Obama '08?

I think that both Habibi and Snood are far too willing to imagine a degree of racism based upon the number of blacks holding high office than is actually warranted by the reality of electoral politics in the United States.

This is the reason.

Earning power in the black community hasn't made the same strides as the public's acceptance of black candidates.

it doesn't really matter where in the system which blockades are how high - if overall the blockades are high enough to block proportional numbers of blacks from being elected, then the end conclusion is the same regarding "the country's readiness --or lack of--to elect someone other than a white male."

The electorate isn't "over the colour issue"; the parties are still hesitant to put black candidates up for mixed electorates; the financers wouldnt even go there, for fear of a black candidate not being "viable"; etc. Those are all elements that play into the same pessimistic assessment: that the country isn't probably ready to elect a black into an office like the Presidency.

Once again, whether or not the electorate is or is not racist, the number of blacks elected to high office is not necessarily to be comsidered directly indicative of racism.

(Addressing Snood) Whether you like it or not, your race no more qualifies you to judge the relative racism of the electorate of the nation, than is the number of blacks in high office necessarily indicative of a degree of racism.

In the first place, i questioned the degree of apparent racism, not its mere existence. In the second place, i did not deny that the electorate is largely racist, i just pointed out that the number of blacks in high office is not necessarily indicative of electoral racism, given the nature of electoral politics.

Once again, whether or not the electorate is or is not racist, the number of blacks elected to high office is not necessarily to be comsidered directly indicative of racism.

Once can as easily assert that 40+ years as a black male has given you a jaundiced view.

His public speaking is dazzling and inspiring; my gut reaction to it is very positive. When I read him, however, I read a plain vanilla, run-of-the-mill, Democrat. Pro-Affirmative Action, raise the minimum wage, raise farm subsidies, discourage imports and outsourcing, yadda yadda yadda. He doesn't nearly impress me as much in writing as in his speeches.

Lash wrote:

This is the reason.

Earning power in the black community hasn't made the same strides as the public's acceptance of black candidates.

Why would a black candidate have to rely on the "Earning power in the black community"?

Lash wrote:

Who said it would? Do you know the personal wealth of candidates for puiblic office? Can you point to many people of everyday stature, who compel the millions from wealthy patrons?

Why wouldn't he have the same shot at winning the backing of the deep-pocket financiers that fund all the other candidates' runs as well?

Lash wrote:

Again. How many everyday average Joes get that funding?

It almost seems like you're making my point for me, here. Like I said:

Quote:

it doesn't really matter where in the system which blockades are how high - if overall the blockades are high enough to block proportional numbers of blacks from being elected, then the end conclusion is the same regarding "the country's readiness --or lack of--to elect someone other than a white male."

Lash wrote:

It really does matter. Your argument was about attitudes of the electorate toward blacks running . Period. If you want to change your argument now, you may, but I have no part in it.

The electorate isn't "over the colour issue"; the parties are still hesitant to put black candidates up for mixed electorates; the financers wouldnt even go there, for fear of a black candidate not being "viable"; etc. Those are all elements that play into the same pessimistic assessment: that the country isn't probably ready to elect a black into an office like the Presidency.

Lash wrote:

Where is your proof for those assertions?

?

One could. One could say many things. I think I am more qualified to judge how people view black males because I am a black male. For my part, I will say that I differ with you on this, and am willing to leave it at that, although I doubt you will do the same.

Once again, whether or not the electorate is or is not racist, the number of blacks elected to high office is not necessarily to be comsidered directly indicative of racism.

Whether or not the electorate is [..] racist [..], the germane question is whether or not those with deep enough pockets to make substantial campaign contributions (usually corporate entities, or corporate cartel front organizations) consider this or that condidate viable.

Setanta wrote:

Once again, whether or not the electorate is or is not racist, the number of blacks elected to high office is not necessarily to be comsidered directly indicative of racism.

You havent actually made that case at all, Set.

You didn't say somewhere in that mix, nimh. You said attitudes of the electorate. They don't vote for blacks...

nimh wrote:

Lash wrote:

This is the reason.
Earning power in the black community hasn't made the same strides as the public's acceptance of black candidates.

Why would a black candidate have to rely on the "Earning power in the black community"?

Who said it would?

Do you know the personal wealth of candidates for puiblic office? Can you point to many people of everyday stature, who compel the millions from wealthy patrons?

nimh wrote:

Why wouldn't he have the same shot at winning the backing of the deep-pocket financiers that fund all the other candidates' runs as well?

Again. How many everyday average Joes get that funding?

nimh wrote:

The electorate isn't "over the colour issue"; the parties are still hesitant to put black candidates up for mixed electorates; the financers wouldnt even go there, for fear of a black candidate not being "viable"; etc. Those are all elements that play into the same pessimistic assessment: that the country isn't probably ready to elect a black into an office like the Presidency.

Where is your proof for those assertions?

Amigo wrote:

snood wrote:

For me, the bottom line on Obama is this:
From all indications, this country isn't ready for a black person or a woman in the oval office, and won't be anytime soon. So while its entertaining musing about Condie, Hillary, Barack and Colin, the person occupying that white house on November 8th will be a white man.

To many Americans won't vote for a black man just because he's black no matter how good of a president he'd make.

...and that's much closer to what I was saying - plain and simply, Americans ain't ready for that yet - not all that convoluted hogwash about the GOP being somehow more evolved or something.

I understand that you say the problem is not with the electorate, but with the money, so OK - why do you think potential black candidates apparently have a larger problem getting that funding than their white counterparts?

snood wrote:

One could. One could say many things. I think I am more qualified to judge how people view black males because I am a black male. For my part, I will say that I differ with you on this, and am willing to leave it at that, although I doubt you will do the same.

Setanta:

Quote:

Certainly not--why should i? Having lived 50+ years as a white male, i could as easily assert, and with as much justice, that i am better qualified to comment on the degree to which white folks express racist opinions when black folks are not present.

...and I'd tend to say that was a reasonable assertion - you would know more about how white people talk when blacks aren't present. Why should you leave this be, and move on? It'd make you look like a big person - able to have someone disagree with you, and not get all huffy about it. Why should you? Because you and I haven't got a great track record for civil disagreement, so it would save a lot of time and wasted energy to leave it. Why should you? Because who knows, there might still be some hope you can come off as something less of an officious know it all.

Setanta:

Quote:

Your personal experience is simply not decisive.

I'm not as practiced with the terminology, but isn't it a strawman argument to present something the other person hasn't even said, and then argue against it, as if he had? I never suggested my opinions were decisive, as you put it. I said I believe I would know more about how black men get reacted to.

Setanta:

Quote:

And, once again, the point i was making is that the number of blacks elected to high office is not necessarily to be considered indicative of a the degree of racism in the electorate.

It may or may not be. I think racism has more to do with it than you think it does, and that's called a disagreement. And once again, I say that you and I simply disagree about this, and I am fine to leave it at that, but you seem to have a burr in your butt.

Setanta:

Quote:

In debate, it helps to address what someone has actually said or written, as opposed to one's personal stalking horses

From what's gone before, I'd say you should take your own advice.
.