I'm really surprised at where this convo has gone. I'm going to step back for a moment though and pretend that I do not understand feminism. But for the sexism card to be played (or the race card), the starting presumption has to be that the "played" candidate is objectively better and is only losing but for race or gender. Furthermore, to cite "reverse racism" as an issue, the burden is even higher. One has to show not only that the Black candidate is objectively less qualified, BUT ALSO that our society has now reached the point where a black candidate is preferred to a more qualified white woman. The absurdity of the latter point cannot be overstated. In sum, Hillary's argument has to be that she is OBJECTIVELY more qualified, but she is being held back because of her gender AND this society has now reached the point (unlike '84) where it would rather choose a lesser qualified black man than a more qualified white women as president. That HAS TO BE her argument. - Does any one here buy that????? Take a look at the facts/data on race:

• Barack is dominating amongst black voters
• Barack is dominating amongst black women voters - 90% in Mississippi
• Hillary is killing with the older latinos (but Barry has the youths in all races)
• Bill Clinton, aka America' "First Black Pres", dismissively likened Barry's S.C. wins to Jesse's '84 campaing
• Hillary has repeatedly questioned Barack's competence and experience (pseudonyms for race????)
• Hillary has implied that Barack is getting a free ride cuz of his race (and not cuz of his agenda, vision, etc.)
• G Ferraro, (whom I've despise as a person for years), has stated that Barrack's success is b/c of his race - she's just facially a racist, plain and simple (again I will set aside issues of white feminist entitlement/elitism)
• Barack is dominating amongst educated, white democratic males, while battling for those femalesBarack is dominating amongst educated, white democratic males, while battling for those females
• Etc., etc.

So black women seem to overwhelmingly be supporting Obama (and black men too, but that could be sexism), perhaps this could be because race is more of an issue to them than gender OR cuz Barry is objectively better, or both. But at least we can say that gender alone is not sufficient for black women. Educated white men are also supporting Barry (again, could be that gender is trumping race), but poor white men, esp in the south are behind Hillary (along with older Latinos). Maybe rich white men are more sexist than racist (open to debate) and and poor white men and latinos are more racist than sexist (historically true). Barack has total Black support, the support of the youth, the support of educated (that's us - all duped I suppose), especially wealthy white men (and a decent slice of those women). Hillary's base is comprised of white southerners, older latinos, and a loyal crew of elite white women. It is remotely possible that Hillary has met her burden in making her sexism/reverse racism arguments. But the data is actually more consistent with what we know historically to be true in America. Barack is the better candidate and but for his race, he'd be dominating ALL democratic demographics.

Good points. And, I wonder if his friends call him Barry?

"Barry, grab me a brew on your way back!"

Barack's supporters claim this is a racist country. Barrack goes to a church that says this is a racist country. How come in a racist country Barack is leading in the primary race?

I think people vote for him for a variety of reasons. One being simply because of his race. Blacks who have never voted are voting because a black man seems to have a real chance. Many of them likely don't even know the pro's and con's of Baracks platform as it relates to them versus Hillary's platform. Another reason he is receiving votes is because many white, liberal people need a relatively qualified black man to vote for that they are willing to overlook this liberation theology based faith.

Another reason people (Independents) are voting for Barack, albeit not race based, is that Hillary is

1) a crook/corrupt

2) not so smart

3) has baggage

4) and her nanny-state mentality is of a bygone era.

Agreed. Good Points. And I think Barack was called "Barry" when he was growing up, so no harm there.

Let me say this about Blacks voting for Obama. I don't think it's true that Blacks are voting for Obama solely because he's Black (I'm Black btw). Black voters were fairly skeptical of Barack when he first began campaigning and many Black leaders have lined up to support Hillary (Andrew Young, Bob Johnson, Congressman Lews until recently). Further, the idea that Blacks support candidates solely on the basis of race seems at odds with Black candidates who have struggled in recent years, such as Alan Keyes and Al Sharpton. If Blacks support Black candidates solely on the basis of race, shouldn't Al and Alan have done better?

I think it's not so much Barack's race that attracts Black voters, but more that he appears to have "Black friendly" rhetoric and policies. During Barack's speeches he speaks in the MLK/Black preacher style that Black people (and others)often find moving. Bill Clinton has been able to use that style in the past, and that is (was) a part of his popularity among Black voters (see first Black President). Hillary and Al Gore have tried to use this style of speech, but their delivery often sounds contrived.

Also, Barack, as a liberal Democrat, has "Black friendly" policies - he (like Hillary) proposes assistance in the housing crisis, universal healthcare, higher taxes for the rich/more services from government.

So, when Geraldine Ferraro suggests that were Barack white he wouldn't have the same success, I say, if Barack was white and spoke the exact same way he speaks and carried himself the exact same way; and he had the same policies, and he courted the Black vote in the same way that Obama has during this campaign, then yes, I think he would still be as successful in this campaign. The template for this thought experiment is Bill Clinton, himself, who was able to present himself as "Black friendly".

Barack's supporters claim this is a racist country.

Which Obama supporter(s)? When?

If you like Barrack Obama, and at all listen to his message, then why is it that you are doing precisely what he says is wrong in politics today? Do you think it's cool sounding rheotic that he doesn't really believe? There is no point in addressing Ferraro's "argument", it is simply divisive in its entirety. Let it go. There are better things to think about and talk about.

Hey spiker, some of Hillary's people claim America is a racist country too. Listening to BHO, I've come to realize there is any need for all the finger pointing about isms. It's better for all to just drop it and talk about the important challenges America faces today. :)

Lol. As a non candidate and someone who is truly intellectually interested I'm looking to you all to challenge my viewpoints and assumptions. After all, we never know how much of what we believe is based on underlying emotional mechanisms with back fitted logical explanations rather than actual rational analysis. These debates are always a check for me as to whether what I think i think is what i actually think. Make sense?

I found this line very interesting; During Barack's speeches he speaks in the MLK/Black preacher style that Black people,,,

************

Now I'll admit that I have little to no respect for morons that find speeches 'moving'. Hitler was one of the great speakers of all time.

So I take your comment as a slam on blacks in general. In other words your comment implies that blacks do NOT really follow the issues and the differeces between HRC and Obama but becuase his speeches are 'moving' they came to him like dumbass sheep.

If being 'black friendly' works on blacks what does this say about them. To me it says they have little substance and are moved by hype. THAT is HCR supporters case in a nutshell.

PS: I voted for Obama mainly because of his stance on the invasion of Iraq.

jazzguitarman:

Now I'll admit that I have little to no respect for morons that find speeches 'moving'. Hitler was one of the great speakers of all time.

But what did Hitler actually have to say? He spoke to the angry and the demoralized and gave them something on which to focuss hatred. He appealed to race and used it as a weapon.

I think we are smart enough to evaluate content. I find Barack's speeches moving because the principles he sights are ones I would like to aspire to. He has mass appeal for all the different people in America (and accross the globe, actually) because he speaks of priciples and values that are inclusive of everyone. Division harms us, makes us weak and vulnerable to fear. There has been a lot of fear going around lately. We have to put it behind us.

jazzguitarman wrote Now I'll admit that I have little to no respect for morons that find speeches 'moving'. Hitler was one of the great speakers of all time.

Well, that's you. I was an English major as an undergrad so I appreciate the use of language and apparently there are other morons who agree with me like:

NYT David Brooks:

<link>

Obama has achieved something remarkable. At first blush, his speeches are abstract, secular sermons of personal uplift — filled with disquisitions on the nature of hope and the contours of change.

He talks about erasing old categories like red and blue (and implicitly, black and white) and replacing them with new categories, of which the most important are new and old. He seems at first more preoccupied with changing thinking than changing legislation.

Yet over the course of his speeches and over the course of this campaign, he has persuaded many Iowans that there is substance here as well. He built a great organization and produced a tangible victory.

He’s made Hillary Clinton, with her wonkish, pragmatic approach to politics, seem uninspired. He’s made John Edwards, with his angry cries that “corporate greed is killing your children’s future,” seem old-fashioned.

So I take your comment as a slam on blacks in general. In other words your comment implies that blacks do NOT really follow the issues and the differeces between HRC and Obama but becuase his speeches are 'moving' they came to him like dumbass sheep.

I'm Black and I don't often go out of my why to implicitly or explicitly slam myself, my friends, or my family members. I never said anything remotely resembling the nonsense you've asserted. You can take my comments anyway you want.

If being 'black friendly' works on blacks what does this say about them.

It says, they, like any other thinking group vote in their own self-interest. Should Black people be voting for policies that are not Black friendly? What group of intellignet people votes against their own interests? Maybe Blacks should vote for David Duke instead of Barack Obama. Would that make you feel better jazzy?

So why should a white man (I'm not white or black BTW), vote for Obama based on your view that blacks should only vote for someone that is 'black friendly'.

Sorry, I find black friendly to be condesending, at best, and down right racist (even from a black) at worst.

When my racist mom found out I voted for Obama she ask 'why would you vote for one of THEM'. Well why should any non black vote for someone that is SOOOO 'black friendly'.

I guess the Latinos heard you loud and clear. The sick message that HRC camp puts out IS that Obama is SOOO black friendly that he isn't as latino friendly as HRC. Thus it is only WISE for Latinos to vote for HRC (just like you imply it is only WISE for blacks to vote for Obama).

To me your view of race relations is stuck in the 60s. HRC would like it that way. Thanks for helping her out!

Damn tubbs, that was really inpired!

I always READ the so called great speeches of our time in order to separate substance from hype.

To me all of these principles are just hype. Come on,, Obama is a lib (this is why I voted for him). These Lib priciples and values are NOT inclusive of everyone.

Just ask a CON! Yes, division harms us BUT it isn't going to just disappear because we would like it too.

For example, I can think of NO reason why same sex marriage would even be debated. It should be legal and to ME, this is VERY clear. Well guess what most Americans don't agree. This is a REAL division. Speeches are NOT going to make these divisions go away.

Hey, I don't want it to appear I'm trying to attack someone here but what did you find so inspiring about that reply.

You are the one that mentions diversity. To me the jist of Tubbs reply was diversity; e.g. blacks are different, thus politicans must be black friendly if they expect blacks to vote for them.

NOW, IF Tubbs had mentioned CLASS (e.g. how much they earn, if they own their own home,,, ) that would be a division I understand. Division based on race? This is the HRC tactic, isn't it. The wink and nod of 'hey, if you ARE black we understand why YOU voted for Obama, BUT you women and non blacks,,,,, get with the program, Obama is only out for HIS KIND.