I thought criticizing a Libertarian was anti-wack-a-doodleism... . . . just kidding . . .

Then you're not in a very exclusive club.

Ok, I'll be the first one to say America won't let a black man be Pres. Ok, not that they won't let him, but its going to be very hard for Obama to win.
If you look at all the various polls, more show voters will vote for a black man BEFORE a woman.
Now, with that said...
Its OK to say a woman can't be President because she's weak, because the motherly instinct will kick in, women are over emotional... You might get glares from a few women, but the reality is people can say that openly on any talk show without it turning into a brawl or into the the lead story on CNN, and the majority of men will shrug and have a little smirk that says "I kind of agree", or at least "I know what your saying."
What you can't say is a black man can't be Pres. You can't be racist. You can't make that call into CSPAN without being hung up on. You can't say that on on any mainstream news outlet without it turning into a fight and front page news. With that said, there are a lot of racists in this country, there a lot of people who are not comfortable with a black man as Pres. Before I go on, do not take this out of context - its not my opinion, but the opinion of others. You can see it in some posts at online newspapers. These are things I've actually read on other forums - and after they post they are quickly called a racist and that ends the discussion. "Will Obama make it so we owe restitution to all the children of slaves?" "He has that preacher he's been listening to that is all about black power and taking away from the whites." "No African American mayor in the US has been successful - look at Detroit, look at DC, and then look at the African nations and how screwed they are, so therefore blacks can't lead..." [AGAIN - DO NOT TAKE THIS AS MY PERSONAL OPINION - ITS NOT - I'm just stating reality.]
I think a lot of people lie when they say, yeah, a black man can be Pres, but the reality is I think it will be harder for a black man to be elected than a woman.
Its nice to think were beyond that, but when the Obama camp makes statements like "Hillary's never had a cab refuse to pick her up before" they are validating the fact that there is racism alive and well in this nation.
Maybe another 50 years and racism will be less prevelant and an African American will have a much better chance.
On to McCain...
McCain won't have Rice as VP - she's WAY too connected to Bush.
Colin Powell - that's an option. But that only gets him more military votes, which he already has. I don't think Colin Powell garners the African American vote.
Romney - good for cinching people worried about the economy.

So far, only half-reasonable argument I've heard for Obama (paraphrase): "We've been calling for change, so if there's a candidate running that says he stands for change, I'd feel like a hypocrite if I didn't vote for him, and then later on was still complaining about needing change."

They won't count Condy Rice if she's selected as VP - she's far too conservative to be consider a "woman" or "black", in the way those terms get used by feminist and racial power brokers in the political world.

Condaleeza is black, and a woman; but she's not black, or a woman, in the way that counts. Which shows that there is something else ...

I wouldn't say "There's something else that matters more to people"
Its kind of like bill Clinton was the first black President. He interacted with more African Americans than any previous President, and not just interacted - but understood and participated in the "black" culture. I highly doubt Rice interacts much with the African American community. She's not really "black" - even though that is her skin color.
She's from Colorado - a fairly white/Hispanic state. I'm from there. She went to my high school about two decades before me. A private girls only elite Catholic high school. Almost all white. She's more "white" than "black" in attitude and culture and upbringing.

Less than 24 hours.

Couldn't resist the bet... lol Why wait until summer?
BTW, did you read his speech about race and the reverend? Uninspiring.

Yep, very well written smooth speech. It won't begin to quell the issue of why he sat in a church pew listening to that shit for 20 years, but typical smooth Obama speech.

It was polished, but not inspiring. And it really didn't answer anything. Not that there are any answers.

When I initially heard about the Reverend's comments, I thought "McCain has Haggee... candidates can't help that people are for them that they don't agree with all their views". Then I read that it wasn't just an occasional church attendance on Obama's part, but 20 years, married him and Michelle, baptised his kids, spiritual advisor... There is no way to distance himself. I know the fiery speeches weren't every Sunday, but in 20 years you can't say Obama didn't know (nor has he claimed that). It kind of comes off like "if your not black you won't understand and his comments are taken out of context." I understand fiery speeches to get the masses moving, but his went above and beyond.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/op...e55&ei=5087%0A
Clinton already had my vote, baggage and all.

That's what I see: all smooth but never really saying anything.

Bush is the complete antithesis of smooth, and people have hated the fact that he was apparently a moron. At least Obama's smart.

Carter was smart. No thanks.

I'd prefer competent.