Why doesn't the poll ask about voting preferences for senile, brain-damaged candidates that cannot articulate thoughts or sentences - if we are to believe the lying liars in the MSM, the candidates that America choose to support are either:

*senile

*alcoholic/cocaine addicts with brain damage

It seems all one needs to do to get the polls to proclaim you are the "favorite" is to drool and get help going to the bathroom.

But we love us some cranky old white folk with a tenuous grasp of reality.

Viva McCain!

Hmmm. Interesting.

I might well have answered that I thought "most people I know wouldn't vote for a Black candidate" before Obama came along.

You've got to factor cynicism regarding your fellow man just as much as racism, imho.

I also would have said I thought a lot of people wouldn't vote for a black candidate (although my circle is awfully Left Coast, so I wouldn't have said it about my friends), and I would have said that some -- but not nearly as many -- wouldn't vote for a woman.

And I have found the reverse to be true: more have clearly expressed reservations, or otherwise have shown clear distinctions in their judgments, with respect to sex than to race.

And this poll seems to support that.

Misogyny trumps racism. Hm.

... aliver and weller - Kevin

Looks like you dropped your dictionary soon after you tried to look up how to pronounce divisive.
Sheesh, someone call the grammar police.

I think the poll was badly designed. The question "about your friends" should have been parallel to the question put to the respondent, i.e. "Prefer to vote for X". Keep it the same and then compare. The language of the questioning needs to be consistent.

[sigh] It would be more informative if we had a decade or two of similar surveys before jumping to any conclusions.

I think this poll is heavily influenced by this cycles candidates and the results might be completely reversed ten - twenty years ago.

Weenie: Sheesh, someone call the grammar police.

curiouser and curiouser, eh?

Morpheus: Could be. In fact, the results are moderately different even compared to a similar poll in January. However, this might also be evidence that people are willing to vote for blacks/women in the abstract, but a lot less willing when an actual, concrete black/woman is in the race.

But overall, yes, it's hard to say how meaningful these numbers are, aside from the fact that they're just too damn big to be complete artifacts.

Know what this is?

Depressing.

Pass the Jack.

Theresites,
You're having brain issues today aren't you? You know the ones that cause you to mis-type your own posts.

And yah Thersites, I'm having my own set of brain issues today too.

Well jeebus. I've got to mis-type my own posts. My secretary's on strike...

And I joke because, as Mike P. says, this is depressing.

Of course misogyny bests racism. I know, I've experienced it first hand, for over 30 years.

Next question.

White man wins? I wonder who the white man vote is going to. John McCain? Tell me it aint true. He is really not a great example of a white man. Or maybe he is. Maybe white men are doomed! Certainly another 4 ,8 years of mindless John McCain will hurt the empire. The country will go bust with his plan to kill off a billion Muslims, not to mention a billion Chinese.

Wait, I thought homophobia was the last acceptable bigotry? C'mon, I've got money riding on this.

... and I've got $10 on misogyny to place, and $30 on racism to show.

What Morpheus said, shithead. Might be just a coincidence, but the "racist" and the "sexist" numbers track pretty closely to the candidate's respective unfavorable ratings. Well, before we learned that Obama was a Black Panther anyway.

The cartoon about Muhammed wearing a bomb shape turban is so cool that Bush should try one on it would fit well I bet, WarHawk

You have to wonder if people will see McCain for what he is. Last night on C-Span, between programs, they showed a minute or two from GW's talk in 2002 asking for the AUMF. He sure looked to me like a shifty-eyed little weasel, but there are Americans who saw a resolute leader. Go figure.

More political crack. Satisfies in a rush then leaves you gnawed and restless. Americans are less racist/sexist then they are passively xenophobic. If you're not in my ridiculously small sphere of influence then I don't trust you to be genuine. There has to be a vile motive lurking within. To much Desperate Housewives perhaps?

It is extremely easy to get cynical about these very difficult issues of racism and sexism but that's intellectually and morally lazy. Much as Obama has illustrated, I believe that this is more greyscale from the perceived whole diving down to the individual. No one is pure of heart and mind, though very few of us is pure evil either. Its really more about the level of comprehension and the willingness to see beyond the limits of your own experience.

So please, don't pick up where Crisis News Network and the rest leave off. This is gutter science at its worst and a Zogby poll at best.

Wait... "would or wouldn't vote for" and "prefer to vote for" are different things, and you're conflating them, Kevin. This poll appears not to measure the strength of the preference. We can't really compare a statement about preferences with an absolute statement about would/would not, right?

The professional Republican males I know hate Sen. Clinton. The more moderate among them are rooting for Sen. Obama to win the nomination so they do not have to vote for McCain. I doubt their voting preferences have anything to do with gender or race. These men's hate of Hillary is completely irrational, especially since these married men would all fuck Moncia if they had the chance. Maybe that is why they hate Hillary; they hate their wives.

The professional Republican males' wives I know hate Sen Clinton. The Republican professional women I know hate Sen. Clinton, too. I have no idea why. All wanted to vote for Giuliani.

So what's the difference between sexism and misogyny? Someone's bound to bring it up sooner or later. Here's a pre-emptive comment on the subject:

"We don't want to hire her. Women aren't good at technical stuff." = sexism.
"We don't want to hire her. She'll be like those bitches upstairs [in the front office] and I hate them." = misogyny, and something I've actually heard. (Not in my present workplace.)

Now, when you've got Hillary-haters selling t-shirts that read Citizens United Not Timid, which do you think it is?

Personally I support Obama. But the level of hatred for Sen. Clinton out there is just plain sickening.

Kevin probably has the right take on the most significant numbers, although I think the figures are so high in response to a speculative question (how would someone even purport to know what most of the people they know would not do) that they need to be largely disregarded.

If you needed one piece of the poll to show how inaccurate it is, how many think that only 10% of blacks would prefer to vote for a black man? A second piece, only 5% of women would prefer to vote for a women?

But the level of hatred for Sen. Clinton out there is just plain sickening.

Is this mysoginist/sexist?

"We don't want to hire her. I know her. She fucked up several times when it really mattered. And she has tons of enemies."

Is this mysoginist/sexist?

That's neither. You're not expressing hatred, you're questioning her qualifications. Those are arguable points (although I won't.) But there are people who despise her just because of what she is, and that's what I was talking about.

I think misogyny appears more widespread than active racism because it's more necessary to maintain the power structure. There are a lot of Hilarys out there: white women who went to the same schools as their brothers, got the same degrees, and got the same associate jobs and who therefore can compete for the same really good jobs. Racism means that there aren't a lot of blacks (or for that matter Latinos or Asians) with the same credentials. Lousy schools, drug-ridden neighborhoods, and distance from the power structure means there are not a lot of Baracks, so he (or any other super-qualified black or Latino or Asian guy) does not represent a threat to the typical white male ego the way Hilary does.

I don't know that this type of poll could ever produce reliable information, but a potentially more informative question would have been whether the person knows people who switch their vote from democrat to republican because of Obama's race. My answer would be no.

A useful heuristic can be derived from the observation that ~35% of the population can be classified as "know-nothings" (people who don't know the name of the Vice President, the party in control of Congress, the name of both their senators, etc), a number which is verified by the observation that at the bottom of his career, Richard Nixon still got 25% approval ratings AND that GWB, the worst President in US history, still gets approval ratings in the low 30s....

Given this evidence that many Americans are idiots, 33% seems like a reasonable estimate of the "my friends won't vote for a black man" factor. That floor will be hard to lower because some people will never learn. But I'd say the same floor of ~35% should apply for the "my friends won't vote for a woman" factor as well. The fact that it is closer to 50% I attribute to the "my friends won't vote for HRC who happens to be a woman" factor in this race. It looks like misogyny, but its really mishillary.

"I don't lie but all my friends do." Sure, this is what everyone says. So we can safely say that everyone lies, but not necessarily all the time.

I don't hate Blacks/Whites/Women but my friends do. Certainly the case--this is what people say.

But who do these folks usually vote for? Usually they vote for the same damn fool (Usually White and Male). So last time it was George Bush and this time it could well be John McCain.

Keep this up, white folks, and your days on earth may well be numbered!

But fortunatly, neither is a plurality and given the current climate against Republicans this is the best time to send out a woman or a black man and test the waters in my opinion. The GOP brand can't get much lower and the Democratic brand can't get much better.

Meanwhile, I think HRC benefits from Bill being there at her side. I've read a lot of people commenting that they're comforted by the fact he'll be in the white house too. And they don't want four more years of Bush. So those numbers don't really tell the whole story IMO. Clinton has an easier road than most realize to get to the White House and Obama a harder one too. But they both fundamentally need parts of each other's coalition they might lose if the other one isn't on the ticket.

Older women, black folks.

*

Kevin, re the sexism/misogyny observation ('aliver and weller'): have you been reading the comments in the progressive blogosphere over the last three months???

"If it was necessary to start a war at 3 AM with a Middle Eastern country, who would you want to answer the phone?"
a) A black man with an Islamic terrorist-sounding name?
b) A white woman some people think resembles a monster.
c) John McCain, a maverick who believes in staying the course.

What Diana said. And what everybody said who says this is really an apples/oranges set of questions.

I'm a pretty old guy now, and I've been surprised for many years at the number of working-class white kids who've been walking around in Michael Jordan and Shaq jerseys and salivating over Halle Berry. And have you watched any MTV or VH1 or youth-oriented teevee lately? Non-white is in with the mix, and mixed-race is cool.

I'm no Pollyanna (and I'm not wild about Obama either), but when I see this stuff it tells me things have changed. I'm not saying they've they've changed enough, but they've changed.

IMHO the "People I know" questions are fraught with difficulty. Kevin offers one interpretation. Another possible interpretation of the What People you Know Would Do might be what the media is reporting. That is, maybe 34% of respondants say people they know would not vote for a black because media says Americans are a bunch of racists. (In fact, in a self-referential way, Kevin's post does just that.)

Also, there's an ambiguity. Suppose I know 1000 people and I think two of them would not vote for a black. It would be literally true that (some) people I know would not vote for a black. So, I might answer YES even though 99.8% of the people I know would vote for a black.

It's hard enough for people to predict how they would vote. Their guesses about other people they know are likely worthless bits of data.

Ptate thinks 35% of our population as "know nothings."

Do people here think that is true? If so, it obviously is contrary to the respect and admiration that politicians and probably most Americans express for democratic elections. It is a subject that the media won't touch, but whatver the number, it also would be my assumption that the democrats get the majority of those votes (similar to, a majority of felons, a majority of poor, a majority of new immigrants - not to say that all poor or new immigrants are necessary no nothings, but as a group they probably would be disproportionately represented in the know nothings). What does it say about our electoral process?

it also would be my assumption that the democrats get the majority of those votes

brian is a Democrat?

it obviously is contrary to the respect and admiration that politicians and probably most Americans express for democratic elections.

As in:

RADDATZ: Two-thirds of Americans say it's not worth fighting.

CHENEY: So.

RADDATZ: So? You don't care what the American people think?

CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.

Not to slight Obama, but maybe non-Republicans will stop bashing Clinton so much now.

Duh
Especially among the "paternalistically minded", they can take a black man like Obama with a wife who knows her place is supporting her man. For them, Hillary is another step toward and uppity wife that divorces hubby and makes him pay alimony.

Yup.

The major revelation of this campaign has been the clear evidence that sexism, not racism, remains the dominant prejudice of America. I'm willing to bet the same phenomenon holds true out here in Australia too. (Julia Gillard, our deputy Prime Minister, has a kind of hatred in conservative's hearts that blows out beyond her stature. Mind you, she's also a muckraking political theatre junkie with a gift for forcing her opponents into difficult and embarrassing double-binds, so I don't pretend at all that it's only gender.)

Cynics? Racists? There's a third option.

People like to think of themselves as better than their peers. Thinking of themselves as enlightened, and the people they know as racist or misogynist, is one of the cheapest ways we know for people to grant themselves this free credit. (It's almost universal with youth vis a vis the next older generation, hence Obama's appeal to 29-and-under.)

Totally unsurprising. I haven't heard anyone say that they wouldn't vote for a black president, but I've had plenty tell me to my face that men are better suited to the presidency. Even other women.

George W. Bush was helped by his last name. Obama's been helped by his race. Clinton's been helped by her gender and last name. And McCain's been helped by Mike Huckabee taking votes away from Mitt Romney.

All candidates were helped by forces outside of their control. This is not to say that these are the ONLY reasons, this is just to say these forces affected the race.

Of course, there are many individuals who fantasize that it is 1964 and most Americans are racist and sexist. Thus, they could not comprehend that Obama's being black or Clinton's being a woman has helped instead of harmed them.

I guess next they are going to say that prejudice against Irish people and German people is rampant, too.

Know what this is?

Depressing.

Pass the Jack.

I hate the coal taste, I'm more of a southern comfort man...

I think these indicators are really soft- they don't go far towards telling us a lot about what we want to use them for, and Kevin acknowledges he feels the same with this post.

For example- the numbers about what people think other people think about race or gender of a candidate may be useful, especially if the numbers of what people report about their own prejudice are "soft," that is, if they only go so far; but, there may be a difference between how useful this kind of reporting-on-others is as regards race and as regards gender. Maybe, because of cultural, socialization factors, people are much more wrong about how their acquaintances view gender than they are about how their acquaintances view race- or vice versa.

Also, the answers people give about their own prejudices or about others' may not be that helpful, because people's choices may be affected by the race or gender of a candidate, but much less often completely determined by it. That is, the effect of race or gender bias of voters in this day and age is best described as a "plus" or "minus" rather than as something you can look to in figuring out whether some significant number of people will *ever* vote for a person of a particular race and gender.

That is, for example, maybe a large number of the most strictly religious and parochial conservatives don't want to vote for a woman- unless she's Ann-Coulter-esque enough, in which case it's no problem.

We have successfully stigmatized public expression of racist sentiments. But misogynistic expression - "Senator Clinton, iron my shirts" - is still thought cutely naughty.

Can you picture a college prankster suggesting Senator Obama carry his bags?

The Prairie Angel

Ptate thinks 35% of our population as "know nothings." Do people here think that is true?

brian, in a word, yes. I know nothing and join the great 35 %.

In fact, I recall that the last time I responded to one of PTate's comments (IIRC, about dynasties, and how she deplored them), I replied simply * to indicate my agreement, as I'd seen this use of the asterisk on other (nonpolitical) blogs.

I moderated myself, when I meant only to concur. How know-nothing is that?

RonK has a good thought there, and Arachnae puts some things into words well.

I suppose I have no preference in skin color for a candidate.

But faced with the choice between a white racist, and a black racist, I would have to say I'll choose the white racist. And along with that, consider the proposition that NOBODY is without some racial bias.

All that said and done - I will vote for Obama anyway. Because while I *do* think he harbors some racial resentment, some of it justified, I don't think that racial resentment is germane to his qualification to be the best freaking presidential material this country has seen since FDR. And if Obama loses, I will not be saddened, because this guy is going to change the world, in very good, very big ways, whether he is president of the US or not.

Personally, I think that he would be more capable of this greatness if he is NOT elected president. I think being president of THIS particular crappy little backwater, and this ignoble point in our national history, would not be the best career move for him.

Wait, I thought homophobia was the last acceptable bigotry? C'mon, I've got money riding on this.
... and I've got $10 on misogyny to place, and $30 on racism to show.
Posted by: anonymous on March 19, 2008 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

Last acceptable bigotry is anti-atheism. Hell, even anti-agnosticism is considered "cool" in some circles.

Could you imagine a person who is not a church-going christian, elected president of the US?

(oh yeah, that's right. GWB does not go to church. Yet he is somehow the darling of the religious far-right. . . who apparently love to be pissed on, and told it's raining)

Yes, in a year where Reagan's landslide could become just a faint little blip in the charts compared to what could have been ... the Dem's have managed to field two candidates who really do have their work cut out for them.
But count it as a token of the strength of the Democratic Party: when the opportunity was there, it chose to give an opportunity to a woman and a black candidate.

Fortunately, the GOP have fielded an idiot, which increases Dem chances. Can't wait for the McCain debates.

Weenie: Sheesh, someone call the grammar police.

curiouser and curiouser, eh?
Posted by: thersites on March 19, 2008 at 7:01 PM |

Some ers are more equal than others.

I consider a poll like this to be utterly worthless, as it, (1) asks people to candidly reveal how much of a racist or sexist they are, and (2) to know the minds of their friends, which is completely unknowable.

Fromt the Department of Unintended Irony.

The McCain Campaign

"America and our allies stand on the precipice of winning a major victory."

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080320/a_bush20.art.htm

Super-difference society and economic quarantine policy

It worries that the black is a poorest segment of the population by fixing the
difference.

It is hoped to revive the inheritance tax.

When did the super-difference age of the United States start?Corporate CEO and general worker's income differences were 36 times 1976 year. It increases by a factor of 131 in fiscal year 1993, and corporate CEO and general worker's income differences increase by a factor of 431 in fiscal year 2004. The well-to-do population of the high rank 10% has 70% of domestic assets in the United States when seeing with the property base. It is 61% in France, 56% in Britain it, 44% in Germany, and 39% in Japan.
Concentrated level of the wealth of the United States is terrific.

Will an enormous property be a result of the effort?
Oh dear, it is not so. 42% of the property person who Rancined it to Forbes 400 merely succeeded parents' properties as well as George Bush. They are not making an effort except insisting on the abolition of the inheritance tax.
Research of the U.S. think tank
In the United States, the child who grew up in a rich home is 22 times as high as the child of the probability becoming the super-rich of the top five % who grew up in the families living in poverty.
When the child who was born in the home of the subordinate position 25% is a black, the probability of staying as it is in the poorest segment of the population is twices as a lot of as the white.

It turns out that Denmark, Nolwei, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Germany, and France are given than the United States at the chance ("American dream" is achieved easily) in the investigation if it says at the probability (social liquidity) that can become a well-to-do population from the poorest segment of the population. The United States says that few countries of the chance are only Britain in advanced nations.

It's called social desirability.

One thing that becomes clear when reading left leaning blogs is that they are populated by people who apparently have no real experience with actual 'working class' grunts - because your average modestly or poorly educated grunt doesn't care about race and doesn't give one good god damn whether Obama's speech was the best thing since whatever. Which is not to suggest they ain't racist: racism against everything on two feet is alive and well in the trenches - the grunts just don't care to talk about it and they definitely are not sitting up nights wondering how on earth we can heal this nation. That is why the video of Wright is important and Obama's speech ostensibly addressing it is meaningless. All the republicans have to do in the fall is run a commercial of Wright blaming white America for everything that's wrong with black America and saying America deserved what happened on 9/11 and that points out Obama's close ties to Wright and the election is over. It's as simple as that. Most of America doesn't care in the slightest if the consensus feeling in the staff lounge at Berkeley or on the editorial board of the New York Times is that Obama's speech was brilliant - unless it's to hate the idea that they even have to hear about it.

I was talking with the director of a child care center the other day. She said boy toddlers would rather play with a boy of a different race than with a girl toddler of the same race. At that stage, they're learning how to sort things, including colored beads and people, and the boy girl thing seems like a bigger difference to them than skin color.

Looks like gender & race is an issue any way you slice it. This country has a history of slow changing and slow acceptance. There is no reason why folks hate HRC so much - it is beyond explanation. She has smarts, class, experience (yes even beyond first lady) while Obama has no experience and he can give speeches. Tell me any kind of policy or law that has his name attached to it - NOTHING.

People will vote for the best candidate and the latest sound bite the day they vote. Remember we have short attendtion spans here and the latest controversy or statement made or dirt to dig up will be front and center and then people will vote based on that.

Obama's speech was NOT brilliant. HE is a liar and has ties - very close ties - to a reverend that makes inflamatory & discriminartory statements. People need to question the tightness he has with Rev Wright - it is not healthy or good. I would vote for a black person if they have the credentials - I would not vote for one that incites every evangelical to come out of the woodworks to incite anger and tell me I am a racists because I did not vote for him or think he is not qualified. His not having experience at anything other than giving speeches is an issue - not a racist issue - but a serious lack of qualified experience to be the head of this country.

No his speech was just a speech and he will try to brush it all under the rug now - but we should not do that - Rev. Wright and his closeness to Obama is seriously an issue.

The more Sen. Obama talks about race the more it will drive his numbers down. The gushing reviews by people here notwithstanding.

Almost as many women (16%) as men (18%)say they prefer to vote for a man. That is a lot higher than the percentage of AA's who say they prefer to vote for a black candidate. This shows that women can be misogynists too. (My mother-in-law is a good example.)

...because your average modestly or poorly educated grunt doesn't care about race

Thank God they're not racists, only jingos. I was worried there for a minute.

I'd love to hear the explanations of that 1% of blacks who prefer to vote for a white candidate.

This just seems old and gray. The race and gender Issues are not just hackneyed and tired- and politically distracting; the Issues also have undying sacred status among baby boomers. Certainly there are historic reasons for this, but everyone must still pay homage to the national mythology or apologize for not taking it seriously.

Thing is others will not deal or come to terms with the Issues. They will just not realize there was an issue to begin with.

I believe that John Lennon said it most succinctly in one of his best songs:

"Woman Is The Nigger Of The World"

Every word is true.

Ever wonder why no major world religion has a female god?

Racism is toxic, but it is usually more visible, and there are multiple targets because there are multiple races. Sexism and misogyny are insidious and pervasive in a global patriarchal culture. Think of how many men had the gall to portray prostitution as it is currently practiced in this country as a "victimless" crime after Eliot Spitzer's transgressions were revealed. That shows just how clueless most of us are. Selling sex is not immoral in and of itself, but neither is exchanging backbreaking labor for room and board. Sex workers in 21st century America are in the same position as slaves and indentured servants in 18th century America. Sure, you could find a few prostitutes who imagine that they've made a choice and say they feel empowered, but the entire enterprise is degrading and exploitative. You can't have an empowered prostitute in a sexist society. Making it legal wouldn't change the underlying dynamic.

We are all racists and sexists. Some of just aren't self-aware enough or honest enough to acknowledge it.

Hillary and Obama are both experiencing the effects of sexism and racism in this campaign. Sometimes from each other, but mostly from the press, which presumably reflects the prejudices and assumptions of society at large.

There is a well known overestimation bias whenever people estimate the frequency with which other people do someting. It is described in many Introductory Psychology textbooks and is so robust that it makes an effective in-class demo. People should have at least basic training in psychology before jumping off the deep end over a badly designed survey, such as this one.

Nancy, that's the only reasonable thing you've said here. Thanks for taking a break from your little ongoing experiment on the threads.

Beating a black man can be considered a hate crime. Beating a woman is considered by some as necessary. I don't know anyone who would consider it a hate crime. After my husband beat me up, I was told by another woman that I shouldn't have made him mad. Yes, blacks can be racists (though generally not against blacks), and women can be misogynists.

And by the way, if you want to effectively measure the differences between how people respond to "Mary" and "Perry," you've got to do a better job with the controls.

"Almost as many women (16%) as men (18%)say they prefer to vote for a man. That is a lot higher than the percentage of AA's who say they prefer to vote for a black candidate. This shows that women can be misogynists too. (My mother-in-law is a good example.)"

It's called the queen bee syndrome. Women judge other women more harshly than they judge men. My wife is the same way. I don't think she would ever vote for another woman.

Howie wrote:

I'd love to hear the explanations of that 1% of blacks who prefer to vote for a white candidate.

It seems racism against blacks is so prevalent that even blacks come to believe it to a certain extent. Or maybe they just feel that the degree to which blacks have been affected by racism-caused social problems would make a black candidate less likely to be a good candidate (less likely to have gotten a good education, to have been encouraged by his parents/teachers/peers to do well in school, etc.).

PsychProf, a citation to the proposition you;re talking about would be helpful for those of us who want to check out that you're not just another Internet loser calling him/herself a psych prof., and that you actually have a real point.

*

Now some of us would rather cuss and make a fuss
Than to bring about a little trust
But we shall overcome our beliefs someday
If you'll only listen to what I have to say
And how long have you hated your white teacher
Who told you, you love your black preacher

And if you had a choice of colors
Which one would you choose my brothers
If there was no day or night
Which would you prefer to be right

- Curtis Mayfield

It's pretty common for people in polls to assume that other people are worse than they really are--for example, college students assume that other college students drink a lot more than they actually do. It may just be a bias toward cynicism--not wanting to appear naive to a pollster.

Oh, something I forgot to mention in my original 11:45 PM comment 9I hate when I forget to include my main point like this!):

What I was ultimately getting at is, someone could give answers to a poll like that, that maybe make them sound like they're not racisr or sexist- say they claim they'll vote for a black person or a woman- but what they really mean is, they'd ordinarily hate voting for a black person or a woman, but it's possible they would vote for a black person or a woman- i.e., if the black person was a fanatic for pursuing policies that mostly hurt black people, or the woman was very against women's rights, and the poll respondent didn't like the alternative candidates. So it might be that a candidate like that was acceptable even if they were black/female, but in all other circumstances, a no-go.

Fun stuff -- Swan referring to someone else as an "internet loser."

How does one resolve this poll with the HUGE turnout in the various primaries this season?

I'll look at peoples' actions, as opposed to what they think their friends and neighbors might do.

Wright has made Obama unelectable: fanatics are in denial about this but as we move into the fall the truth of this will become quite clear. Likewise, Obama has made Hillary unelectable because if she manages to win the nomination or is handed it by super delegates blacks and young voters will be no-shows come November. So, in short, good work democrats - you've fucked up again.

Yeah Ghost, and I'm sure you think Hillary had nothing to do with this wright video...

This speech has been around for 7 years. If Republicans wanted to use it, they would do so immediately after our nominating convention. The only person it could conceivably help right now is HRC. That means it's overwhelmingly likely that either her or her allies are responsible for this.

Obama didn't make his supporters hate Hillary. She managed that one all on her own.

[You are a mess. Go get some fresh air and give the people who populate these boards a break.]

Soullite wrote:

"This speech has been around for 7 years. If Republicans wanted to use it, they would do so immediately after our nominating convention. The only person it could conceivably help right now is HRC. That means it's overwhelmingly likely that either her or her allies are responsible for this."

You have gotta be kidding. Faux News, FreeRepublic and other wing-nut sites have been talking about the Wright sermons for nearly a year. It all bubbled over last week when ABC News started posting stories to their website about Wright's words. Please don't even try to tell me that Brian Ross et al are Clinton fans ... you would only look like a bigger moron than usual.

Wright has made Obama unelectable: fanatics are in denial about this but as we move into the fall the truth of this will become quite clear. Likewise, Obama has made Hillary unelectable because if she manages to win the nomination or is handed it by super delegates blacks and young voters will be no-shows come November. So, in short, good work democrats - you've fucked up again.

Not that being defeatist and quitting early when the going gets a little rough has anything to do with it.

A coworker told me last night that Obama has no chance because "we all know" that even if elected, he'd be assassinated before he got to complete the oath of office...and that the country would be plunged into a horrifyingly violent race war as a result.

She then went on to tell me that, even being a woman herself, she "knows" that the Oval Office is no place for a female, so Hillary is out.

Brian,
You need to get new coworkers. Switch jobs for heaven's sake!

Obama's standpoint on race really made a strong impression on me. He is obviously an articulate, intelligent man! I know this candidate is proud for his father very much. His book "Dreams from My Father" tells everything:
http://dealstudio.com/searchdeals.php?deal_id=91892&ru=279 , his words really moved me, I think Obama is a shining Light in our modern World, a Man for All Seasons, one capable of bridging the apparent gaps between different groups in the United States.

Only 87...oh...88, comments? I thought this thread had much more potential that that...