Barack Hussein Obama.
With a name like that, he needs to become president. Americans need more irony in their diet.
I have found that most Democrats are pretty open to quite a few Republican Presidential hopefuls. I have not identified any Democratic Presidential hopefuls that would draw any republican votes. I don’t know if this is because Democrats are open minded, the Republicans are closed minded, there just aren’t any good Democratic candidates for President, or the Republican candidates are just so awesome.
Hillary and Obama both have to change their image in order to become the first female or minority presidential candidate by a major party. I’m not saying that Hillary has to convince people she’s a man or that Obama has to convince people he’s white (although it probably wouldn’t hurt). Between the two I think being a woman is the greater handicap, because it is really tough to navigate the territory between being too soft and being a bitch.
A lot of people think Hillary is coattailing her husband. She has also inherited all ill will that was ever directed at her husband. She has an unremarkable senate career and she is divisive.
Obama is a blank slate and he gave a really good speech at the DNC so people know who he is. If he could get more endorsements, he could carry the Democratic ticket but he would lose to McCain or Powell.
I don’t think either of them have much real managemerial or governing experience. After perusing through their backgrounds, I’d suggest that Obama would be much better suited for either SoS or in a leadership role in congress. Congressional leadership seems a much better role for Hillary as well. Again, just my opinion, but judging from their backgrounds, neither seem suited to head the executive branch.
Where does each candidate come down on the issues? Anyone have a good link? It seems that HRC is all over the place. What about Obama?
Truth be told, he’d have to remain someone who we can all mostly find something to identify with, regardless of skin color. He’d do well hobnobbing with, say, Oprah, or Powell, or anyone else admired and liked by the mainstream of America. But appearances with Jackson, or perhaps with Ludacris 
wouldn’t serve his interests well. But then neither would appearing with Michael Moore.
If he runs he’ll emphasize his optimism and his religious values. His humble roots and his belief in hard work and opportunity. The ads and speeches will write themselves. His “funny name” will be turned into a symbol of what makes America great.
He’s voted pretty much on party lines and against the Supreme nominations. He has consistently said getting into Iraq was a mistake but is against immediate withdraw/ or deadlines. Now that we are there we have an ethical responsibility to get out in a process that builds the country. He embraces religious values with respect but also respects the rights of all faiths including those of none. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-07-09-forum-religion-obama_x.htm
For his official stands see here: http://obama.senate.gov/issues/
That’s a different question than the OP is asking. I agree that HRC would win in the primary, but I still think Obama would have a better chance in the general.
In other words, rich black people whose presence doesn’t make white people feel scared, guilty, or defensive.
I’m going to go with white woman wins over black man.
Democrat voting trends for national office are concentrated in urban population centers. Although blacks are also concentrated in urban areas, their overall number as a percent of total population is still small at 12.8%.
IMHO the white urban democrat voters, the ones who are really going to be deciding this, would have more of a tendancy to have latent issues with a black than a women in the highest office.
As to who would have a better chance against any Republican, there are more women swing voters and Republicans to cross over and vote for a Hillary than black swing voters and Republicans to cross over and vote for a Obama. Republican white men crossing over will be infintesimal in either case. So, I can see Hillary actually winning more easily than Obama.
No, I think you’re taking that the wrong way. He was responding to your post about Obama not getting close to Jesse Jackson or Ludacris, but that would apply equally well to Michael Moore (who **DSeid **mentioned) or Marylin Manson (sp?). It’s about not hobnobing with the fringe.
The primary usually goes to the candidate with the biggest or best organization in primary states. Right now, that’s Clinton. One candidate has already dropped out because Hil has such a big head start on him. He surrendered more than two years before the election, which shows how early you have to build your foundation. Anyone who wasn’t traveling to Iowa and New Hampshire 9 months ago may as well throw in the towel. He’s finished already.
You’re not making a valid comparison. What does Michael Moore have to do with anything?
The relevant question is this: Would HRC shaking hands with Jesse Jackson turn off as many voters as BO doing the same thing? I say no. In order to win, Obama would have to distance himself from blacks and (media appointed) black leadership, while HRC would not. Obama could hang with Oprah and Cosby, but he’d have go out of his way to not be in the same room with Al Sharpton. HRC wouldn’t have to go through that song and dance, because she wouldn’t have race to worry about.
Jackson is to Moore as Ludacris is to Manson. Both are seen as much too left leaning for the mainstream.
I don’t think so. I think the kind of voters who would be more turned off by Obama than Hillary shaking hands with Jackson would not be voting for Obama in the first place.
I didn’t say anything about Ludacris, so I have nothing to say about him or Manson. But let’s focus on Moore. I believe Moore would be equally bad for Clinton and Obama because they are both Democrats. In order to win, both candidates would have to distance themselves from Moore to the same degree. With race, they couldn’t behave in the same fashion. Obama would have to be more conscious of maintaining his racial crossover appeal.
Others have largely clarified my point. HRC might lose more even, given her perception by those to the right of center as too liberal. Still, Obama would lose support for slightly different reasons. And it is the shared value thing. White America does not identify with thepoor urban Black subculture. Threat, schmet. It is percieved as a different set of values. Identify with him with that subculture and you’ll lose people. But skin color does not automatically mean that to most.
Wait, are we talking about judging the candidates fairly by their credentials and abilities and experience, or are we talking about random irrational fears and hatreds (“Black men are threatening to whites”, “Hillary is a threat to the republic”)?
Or are we talking about how people can’t separate the two?
They wouldn’t exactly be Clinton lovers either, though. Some perceived offense like BO being overly friendly with black organizations and causes could nudge some fence sitters (who are biased against both women and blacks) towards the Clinton side.
Granted the same principle wrt gender applies to Clinton. She’d have to downplay her pro-choice position, for example. But race is more of a polarizing topic than women’s issues, so she might not lose much if she comes across as being pro-women. Need I even say what would happen if Obama was portrayed as being pro-black?
Hah! Obama would be trounced in the GE. There’s no way on this green Earth the republicans would let a Black democrat win. There’d be voter turnout the likes of which no one has ever seen.
I think we’re talking about reality, rjung, at least I am. The prejudicial perceptions you referenced above exist, and will have an effect, and not an insubstantial one, IMO.