Oh, interesting. One wonders if they were voting for Obama or against Keyes.
That’s complete BS. There is a huge difference between the segregation practiced before *Brown v. Board of Education * and the the fact that most kids go to schools mainly with people of their same color. Before Brown, the government in most states forced the races to go to separate schools. Now, that does not exist. Sure, a lot of black people to go schools that have majority black populations. That is because they live in areas that are majority black. The same with whites. When I lived in DC, the schools were majority black. Why? Well, DC is a majority black city. Now that I live in a small town in Maryland, the schools are pretty racially mixed. Why? Because the town is about a third black and everyone goes to the same schools.
It’s ridiculous to compare the situation today to the government-enforced segregation of the past.
I think that’s accurate. They may not like that segment of their base, but they need it. Hence the quadrennial visits to Bob Jones University by the Republican hopefuls.
Uh, you’ve read much more into my post than was there. Obviously official racism is much less today than before. My sole point was that it still exists, contrary to Shodan’s opinion.
Instead of further hijacking this thread, if you want to learn more about school desegregation (it is more complicated than you suggest in your post), I invite you to e-mail me for more information.
Black or Democrat, I wouldn’t count on Obama carrying the South. Not that it matters - the South is gonna go Republican for a long time to come for reasons already stated by others, so I’m just glad you don’t need the South to win (although it helps). And it’s not like the Republican front-runners are gonna win the South very easily either (McCain is a dark horse down there, fer fuck’s sake!)
A little goblin on my shoulder tells me that the hard Religous Right and Social Conservatives (which includes a lot of Southern Republican voters) are gonna split from moderate (also known as ‘sane’ 
) Republicans any day now anyways, so that’s when LBJ’s “generation” of loss will be up IMO.
Going back to the OP, I disagree that the Democrats who enacted the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, school integration through busing, and affirmative action. Most of these ideas had long been supported by liberal Republicans and it was conservative Democrats who were opposing them. Lyndon Johnson didn’t enact his civil rights laws by defying the Republican party - he did it by splitting the Democrat party and forming an alliance between liberal Democrats and Republicans.
As for the electability of a black candidate, I don’t think it will be as big an issue as it could have been. Most of the people who won’t vote for Obama because he’s black were lost to any Democratic candidate. A real issue would have been if somebody like Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice had gotten the Republican nomination and some voters would be facing the dilemma of choosing between a black candidate and a “liberal” candidate.
I fervently hope you’re right… but I have my doubts.
Well, there’s black and then there’s black. Even racists will make exceptions for the black people they know personally…their coworker Bob isn’t like most of them, he’s trustworthy, he’s the exception, he’s “articulate”.
Obama really could be the exception for these borderline racists people once they get to know him. Like Will Smith…he’s the black guy everyone likes.
First, let me say that I think there are very few Americans who would “never” vote for a Black, regardless of their political leanings.
I knowing I’m playing with white stereotypes here, but I think there is an element of truth to found in some of them… In particular, I suspect there are quite a few old-school labor union types who typically vote Democrat, but who would be reluctant to vote for a Black presidential candidate.
But let’s keep in mind that no decision is made in a vacuum. Obama, unlike many Black politicians, doesn’t really make race an issue. If Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton run, they will be beating the race drum very loudly. It also depends on who the GOP candidate is-- if that person is seen as anti-labor union, then the folks I mentioned in the previous paragraph would be more inclined to vote for the Dem, whatever his or her race is.
I think one need only look at Harold Ford Jr. recent drubbing in the race for a Senator seat in Tennessee to answer that question, at least in the South. My question is, for Democrats, regardless of the answer, is nominating Obama really worth the risk? Polls are useless in the case, becasue few people, even in an anonymous poll will admit to being racist. Why take the chance on how far race relations have come in the US? My guess is Obama vs. a right wing nutjob Republican, he has a chance- against a moderate, very little chance.
Other than being laughable on it’s face, why isn’t this still racism, even if true?
If we always focus on this “risk”, then we’re never going to make any headway. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Democrats (and everyone else) should vote for a candidate, based on his or her qualifications. As soon as race or gender plays any part in the decision, the voter has taken a prejudiced stance.
LilShieste
I think part of the problem is some of the black candidates the Democrats have had for the Presidency. I wouldn’t vote for Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or Carol Mosley Braun. Doug Wilder never got far enough for me to even consider him. I probably would have given Barbara Jordan some consideration.
Since when is a 51/48 Senate race in which the incumbent party retained its seat considered a “drubbing”. And the final results mirrored the polls very closely, as opposed to other elections where the Black candidates would often get ~ 10% fewer votes than the polls predicted.
It isn’t racism because it isn’t saying that any class of people are inferior because of their skin color. It’s saying that people that have had the experience of being black in America can understand better the experience of being black in America.
I understand that there is a school of thought that says any non-colorblind action is, in some sense racism. This is the same camp that thinks affirmative action is racist. Fortunately, that camp is not in the mainstream in America.
I did not think it was that close, and I thought Ford was the incumbent, so I retract the first statement, but the one about Democrats should not risk the next four years and and a possible WWIII on a candidate who may very well not get votes because of color.
OK. You probably got confused because Ford was in the HoR, running for the Senate. The seat they were running for was vacated by Frist-- ironically enough (IIRC), so he could run for president, which he isn’t doing. 
Exactly- I knew he held some position there, thought it was Senator, it was HoR
Actions like these don’t necessarily demonstrate racism - but they do demonstrate race-based discrimination.
LilShieste
sed /s/black/white/g