Obama '08?

Well, I would agree that anyone who'd hold slaveholder ancestors against him would probably hold almost any ridiculous thing against him.

I would just stop short of saying that this kind of story has no weight at all. It has the same kind of weight as the other "shocking facts" about Obama (his youthful drug use, his ill-advised real estate deal, his smoking, his elementary school). It has attraction for those who probably wouldn't support him under any circumstances, as talking points to convince others that they shouldn't support him either.

This kind of thing will be picked up and carried only by those who don't care how Obama gets smeared, only that he gets smeared.

Lash
The BS about him being descended from slave owners will have no impact upon the black vote. IMO he will capture the majority of the black vote simply because he is black.

Lash wrote:

I initially thought the same thing--but polling and conversation with the homies doesn't bear that out....although he's made recent gains.

When push comes to shove color will win out.

sozobe wrote:

Eh, I don't agree with that at all. ("Color will win out.")

I just don't think that this is likely to have a big impact, as it's not actually anything that much bigger/ different from what was already known about him. He's half-white. The fact that American white people are very likely to have a slaveowner at some point in the family tree is axiomatic in terms of the civil rights struggle/ Black Power movement, etc.

But I dunno. We'll see.

Pollsters also say that Mr. Obama's candidacy has hurt Mrs. Clinton's campaign among black voters, who were among her husband's most loyal Democratic supporters during his two terms in office.
Mrs. Clinton had led among black voters in January by 60 percent to 20 percent, but the latest ABC/Washington Post poll shows Mr. Obama leading among blacks, 44 percent to 33 percent.
"Of course, 44 percent is a far cry from the 85 percent of the black vote he will need to win, but it's quite a turnaround in the past month," former Clinton campaign adviser Dick Morris wrote Friday on the Townhall.com political Web site.
Mr. Obama's surge in the polls was especially impressive in Georgia, where increased support from a large black vote has helped to push his approval numbers higher.
"Obama has gone from 18 percent support to 25 percent. Hillary has fallen from 35 percent to 28 percent. He's really surged in that state," Mr. Johnson said.

I know very little about Obama, to be honest, and not enough to think he is a racist, but reading the stuff about the church was troubling to me, and as I pointed out, if someone else had a church like this, I think some questions should be asked. If I was Obama, I would be running as fast as possible from such a church.

au1929 wrote:

Lash
The BS about him being descended from slave owners will have no impact upon the black vote. IMO he will capture the majority of the black vote simply because he is black.

au1929 wrote:

Lash wrote:

I initially thought the same thing--but polling and conversation with the homies doesn't bear that out....although he's made recent gains.

When push comes to shove color will win out.

If push comes to shove and color wins out, resulting in Obama getting the majority of the Black vote simply because he is half Black, does this mean that push comes to shove and color wins out and also results in Obama getting the majority of the White vote simply because he is half White?

blatham wrote:

Finally someone says something intelligent on this vacuous talking point. Thanks snood.

Oh, and I'm chopped liver then?

I agree that was well said though, snood.

au, there was a lot of talk on this thread quite recently about how Hillary had much more support than Obama, precisely when Obama was little-known except for the color of his skin. If it was about that, people would have supported him from the get-go. But no, people are learning about him -- his positions, his personality -- and deciding to support him. That goes for a whole bunch of people, black and white.

It's not color will win out. It's strongest candidate will win out.

Butrflynet wrote:

au1929 wrote:

Lash
The BS about him being descended from slave owners will have no impact upon the black vote. IMO he will capture the majority of the black vote simply because he is black.

au1929 wrote:

Lash wrote:

I initially thought the same thing--but polling and conversation with the homies doesn't bear that out....although he's made recent gains.

When push comes to shove color will win out.

If push comes to shove and color wins out, resulting in Obama getting the majority of the Black vote simply because he is half Black, does this mean that push comes to shove and color wins out and also results in Obama getting the majority of the White vote simply because he is half White?

Flawlessly logical.

It is because they marched that I stand before you here today. I was mentioning at the Unity Breakfast this morning, my -- at the Unity Breakfast this morning that my debt is even greater than that because not only is my career the result of the work of the men and women who we honor here today. My very existence might not have been possible had it not been for some of the folks here today. I mentioned at the Unity Breakfast that a lot of people been asking, well, you know, your father was from Africa, your mother, she's a white woman from Kansas. I'm not sure that you have the same experience.

And I tried to explain, you don't understand. You see, my Grandfather was a cook to the British in Kenya. Grew up in a small village and all his life, that's all he was -- a cook and a house boy. And that's what they called him, even when he was 60 years old. They called him a house boy. They wouldn't call him by his last name.

Sound familiar?

He had to carry a passbook around because Africans in their own land, in their own country, at that time, because it was a British colony, could not move about freely. They could only go where they were told to go. They could only work where they were told to work.

Yet something happened back here in Selma, Alabama. Something happened in Birmingham that sent out what Bobby Kennedy called, "Ripples of hope all around the world." Something happened when a bunch of women decided they were going to walk instead of ride the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry, looking after somebody else's children. When men who had PhD's decided that's enough and we're going to stand up for our dignity. That sent a shout across oceans so that my grandfather began to imagine something different for his son. His son, who grew up herding goats in a small village in Africa could suddenly set his sights a little higher and believe that maybe a black man in this world had a chance.

What happened in Selma, Alabama and Birmingham also stirred the conscience of the nation. It worried folks in the White House who said, "You know, we're battling Communism. How are we going to win hearts and minds all across the world? If right here in our own country, John, we're not observing the ideals set fort in our Constitution, we might be accused of being hypocrites." So the Kennedy's decided we're going to do an air lift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is.

This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that the world as it has been it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Alabama.

I'm here because somebody marched. I'm here because you all sacrificed for me. I stand on the shoulders of giants.

March 5, 2007

Throw History Out The Window
By Charlie Cook
© National Journal
This column was originally featured on NationalJournal.com on February 27, 2007

Just as baseball fans tend to be hooked on statistics -- and the more arcane the better -- political aficionados often look to historical precedents and analogous situations for clues of future events, whether truly applicable or not.

All in all, it's not a bad thing, as long as one does not become a prisoner of history. But this presidential campaign might be so different that many past patterns will not apply or might be terribly misleading.

Over the last 90 years, only two sitting U.S. senators have won the presidency -- Warren G. Harding in 1920 and John F. Kennedy in 1960. The New York Times recently pointed out that the last two former mayors elected were Grover Cleveland in 1884 and Calvin Coolidge in 1924. No woman, black or Mormon has ever even won a party nomination. Furthermore, no Arizonan has won the presidency nor has anyone over 70 won a first term.

So here is the bottom line: History will be made, or at least long-standing patterns will be altered, almost no matter what happens in this election.

This will be the first post-9/11 presidential election with no incumbent running. Will the war in Iraq elevate foreign policy to a point where current or former governors and mayors need not apply? Or could only one with extraordinary intellect and/or leadership skills still make it?

The only contested presidential nomination in 2004 was on the Democratic side. During 2003, the top fundraiser was former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who pulled in just over $40 million. Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and John Edwards, D-N.C., raised just over $15 million and $10 million, respectively. Kerry won the nomination and Edwards ran second. But this time, it might be that any candidate who does not raise at least $75 million -- some say $100 million -- will not be viable.

With as much as half the country seemingly contemplating primaries on Feb. 5, 2008, just on the heels of the Iowa and Nevada caucuses and New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries, there will be very little time for any upset winner in Iowa or New Hampshire to raise sufficient money to capitalize on it just two weeks later.

The point of all of this is to say that this election is shaping up to be much different from past years. With so many different and complex moving parts, it is almost inevitable that many traditional yardsticks and rules of thumb won't apply. But at the same time, not all of them will be irrelevant.

Perhaps one of the most confounding questions is the lack of an old-fashioned conservative in the upper ranks of the GOP field. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is a conservative only in the most liberal definition imaginable. And while the voting record of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is a lot more conservative than many critics in his own party want to admit, he has a well-earned reputation as a maverick, bucking the majority of GOP senators more often than the party leadership over the years has wanted.

In national polls, the third-place possible contender is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., who will decide in September or October whether he will run. While certainly a conservative, Gingrich isn't an old-fashioned, run-of-the-mill anything -- he's one of a kind. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has always been well within the mainstream of the GOP on economic issues, but he is unquestionably a very recent convert to the cause on social and cultural issues.

To be sure, there are old-fashioned conservatives in the second tier: certainly Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, but also Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

What this means is unclear. It might just be chance. After all, a year ago then-Sen. George Allen of Virginia appeared likely to run and he is certainly an old-fashioned conservative. If former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush were running, he would qualify as well.

But another factor is that with President Bush's job approval ratings in the 30s, the GOP may be in more of an experimental mode than normal, and the chances of the party nominating someone who is ideologically or stylistically like him are reduced by his lack of popularity. Republicans know that if they run a status quo candidate, and the 2008 race is framed as status quo versus change, they will lose.

For Republicans to have a chance, voters have to be given the choice of two variations of change. That doesn't mean liberal or necessarily even moderate, but certainly someone who will be judged independently of President Bush.

The more I think about the 2008 election, the more I suspect it will be driven by circumstances as much as personality. It will be a challenge for the GOP no matter what, keeping in mind that only once in the 15 post-World War II elections has a party been able to win the White House three times in a row.

If I had to predict which party will win the presidency I would first need to know either the identities of the two nominees or how many pairs of boots are in Iraq and how the war is going. While knowing the nominees would be helpful, I'd rather know about the situation in Iraq. If Iraq is roughly where we are now or, God forbid, worse, it will be very tough for Republicans to hold onto the White House, regardless of who the nominees are. If it is going appreciably better, it will likely be more of a fair fight.