Obama or McCain? How will America fare under the 44th commander-in-chief?

[Raidou]

Source/ full story:
Obama or McCain? How will America fare under the 44th commander-in-chief? (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-or-mccain-how-will-america-fare-under-the-44th-commanderinchief-842479.html)
Sunday, 8 June 2008

Fast forward to 2012 to see how the US and the world fares under America's 44th commander-in-chief. Rupert Cornwell, one of the most experienced and eloquent observers of the nation's politics, gazes into the future and delivers his verdict on each man's first term.



The 44th commander in chief battle is on! Who will win? Follow the link to read the interesting scenarios for the US/ World on each candidate as President Barack Obama and President John McCain.

Cast you vote and hope for a change.

[Electric Banana]

...Why is George Bush an option?

[Raidou]

...Why is George Bush an option?

Go figure ^^

[Electric Banana]

No, I really don't understand why... He's been president for two terms already, he cannot be in office for a third...

[Raidou]

No matter who wins, he already won, get it?

Folks do take some time to read Ten things that won't change (no matter who gets elected) (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/8129) too.

[Electric Banana]

The things that are listed in that article aren't things that magically happened all at the hands of Bush... So I really do still fail to understand why he is an option...

Maybe it's because I'm sleep deprived or because it really doesn't make any sense...

[Raidou]

George Bush option is just for fun, why so serious?

[Mary]

George Bush option is just for fun, why so serious?

You were the one trying to be serious when you defended it as a poll choice. I'm with EB, having Bush as an option makes no sense.

Now on to the topic. I honestly think who wins is really going to depend on who they choose as their running mates. If McCain can convince Condoleezza Rice to be his running mate he'll prolly win(there is little to no chance of that though) FL governor Charlie Crist or LA Governor Bobby Jindal might not be such bad choices either. If Obama decided to have Clinton as his running mate though, he'll be hard to beat. It all comes down to what types of deep, dark secrets are dug up about the politicians before the election. Oh, also a lot of people might vote McCain if he chooses a good running mate in hopes that he'll die in office and his running mate will take over. These are my predictions anyway. We'll see what happends

[Phakiel]

McCain, The US is not ready for a black president.

[Atlas]

You're an idiot, Phakiel.

[Phakiel]

Its the truth. Look, I think it would be great if Obama won, the dude seems like a capable politician and there is no doubt in my mind he is the better choice since after all the mess the Republicans and Bush have made, the least thing the US needs is another Republican.

However, I always recall this conversation, of which I think cannot dwelve much into as it was pretty much confidential information, it came down to Hillary and Obama being talked about and one dude said that Americans could have a woman as a president, but never a black man.

Now, sure it was extremist and all, but the fact of the matter is, that at all those 60 to 80 per cent of white majority composed of middle to upper middle class protestants, or to keep it simple, all those WASPs are never going to vote for Obama, fact just is. And the other policitians and colleagues are probably on the same boat.

[Atlas]

You're an idiot, Phakiel.



Its the truth.

First right thing I've seen you say. You still fail, though. :o

[Phakiel]

Edited.

[Atlas]

A man is a man, black or white, and the same goes for the opposite sex. With that said, I would much rather a man be president oppose to a woman. I've taken a lot of heat for that before, but a lot of people really do agree.

[Phakiel]

I dont know man, the US is one of the top racially sensitive countries in the world.

I hope he wins.

[Atlas]

I don't see how he couldn't win with is amazing rallying ability. His ability to speak publicly is something to be admired. He also speaks directly the the itching ears of the youth.

Youth want change, he offers it with eloquence. That is a powerful ability.

[Devil King]

Obama will win.

Mark my words.

Change is inevitable.

[Electric Banana]

George Bush option is just for fun, why so serious?I'm not being "so serious" I just really don't understand what point you were attempting to make, the arguments in that article are things that have been going on years before either of the Bush's were in office... So it doesn't make sense, that's all.

[Raidou]

I'm not being "so serious" I just really don't understand what point you were attempting to make, the arguments in that article are things that have been going on years before either of the Bush's were in office... So it doesn't make sense, that's all.

The poll is meant to be a separate thing from the article. When I made the poll I wasnt thinking about relating them. Get it???

It doesnt matter what you think Atlas.

Phakiel is right. The fact is US is neither ready for a black President or a woman President. I like Obama but is really unfortunate that he is Black. Phakiel is also correct in another thing there. US people are very racist. Don't even try to deny that, is the truth.

[Less Than Liz]

I would love to hear the criteria you guys are using to determine whether or not the US is "ready" for a black president. Just because there are racists doesn't mean we're not ready (or that they'll even vote), nor does it mean one should withhold voting for Obama - do you honestly believe it's preferable to cater to the negative elements of society?

[Phakiel]

In your case, yes.

[Electric Banana]

The poll is meant to be a separate thing from the article. When I made the poll I wasnt thinking about relating them. Get it???But I'm (so?) serious when I say it still doesn't make sense.

[Less Than Liz]

In your case, yes.
Why?

[Jarrid]

I think our country needs a president that is of a different race, and honestly, I wish it were somebody other than a Christian.

When I vote, I am going to vote for Obama. Will he win? I just do not know. I do not keep up with what is or has been sad about either two of them. I am voting for him because he is black, and that is my only reason. I can not stand politics even though it plays such a major role in my life.

Give me something I can believe, and I will be interested.

[Mary]

I can't stand people who let race and sex be their major determining factor in how they vote. I understand that no matter what, the race and sex of the candidate will play a big role in who wins, but it still pisses me off the no end when people vote just to vote without knowing anything about the person they're voting for beyond what they hear from their friends/parents/significant other/the media. Obama might be half black, but he is hardly culturally African American. Hillary might be a woman but many countries have elected women into high offices and they didn't crumble to the ground and cease to exist. People need to look at the candidate's voting records, not whether or not the person is black, white, Indian, male, female, friendly, attractive, ugly, etc.

Political parties also piss me off. Just because a person decides to align themselves with a certain political party doesn't mean they hold the same values and beliefs as the party is supposed to stand for. Republicans are generally for smaller government and reduced spending. Does this sound like Bush at all? He has ruined the name of the republican party by trying to pretend he[s republican. Just because he claims to be republican though doesn't mean that every single republican(or any republicans) believe the same things as him or will run the country the same way. Personally I can't wait till we either do away with political parties or get more than two parties who actually have the slightest chance of ever having a viable candidate.

[Phakiel]

Why?

Because your cultural and ideological mark up as a country was established and is still maintained by racial and different types of segregation. When you ultimately have to choose a race in a form, you know there is some segregation still in effect.

Obama might not be a token black guy, god forbid, like Chris Rock's character in that movie where he runs for presidency, he is eloquent and educated, he doesnt represent that percentage of black people who live in the borders of your society. However that little seed of doubt that all those people in the US, flamboyantly racist or not, is that in a white ruled world, where coloured people are still denied entry or services, are all those people really ready to have a black man as a president? I dont think so.

And just because there are people who are either not racist or just politically correct to appear non disturbed by the race subject, doesnt mean there arent racist people, and they are probably a majority. Not only whites, I dont know how Obama is doing with the hispanic vote, but those poor Hispanics that live in ghettos and are harassed and at war with their black counterparts, wont feel really well having a black president. But this is kind of irrelevant as I dont think these people vote at all.

[Atlas]

Hillary might be a woman but many countries have elected women into high offices and they didn't crumble to the ground and cease to exist. People need to look at the candidate's voting records, not whether or not the person is black, white, Indian, male, female, friendly, attractive, ugly, etc.



I hate to say but I highly doubt a woman will ever rule as president. Is it a result of man's pride? Probably. Either way, Clinton's dominating factors will only help her for so long.

Also, I can understand Jarrid's frustration and wanting to see something different in office, even if it's only skin color(at least it's different). On the other hand, you make a point, Mary. Going in blind can bite ya in the ass. Revolutionaries always have an uncanny ability to see and promote what they truly think is right(themselves a lot of times), and never go into something blindly due to probable apathy and lack of intention and just the want for something different...

No, that is what the people who follow that revolutionary do.

[Mary]

I hate to say but I highly doubt a woman will ever rule as president. Is it a result of man's pride? Probably. Either way, Clinton's dominating factors will only help her for so long.

I disagree. The majority sex in the US is female and there are enough men who are educated enough to recognize when a person has leadership ability whether they be male or female. I do agree that one of the main reasons that Hilary was doing so well in the race was because of her husband, but it doesn't mean that a woman will only do will in politics if she has a strong husband. I just don't think the right female potential president has come along yet. When she does I think it's very possible to have a female president. It will have nothing to do with her sex though, it will be because she's a good leader.

[Mark]

personally I don't really care who my next commander-in-chief is. I really don't like any of them, neither of them is going to be a good president in my humble little opinion. thats why I don't vote.

[Atlas]

I disagree. The majority sex in the US is female and there are enough men who are educated enough to recognize when a person has leadership ability whether they be male or female. I do agree that one of the main reasons that Hilary was doing so well in the race was because of her husband, but it doesn't mean that a woman will only do will in politics if she has a strong husband. I just don't think the right female potential president has come along yet. When she does I think it's very possible to have a female president. It will have nothing to do with her sex though, it will be because she's a good leader.

True. Eventually, at least, I'm sure the right candidate will come around.

[Powerslave]

...Why is George Bush an option?

I think the point is that whoever wins, Bush already got elected twice, so he already 'won'. SOADIHSDPoIASDHPSDOihASDpoIDSHPOISd. He's just trying to joke around.


ANYWAYS, dunno about the whole black or women president thing. It's easy to think so, but who knows, racism is "so pass?", will it really play a role? Polls put him ahead, and he did well in all white states, meaning that at least a huge chunk of the population isn't racist. Besides, Obama is so... unblack in the traditional American sense of the word. His mom is white, he was raised by white grandparents, and his dad was a Kenyan, not a slave. He spent his youth in Hawaii and Indonesia. He seems almost foreign, and that might be the problem.

As for a women president? I don't know, I don't see how Americans would be less likely than Argentines, Chileans, Nicaraguans, Germans, or Brits at electing a woman leader. I mean, seriously, is there a particular reason why Americans would be more machista than other nationalities? Maybe, but I don't see the connection.

All in all, I hope (as probably 90% of the rest of the world does) that Obama wins, if at least so that those freaks from the PNAC get out of formulating foreign policy. Although, on the other hand, it's not as though Democrats have a particularly less historically brutal foreign policy record, but it would at least be an improvement? Maybe? Hopefully? In either case it looks as though it's really gonna be a crazy Democratic year, and their gonna win a bunch of seats everywhere (they've already won a handful of new ones, haven't they?), so unless Phakiel is right and people are still too racist, I would imagine the guy's gonna win.

[Phakiel]

Lets hope I am wrong.

[Less Than Liz]

Phakiel: "Obama shouldn't be president because racists still exist"? I still don't understand why that's a reason we should avoid him. It might be an obstacle to the White House, but it's not a reason for non-racists who otherwise support him to avoid voting for him.

[Raidou]

Folks, have Obama decided to take Hillary in as running mate?

[Powerslave]

Yeah, I keep wondering about that. I mean, I don't know, that seems like it'd be the best of both worlds (well, in a way), but is it like having the cake and eating it too? Not like I particularly like Clinton, but wouldn't that be the best way to get elected? Maybe someone who knows more has more of an opinion. I just percieve like that would be good for the Democrats.

[Raidou]

(Source: Why Won?t Whites, Jews, and Catholics Vote for Obama? (http://globalpolitician.com/24685-obama-elections))
Bill Levinson - 5/3/2008

Despite the endorsement of Senator Robert Casey (D-PA), Barack Obama lost the Pennsylvania primary by a 55-45 margin. In Luzerne County PA, a traditional Democratic region whose demographics include factory workers and the descendents of immigrant coal miners (many Catholic), Obama lost by a three to one margin. Why does Barack Obama have so much difficulty in getting white people (and especially Catholics and Jews) to vote for him? Let?s give ?Barry? some hints and see his likely conclusion.

(1) Barack Obama joined a church whose pastor, Jeremiah Wright, had already accompanied Louis Farrakhan (a prominent racist, anti-Semite, and Catholic-hating bigot) to Libya to meet with dictator Moammar Khadafy.
* Jeremiah Wright is on record as publishing a blood libel of Israel?a guest column that accuses Israel of working with South Africa to develop an ?ethnic bomb? to kill Negroes and Arabs?in his church?s official bulletin. (http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_june10.pdf ?Letter to Oprah,? starting on page 8. Trinity United Church of Christ links worked as of April 29 2008. If they don?t, a Google search on the title and/or keywords like ?ethnic bomb? should allow the reader to verify this material elsewhere.)
* Jeremiah Wright blood libeled the United States by accusing it of developing the AIDS virus.
* Jeremiah Wright called upon God to damn America for using nuclear weapons on an enemy who had attacked the United States.
* Jeremiah Wright said that ?white America? got a ?wake up call? after 9/11.
* Jeremiah Wright published a guest editorial from a Hamas terrorist named Marzook in his church?s official bulletin. (http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_july22.pdf, ?A Fresh View of the Palestinian Struggle? starting on page 10)
* Jeremiah Wright wrote ?state? of Israel, as in ?so-called state of Israel,? in his church?s official bulletin. (http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_july8.pdf, ?Look Again? on page 9)
* Jeremiah Wright?s War in Iraq IQ Test asked whether the United States or Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a greater threat to world peace.
* Barack Obama distanced himself from Jeremiah Wright only at the end of April 2008, when it became clear that Wright?s intemperate remarks were becoming a liability to his campaign. This is not doing the right thing because it is right, but because it is expedient. This theme pervades every one of Obama?s actions, as shown by his reluctance to ?reject? Louis Farrakhan?s endorsement.

(2) Barack Obama refused to ?reject? the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan until Tim Russert, who was joined in his efforts by Hillary Clinton, backed him into a corner during a televised debate in February 2008.

(3) Barack Obama appeared with Al Sharpton at a meeting of Sharpton?s National Action Network in April 2007. There he endorsed Sharpton and his organization as follows: ?Reverend Sharpton is a voice for the voiceless, and a voice for the dispossessed. What National Action Network has done is so important to change America, and it must be changed from the bottom up.? We encourage our readers to do a Google search on ?Sharpton? and ?Freddy?s Fashion Mart,? ?Crown Heights,? ?Yankel Rosenbaum,? and ?Tawana Brawley? to verify for themselves Sharpton?s extensive record of inciting hatred of white people and especially Jews.

(4) Barack Obama has to date (April 29 2008) refused to reject the endorsement of Michael Moore, who writes, ?The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ?insurgents? or ?terrorists? or ?The Enemy.? They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow ? and they will win.? (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-14, link active as of April 29 2008). It?s possible that most Americans, and especially those with family members in the Armed Forces, do not appreciate the depiction of terrorists who, while disguised as civilians, plant roadside bombs that blow off our soldiers? arms and legs, as ?Minutemen.?

(5) Barack Obama solicited and accepted the endorsement of MoveOn.org. MoveOn.org?s record includes:
* Publication of an insult to General David Petraeus. We find the very concept of General Petraeus, a distinguished officer, having to call Barack Obama ?Sir? after this totally repugnant. Come to think of it, we find sickening and repulsive the idea of a buck private having to address as ?Sir? an individual who has accepted this organization?s endorsement. An individual who joins in an insult to our men and women in uniform, which Obama has done by lending credibility to MoveOn.org, is totally unfit to be our Armed Forces? Commander in Chief.
* MoveOn.org published an anti-Catholic hate cartoon that shows Pope Benedict waving a gavel in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. This cartoon is unmistakably similar to the anti-Catholic cartoons of the infamous 19th century cartoonist Thomas Nast, so Catholics just might find Obama?s empowerment and enablement of MoveOn.org a wee bit offensive to say the least.
* MoveOn.org exercised editorial control in favor of anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic hate speech at its now-disgraced Action Forum (which was shut down in 2006 because of the scandal). The hate speech included an outright blood libel of Jews, denigration of Catholics as pedophiles, accusations that Evangelical Christians participated in voter fraud, racist comments about prominent African-Americans, and 9/11 conspiracy theories.

(6) Barack Obama is on record as orchestrating the defeat of Illinois? Born Alive Infants Protection Act. (Jill Stanek has documented this extensively.) While it is obvious that everyone in the pro-life community finds this sufficiently repulsive to vote for whoever (or whatever) is running against Obama, no self-respecting pro-choice person is going to stand with Obama on this either. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY, one of the most liberal members of Congress) said of the Federal version of this legislation, ?There is no such thing as a right to a live birth abortion.?

(7) Barack Obama cannot be bothered to show respect for our National Anthem. His hands were folded neatly over his crotch while Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, and others had their right hands over their hearts; in other words, had Obama simply forgotten, there were plenty of people around to remind him by example. (This is the true story, which has been confused with an unfounded one to the effect that he won?t say the Pledge of Allegiance.)

(8) Obama campaign volunteers at at least one headquarters in Texas decorated their office with a picture of Che Guevara.

(9) There is substantial evidence that Obama misused the United Church of Christ?s tax-exempt resources?resulting in an IRS investigation of the church?by giving a campaign related speech, ?A Politics of Conscience,? at the UCC?s annual meeting in June 2007. Church officials assert that Obama and his people were told before the event that no campaign related activity could occur at this event, and that the Obama campaign understood and agreed to this rule. Obama then proceeded to write and deliver a speech whose content included explicit campaign promises.

(10) A New Black Panther Party page was removed from my.barackobama.com only after it became an Internet-wide scandal. This ties in with Obama?s clear reluctance to distance himself from the unsavory individuals and organizations that seem to be drawn to him like flies to honey. The underlying theme is that their votes and support are more important than basic common decency. Postings that used terms like ?Zionist Thought Police? and ?Jewish Lobby? were removed from my.barackobama.com only after they began to spread across the Internet. The same goes for a posting that called Black Clinton supporters ?House Slaves,? another that called Ward Connerly an ?Uncle Tom,? another that called John McCain an ?old man? who should pay a ?deserved visit to the undertaker,? and yet another that accused the United States and Israel of waging war on civilians (see Jeremiah Wright above). A profile that blood libels Israel by accusing it of murdering peace activist Rachel Corrie was still online as of April 29 2008. A posting that uses the terms ?house Negro? and ?field Negro? (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/kenthomas/CsN9) is still online as of April 29 2008, and ?Negro? is not exactly the word it uses.

While Obama and his campaign staff obviously did not originate the above material, it is consistent as opposed to inconsistent with the other items we have listed. That is, if we were painting a picture, the unsavory material from my.barackobama.com would blend right in with the picture as opposed to standing out as an aberration or anomaly. Again, the authors of the above material seem to swarm around Obama the way flies are drawn to honey.


This timely article from "Global Politician" website lists 10 reasons why Obama will not pick up some of key demographic segments he must secure to win the General Election. His list of 10, and the segments he identifies is a good start to articulating the growing number of hurdles Obama must overcome to get back in the race.

[Jarrid]

Yeah, well McCain I'm sure has a nice history as well. ;)

[Raidou]

Wait, I will hunt for reasons why Americans will not vote for McCain as well, just to be fair.

Nah, too lazy. Is easy actually.

George Bush's successor, period.

[Jarrid]

Was not expecting you to hunt it down. I know there are probably tons of reasons. Like this one: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0523,schanberg,64705,6.html. Yay.

[Raidou]

I don't like McCain not just because he is going to be succeeding Bush, but he even talks like him! Is pretty scary when he endorse stuffs like spying on the public, war in middle east. So what if he was a Vietnam war time hero, it doesnt mean a thing.

[Powerslave]

Wow, whoever Bill Levinson is, he is obviously an extreme reactionary.

[charolastra00]

I'm so glad I'm going to be out of the country for this election. It's already stressing me out. Election day will see me watching the returns with copious amounts of tequila in a seedy bar in Mexico.

That said, I really hope Obama wins. He had better make a good choice for VP because that position will be needed to gather up some of the toss up voters. As much as I adore Bill Richardson and really hope he gets it, I'm thinking the most pragmatic choice would be Jim Webb of Virginia. This is the first election in awhile that Virginia has been a toss-up state. It carries a fair amount of electoral college votes and Webb could help cinch those. He's a former Republican (switched parties in 2006 and is now the junior senator of Virginia) who has been against the war from the beginning. He also has the military background needed to help balance out Obama's ticket and his son is a soldier in Iraq. The biggest problem with Webb, though, is that he wrote a very anti-woman article in the 70s saying that women should not be in combat. That might be the one thing to keep him out of the VP slot since Obama needs to get the female vote.

Hillary Clinton is still an option for VP but for some reason, I don't think it will happen.

[Nickoten]

Political parties also piss me off. Just because a person decides to align themselves with a certain political party doesn't mean they hold the same values and beliefs as the party is supposed to stand for. Republicans are generally for smaller government and reduced spending. Does this sound like Bush at all? He has ruined the name of the republican party by trying to pretend he[s republican. Just because he claims to be republican though doesn't mean that every single republican(or any republicans) believe the same things as him or will run the country the same way. Personally I can't wait till we either do away with political parties or get more than two parties who actually have the slightest chance of ever having a viable candidate.

Considering that political parties put forth the money to get their candidates into office and keep them in there, it seems to me that the person in office is probably going to be motivated to push the agenda of their respective party, lest they lose their main support.

Phakiel: "Obama shouldn't be president because racists still exist"? I still don't understand why that's a reason we should avoid him. It might be an obstacle to the White House, but it's not a reason for non-racists who otherwise support him to avoid voting for him.

He's doubting that Obama will get elected, not saying that he's against Obama being elected. Hell, the post right above yours indicates that he hopes Obama will win.

[Less Than Liz]

Nick, did you read the rest of his posts where he agreed that we should cater to the negative elements of society? The implication is not that that's what will happen, but what we should do.

[Nickoten]

I did, and saw that bit as extremely vague. Did he mean that we shouldn't vote for Obama because some racists may not like him? Or did he mean that, in a discussion such as this, we should take into heavy consideration the negative aspects of our own society? Perhaps it could be taken as the former, but seeing as how he continues to say things like, "I hope I'm wrong" or "I'd like to see Obama get elected" I think it is most likely the latter.

[Less Than Liz]

I'm not implying that Phakiel is racist for making an observation, just that "Obama shouldn't be elected because there are still racists" isn't the same as "Obama won't be elected because he there are racists."

[Nickoten]

And he hasn't said that Obama shouldn't be elected because there are still racists. In fact, you're still basing your argument off of a statement that neither of us really knows the intended meaning of.

[Less Than Liz]

McCain, The US is not ready for a black president.

I asked:

I would love to hear the criteria you guys are using to determine whether or not the US is "ready" for a black president. Just because there are racists doesn't mean we're not ready (or that they'll even vote), nor does it mean one should withhold voting for Obama - do you honestly believe it's preferable to cater to the negative elements of society?
ie. "Do you think it's a better idea to appease racism than challenge it?"

In your case, yes.

[Nickoten]

In the first place, you were responding to his assertion that America isn't ready for a Black president. What I'm saying is that, considering his other posts which indicate a desire to see Obama elected, I think that he more likely thought you were asking him if a racist minority is enough to declare America not ready, not that people shouldn't vote because other people are racist.

And I'll be honest, the idea of not voting for someone you like because someone else doesn't like that person is ridiculous to the point that I don't really want to believe Phakiel really advocates that. But again, instead of arguing the semantics of his post, why don't we just wait for him to post again later, with an explanation of exactly what he was responding to.

[Atlas]

I read his main post regarding avoiding Obama simply because it'd be too controversial because of the racists still roaming America. I'm not even sure Phakiel really knew what he was trying to say. Probably some flippant observation regarding the state of our nation's ignorance toward race.

[Raidou]

I don't think Phakiel's intention is to ask you Americans not to vote for Obama.

[Mary]

Considering that political parties put forth the money to get their candidates into office and keep them in there, it seems to me that the person in office is probably going to be motivated to push the agenda of their respective party, lest they lose their main support.

Not in their second term. Bush also had the advantage of starting a war and making it look like he was the only one who could get us out of it to get him re elected. You would think that candidates would want to thank their party for their monetary contributions by sticking to the party's core beliefs but it's been proven over and over they don't.

[Nickoten]

Fair enough, they don't have re-election to keep them pandering to their party in the second term, you're right.

[Hyde]

I would love to hear the criteria you guys are using to determine whether or not the US is "ready" for a black president.

I find it most amusing that some of the ones saying it aren't Americans at all, personally...

Obama is going to win and is going to be a great, not a good.....great, president. The US isn't ready for a black President? I think the rest of the world is content enough in hating us that they don't want to see progress. They'd rather think of us as the bad guys. That's how it seems.

[Phakiel]

Hmm, Nickoten got it right, Liz got it wrong. I meant that the US as a country with extreme problems related with racism will definetely have a majority of people scoffing at the fact that there will be a black president.

I dont know Liz' point or argumente against me anymore which is why i stopped checking this thread.

Edit: I just realized I havent voted. I voted McCain BTW. Its not who I want to win, is whom I think will probably take this home.

Edit, part deux: and i am the only vote for him, I hope this is how all develops coming the real election and you guys have a competent leader after all that crap that has been going on.

[Baby]

I hope Obama wins. It's not just an American affair

"I think the rest of the world is content enough in hating us that they don't want to see progress"

I don't think the world doesn't want to see progress mainly because the fate of the world (in one way or another) hangs on the US election more than any other one so it's not a game of spite and it's in everyone's benefit that the sanest man wins and it's not McCain.

[DrunkSwashbuckler]

The assertion that America is too racist to elect a black man is a double edged sword, especially when wielded by a foreigner; on one hand, yes, we do have portions of our populace whose beliefs are beyond lunacy and feel that the worth of a man is judged purely on the merits of his exterior, but other, larger swaths of our society dwarf most every other country in the world in terms of tolerance. Racism is always at the forefront of American issues because it is inherent in our inception, a claim that cannot be duplicated with most other first world countries, creating a situation that has lead many to feel that the US is, on the whole, most intolerant of other races than most, a mindset that is unequivocally false. European (excluding those damn Scandinavians, who can't hate anybody) and South American bigotry supersedes American racism on almost every level. This is reflected not only in the actions of the governments (anti-racism laws), but in the actions of the populace (Turkish riots in Paris, "monkey" chants to Thierry Henry is Spain). Furthermore, xenophobia runs rampant and open in the Wester European powers when dealing with their more dark-skinned counterparts in the (Middle) East; one only need look at Germany's dealing with Turkish immigrants to note that the US's dealings with Mexico border on tragic leniacy, but only in comparitive terms.

Americans are dualistic in nature, from North/South or East/West, to Rural/Urban (the more meaningful split of late). It is both a function of culture and of geographic magnitude; a country our size will naturally have greater variance within the demographics. However, the negative stereotypes play to only one exact selection of Americans, ignoring that the flip-side of the coin embarrasses the accusers in terms of culture sophistication.

In short, I feel/hope/believe that the cultured outnumber the idiots and that a black man can be elected president. This is not to say that I would vote for him, though.

Epilogue: My rant is looking purely at racial issues, not bigotry as a whole. Subjects dealing with homosexuality and alternative religions get into issues dealing with faith based beliefs that are much easier for the offender to justify than "His skin is a different color."

Support: http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/odd-numbers/2007/07/26/the-most-racist-country-in-the-western-world

The chart in there is fun to play with.