We have a candidate who now favors using roughly the same amount of money not to illegally invade a sovereign nation on false pretenses, but to combat the extreme poverty that makes millions of 3rd worlders susceptible to the lure of terrorism against us - and all you can do is complain?

Much of the money involved in this global poverty act relates to debt reduction: the absolution of portions of debt that were dishonestly foisted upon developing nations in the first place by CIA piloted economic development consultants. The game was devious and devastating: target a nation with natural resources we covet, offer them large development loans (which would employ American companies so the money goes right back into out economy anyway) while promising impossible economic development benefits to be the result of such loans/infrastructure work. The empoverished nation bites the bait, but defaults on the loans once the economic miracles do not materialize. It then is forced to pay us back by forfeiting its resources at rock bottom prices for decades.

If we were to be really honest in our approach, we would cancel the related debt entirely.

Guess what: us tax payers indirectly benefitted from such scams that were implemented by the people we allow to govern us. One way or another, we're going to pay for it. I would like to choose the way in which we pay for it rather than just float on into the future hoping what goes up will never come down on our heads. And I'd much rather pay for it in tax dollars than in global instability, terrorism and inexorable decline in our standing in a world which will need nations such our own to provide a counter point to China.


barrack obama is a globalist. i'm concerned about US interests.....domestic concerns....not global concerns, unless it involves an ally.


9/11 was not enough to slap some sense into you and make you realize that domestic concerns and global ones are one and the same?
If that didn't wake you up, how on earth could I ever hope to?


so malcolm, it's not that i have no evidence of obama's desire to bring us far more deeply into the 'global community', it's that you like the idea and don't agree with my opposition to it.


Your old game of switching and baiting. I never said there was no evidence of Obama wanting to bring us deeper into the global community. I asked if there was any evidence of him ACTING AGAINST NATIONAL INTERESTS, or BETRAYING OUR SOVEREIGNTY (all caps might help you focus).

You need to clearly demonstrate that giving back a minute fraction of the resources and energy we disproportionately take from the world, in order to foster unity and stability, is acting against our national interests. And you really need to start showing that you understand the meaning of sovereignty.

Yes I disagree with you.


you have no problem with lots of aspects of socialism.....i do. i don't want a socialist president, and i would like to see us be less a part of the 'global community'.


Its very narrow-minded to see any act of support to another as an act of socialism. I assure you that the money we spend on foreign aid is precisely targetted to reap enormous benefits for our nation. As explained above, this was even done in ways that harmed the recipients while greatly benefitting the American economy (consumers and corporations alike).
You're not even in the debate yet until you realize this.


ending poverty world-wide is a nice idea. getting along with neighbours in the world is a good idea. but they are not realities....consider, uh, world history for example.


So landing on the moon wasn't possible because noone did it prior to 1969.
Its never been done before is not a valid argument.
This is also not a question of absolutes. There are shades of grey in terms of REDUCING poverty, and GETTING ALONG BETTER with one's neighbors (caps for emphasis in the hope you will not ignore these important points).

Of course it might afford you a sense of being in the right to reduce this to absolutes you feel you can ridicule, but I assure you that noone shares your perception via this approach. All that is visible from where I stand is someone who needs to falsify the debate in order to feel he is prevailing.


these ideas run counter to human nature. there will always be haves and have nots. there will always be people/nations/groups we oppose. i will not concede to being forced to pursue goals that are not attainable. the key word is forced. poverty should be addressed by individual charity, and 'getting along' should be pursued person to person.

The act does not claim to eliminate poverty altogether. It does not claim to open a future where have nots no longer exist.

All you are able to do is clumsily try to equate this bill to outmoded, naive interpretations of communism in order to argue your point?
This conversation looks like it might get boring very fast unless you shape up.

M.

ending poverty world-wide is a nice idea. getting along with neighbours in the world is a good idea. but they are not realities....consider, uh, world history for example. these ideas run counter to human nature. there will always be haves and have nots. there will always be people/nations/groups we oppose. i will not concede to being forced to pursue goals that are not attainable. the key word is forced. poverty should be addressed by individual charity, and 'getting along' should be pursued person to person.

the dollar is falling from its privileged status as the global standard-we have to get along -we have to sign treaties and trade agreements. we arent self sufficient or we wont remain self suffucient anyway

For that matter, how can anyone lose to McCain? He obviously can't beat Obama straight up on any significant issue, and I don't think the Republicans have enough juice left to level the playing field through smear tactics. What I am missing?

There are still an incedible amount of genuinely afraid, and extremely "conservative" white people who are fearful ( for whatever reason ) of voting a black man into the presidency.
I've been shocked into this realization from seeing the Democratic primary results in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and now tonight in West Virginia, and from also hearing the poisonous media and rival campaign rhetoric that's majorly based on scaring this particular demographic from voting for a "black man".

There are still an incedible amount of genuinely afraid, and extremely "conservative" white people who are fearful ( for whatever reason ) of voting a black man into the presidency.

Very delicately worded. I read about this on msn yesterday - unbelievable. I really thought whites had buried this hatchet, and that it was black racists keeping the pot stirred. Of course, I also used to believe the East Coast was more refined in general than the Wild West, until I started spending time in Boston.

I may have to vote for Obama just to cancel the vote of an ignorant hillbilly on the other side of the country.

For that matter, how can anyone lose to McCain? He obviously can't beat Obama straight up on any significant issue, and I don't think the Republicans have enough juice left to level the playing field through smear tactics. What I am missing?

judging from this post and many other previous ones, quite a bit...

if dems could unite instead of fight, maybe then they could beat mccain. but hill's people won't vote for obama if he gets the nomination, they'll vote for mccain. dem's only hope is a ticket combining both...

Hillary hurts Obama's ticket. Obama will lose to McCain if he runs his campaign like Hillary and every other politician out there. And he will lose if he tries to focus on winning the swing states from last election. Obama has to run his own campaign of positive messages while keeping McCain squarely tied to Bush. If he does that, then he just needs to focus on the southern states where he can pick up a state or two with strong voter turnout.

you also have to keep in mind that McCain is a war veteran. He'll get many, many votes for that alone

Also, do you really think the people of this country will elect a minority to the highest office?

judging from this post and many other previous ones, quite a bit...

if dems could unite instead of fight, maybe then they could beat mccain. but hill's people won't vote for obama if he gets the nomination, they'll vote for mccain. dem's only hope is a ticket combining both...
Again, I say that Hillary is not the only Democrat who can attract white, blue-collar voters. That's just politico logic and it won't hold up in the real world.

As for examples of who, look at the governors of any state with white, blue-collar voters.

you also have to keep in mind that McCain is a war veteran. He'll get many, many votes for that alone

Also, do you really think the people of this country will elect a minority to the highest office?

I think the racists that wouldn't all vote Republican anyways. McCain's status as a war veteran is hurt by his support of Iraq and his aggressive posture on Iran. McCain isn't exciting to the religious wrong, and they already played the gay card for all it was worth in 2004. He's got nothing to motivate his base except Hillary.

The act does not claim to eliminate poverty altogether. It does not claim to open a future where have nots no longer exist.

All you are able to do is clumsily try to equate this bill to outmoded, naive interpretations of communism in order to argue your point?
This conversation looks like it might get boring very fast unless you shape up.

M.

malcolm, you can scrutinize every syllable of what i type in an effort to paint me as being inconsistent or uninformed, but again, what it comes down to is that we have widely divergent world-views.

i understand sovereignty. i understand that it isn't as simple as directly and clumsily and selfishly acting on one's own behalf in regard to nationhood. i understand that there are subtle, complicated aspects to peace and prosperity. but if you for even a moment think that an organization such as the UN does not believe that it can virtually eradicate poverty, inequality and violent conflict, you are horribly mistaken. the more instances of group-think that you encounter on an international scale, the more you find this gross misunderstanding, or simple knowing rejection of what human nature actually is.

many of the most outspoken proponents of globalisation find great hope in humankind, and most certainly do believe world peace and eradication of poverty are very much possible. you haven't been listening to them if you claim they don't. i find no hope in mankind collectively, because i understand the selfish nature of human beings. the only peace attainable is relative peace, and only a diminishing of poverty of possible. humans landed on the moon because our collective understanding of certain sciences developed to a point where it was possible. it had nothing to do with human nature. we cannot learn to be selfless. throughout the course of human history people, generation after generation, have been confronted with the knowledge of the consequences of being both selfless and selfish, and human history is replete with examples of people predominately choosing the latter.

i have heard barrack obama speak many times now. his words indicate very clearly that he does not acknowledge the realities of human nature. if he is elected, we will see him promote all manner of concessions to the 'global community', at the expense of the comfort, prosperity, safety, and sovereign ability of the american people to decide for themselves what is good and right for the united states. if you are under the impression that the united nations, that the international community of nations is not in the business of undermining the independent decision-making ability of individual nations, you must be sleeping.

if you believe that our government has betrayed our sovereignty in the long term because of irresponsible, manipulative diplomacy during the latter part of the 20th century, you are right. but the answer is not to 'make amends' at the further expense of that sovereignty. a strong military, not actively engaged in messes all over the world, be they self-made or otherwise, would be an essential component in assuring that we could draw back from so much involvement on the world stage, and directly addressing domestic concerns. TIGHT borders are another essential component. seeking to find new ways to end reliance on foreign goods of all sorts, another.

you clearly have a global mindset malcolm. i do not. but please don't assert that embracing a global agenda is the only way to address problems that we've already created, or been confronted with.

Do you really think the people of this country will elect a minority to the highest office?

Given my own narrow, ethnocentric viewpoint, sure. How many minority governors and congressmen do we have? How many women in those positions? That's why I was so surprised to read yesterday about the hicks who are still living in the 1800s.

hicks who are still living in the 1800s.

come on now, is there really any reason to name call the Amish people? :not:

amish 1800s beat the fk out of this century whatever it is

come on now, is there really any reason to name call the Amish people? :not:

Haha - I was thinking about Johnny Rebs, not the Amish.

amish 1800s beat the fk out of this century whatever it is

No kidding. Our grandchildren may all be living that lifestyle.

I think he can win, and I think many Americans will refuse to vote for a black president, no matter how much we pretend that there is no racial divide in this country. Being black is a big negative for a presidential candidate in this country at this time. The fact is, most people are afraid to admit it.

OTOH, being half white is probably a plus.

I don't vote skin shade personally, and have voted for a few losing black Republicans over the years such as Michael Steele, but it's still a negative. Also, McCain pleases many democrats, because he's not a real Republican. he'll pick up many swing voters this a time around. I think he can win, but if he doesn't, I won't be surprised.

In a country that elected Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, electing another unknown will be no surprise. We'll build him up. then tear him down as things don't turn out the way we like. That's what we do in today's America. There is no honor in the presidency anymore.

I think he can win, and I think many Americans will refuse to vote for a black president, no matter how much we pretend that there is no racial divide in this country. Being black is a big negative for a presidential candidate in this country at this time. The fact is, most people are afraid to admit it.

OTOH, being half white is probably a plus.

exactly. IMO, the only way he'll win over maw and paw back woods is to campaign heavily with his mom.

exactly. IMO, the only way he'll win over maw and paw back woods is to campaign heavily with his mom.

She died in 1995. That would just be creepy.

Also, do you really think the people of this country will elect a minority to the highest office?

or a woman...

but I think having had GW in the white house made those very real possibilities... hey, can't say he didn't do anything for ya...

Again, I say that Hillary is not the only Democrat who can attract white, blue-collar voters. That's just politico logic and it won't hold up in the real world.

As for examples of who, look at the governors of any state with white, blue-collar voters.

I'm only saying that it seems as though these two need to coexist in order to accomplish something. not trying to bring anyone else into the discussion, as these are our most likely candidates...

Such short memories ya'll have. The conservative right outnumber the liberal left and tend to vote when there is a good reason too. With both the House and the Senate likely to be controlled by the dems most in the right will not want to see a dem pres too and will vote in large numbers. McCain will win.

The Republican machine has destroyed America. Nothing is left, homes are foreclosing, businesses are shutting down. Truckers are truck less. Before long, our great Repubs will have us picking merchandise off a trains because truckers will be out of business.
Wars, oil, cost of living, this isn't America, this is hell.
I have never had it this tough, and have never had it this tough in all of my adult years.I am ALmost out of business as well due to high gas prices. I guess someone will mow these peoples lawns.If it's any consolation, things seemed actually bleaker 25-30 years ago. We had many of the same problems plus annual inflation of 10%+, gasoline rationing, price controls.

The 800 lb gorilla in the room today is our crushing debt load. That may be the single factor that will reduce our standard of living for many years to come.

But hey, low taxes...

I find it pretty damn pathetic that here in 2008 there are still so many racists, people actually wouldn't vote for someone because they are black? Seriously?

Even the mainstream media has been outed for the racist elitists they are, everyday all they talk about is how Obama is black and therefore people are afraid of him. No shit? He's black? If anything, we should be afraid of old white crackers like McCain, as it's nothing but old rich white elitists who have destroyed this nation, we've never had a black president, so the white people can't blame blacks for for the wars, deaths, debt, corporate power, lack of healthcare, energy prices, loss of freedoms, etc. Whitey has done all that, be afraid of the old white men, not Obama.

For that matter, how can anyone lose to McCain? He obviously can't beat Obama straight up on any significant issue, and I don't think the Republicans have enough juice left to level the playing field through smear tactics. What I am missing?

I didn't think that Pres. Bush would ge re-elected, but it happened.

you clearly have a global mindset malcolm. i do not. but please don't assert that embracing a global agenda is the only way to address problems that we've already created, or been confronted with.

I never asserted anything of the sort.
And I see that you have chosen, as is so often the case, to SELECTIVELY quote a TINY portion of my post, and to respond with generalities to a straw man.
I return the favor here of not giving you a proper response - I would be pretty foolish to continue an applied effort to your posts when you respond in this fashion.

M.

you also have to keep in mind that McCain is a war veteran. He'll get many, many votes for that alone


True.


Also, do you really think the people of this country will elect a minority to the highest office?

It is more than possible.
I think the wise approach is to take this presidential election as an indicator of how much anti-black racism remains in our country, rather than trying to guess the outcome of the election based on our limited perceptions of how prevalent that racism is.

With their policies and campaign alone, if they were both white, the democrat candidate would win in a quasi-landslide. We all sense this. So lets vote, and see how much anti-black racism is really left in America. Regardless of the outcome, it will be enlightening.

M.

True.



It is more than possible.
I think the wise approach is to take this presidential election as an indicator of how much anti-black racism remains in our country, rather than trying to guess the outcome of the election based on our limited perceptions of how prevalent that racism is.

With their policies and campaign alone, if they were both white, the democrat candidate would win in a quasi-landslide. We all sense this. So lets vote, and see how much anti-black racism is really left in America. Regardless of the outcome, it will be enlightening.

M.

Don't forget anti white prejudice from the black side of the divide. It's just as rampant as whatever white prejudice exists.

Blacks are voting overwhelmingly for Obama, which is no surprise, but when we consider things like O.J., Rodney King and other situations and events, it's quite clear that prejudice exists at many levels, and on many sides.

Right or wrong, the Rodney King incident was a lousy excuse to attempt to burn down a city; especially when the very people who set the fires, looted and pillaged and attacked and assaulted innocent whites, still had to live in the very neighborhoods they had collectively set out to destroy. That's pretty stupid IMO, but when hatred boils over and the mob mentality takes over, very bad things tend to occur.



It's not only a black or white problem. Prejudice exists worldwide. Many Arabs hate the Jews, many Jews hate them back. Certain Asian groups tend to dislike other Asian groups, and groups like Sunnis and Shiites have their ancient religious grudges. The list can go on and on.




So, regardless of past injustices like slavery, Jim crow and other discrimination against the American black population, the racial divide is a two way street at this point. It's also bigger and deeper than most would like to believe and/or admit, in despite progress we have made to get it behind us.

When I was growing up, there were just a few black families in my neighborhood. All of us kids played together, and had no problem with one another. Skin shade was never an issue among kids. We just wanted to play and have fun.

OTOH, among many of the adults, there was almost an unwritten rule that the white kids didn't enter the homes of the black kids, and the blacks didn't enter the homes of the whites. It was just the way it was. No one talked about it, it just was the way things were. This was in the mid sixties/early seventies.



I had a very good black friend when I was a kid, and was also friends with his older brother, and his 4 sisters. We were pretty much best friends, and we all got along great and had a great time hanging out with one another. We never even brought up the subject of race, because it was a non issue.

They all lived with their grandparents, and the Grandparents would never allow me inside the house. It may have been a case of shame, because they were very poor, had no running water, and the only heat was from a wood stove.



He and I are friends to this day, and always will be, but I have to admit that a few folks around the neighborhood would sometimes ask me what I was doing hanging around with that little "****** boy", as though it was some kind of crime, or at least, socially unacceptable.



So, I can easily see through my own experience how certain prejudices can originate, and I think it's criminal that so many children are literally trained to mistrust, or even hate others that are not of "their own kind". If parents would allow kids to make their own decisions about race relations and stop training them to hate from the time they can think, the problem would go away on it's own eventually.

Prejudice is a learned trait. No one's born that way.

Barack Obama is a negro.

That gives McStain a 30 point advantage coming into the contest. Most white folks would rather shoot their first born in the face than live with the notion of a negro president. They'll find their "legitimate" reason for hating the guy - illusionary tax hikes on the working class, fake terror threats, imaginary connections with HAMAS, and a bunch of stuff that makes no sense at all - but in the end, the color of the skin on the man will force most white people to think 10 times before pulling the lever for him, and give John McLameBrain more Mulligans than any general election candidate since that pumpkin headed interbreeding hillbilly Andrew Jackson stumbled into the presidency. Twice.

These cretins let Bush blow into their asses twice. They'll find a reason to love McSame.

Barack Obama is a negro.

That gives McStain a 30 point advantage coming into the contest. Most white folks would rather shoot their first born in the face than live with the notion of a negro president. They'll find their "legitimate" reason for hating the guy - illusionary tax hikes on the working class, fake terror threats, imaginary connections with HAMAS, and a bunch of stuff that makes no sense at all - but in the end, the color of the skin on the man will force most white people to think 10 times before pulling the lever for him, and give John McLameBrain more Mulligans than any general election candidate since that pumpkin headed interbreeding hillbilly Andrew Jackson stumbled into the presidency. Twice.

These cretins let Bush blow into their asses twice. They'll find a reason to love McSame.

Way to lower expectations in the event of a loss. Just yell "racism" loud and often enough and you can overlook any number of weaknesses in your candidate.

Ah, I see the anti-white racists are having a Misery Party. Vote For Obama, Because He's Black! isn't selling well, apparently, and the so-called 'educated youth voters' can't keep from exposing their own virulent, smarmy bigotry against working class people and 'The Old People', more evidence they're much more ignorant and uneducated than those they earnestly hope to shit on in the near future.

And they're mystified as to why the race is so close ... duh ....

Way to lower expectations in the event of a loss. Just yell "racism" loud and often enough and you can overlook any number of weaknesses in your candidate.

Indeed. The more I watch him, the more phoney he becomes. He stutters constantly, and it's because he has to stop and remember his 'platform', something that never happens to candidates who really believe and know what they're promoting and stumping for. He's just a gimmick candidate, and a bad one at that.

He's a bigger fraud than Enron.

Way to lower expectations in the event of a loss. Just yell "racism" loud and often enough and you can overlook any number of weaknesses in your candidate.

No Hadit, I don't see any lowering of expectations here. At least as far as I am concerned, I expect Obama to win.

What I see is people being real about the handicap Senator Obama's race is for him in a nation where bigotry is still powerfully entrenched in some demographics and regions.

And to Bertrade: the anti-white prejudice you speak of is not going to play the same role in this election. Blacks, for the most part, will not be voting against McCain because he is white, but rather for Obama because he understands our community AND has a good platform.

What we are looking at is a significant portion of the white community who would not vote for a black man, period. In the black community, amongst those for whom race plays a roll in their vote, we are faced mostly with people who would vote for a white person but are given, for the first time in the history of our nation, a candidate who understands them.
I'm sure you can see the significant difference.

And of course prejudice exists world wide. I'm not sure why that obvious fact is so important to our discussion though. We're faced with dealing with ourselves, first and foremost.

I agree with what you say about prejudice not being a born trait.

M.

True.



It is more than possible.
I think the wise approach is to take this presidential election as an indicator of how much anti-black racism remains in our country, rather than trying to guess the outcome of the election based on our limited perceptions of how prevalent that racism is.

With their policies and campaign alone, if they were both white, the democrat candidate would win in a quasi-landslide. We all sense this. So lets vote, and see how much anti-black racism is really left in America. Regardless of the outcome, it will be enlightening.

M.

Well, you do at least have two liberals running against each other. Of course, one is old and the other is young, so it's really not a good indicator. And one is much more liberal than the other. So the outcome of this election says nothing at all about race relations in the US. There are multiple reasons to vote against Obama that have nothing to do with race.