Are the majority of Americans ready to vote for a Black man with a Muslim name as President?

Yes, very ready.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

ready to leave country if he gets elected

well, we'll see soon

I'm more worried about that closet Jew on the other ticket, SARAH Palin.

At least Obama made a MUCH better decision when it came to picking a vice president. And the job of vice president is very important because they are the one who actually runs the country. Who do you think has been running the country for the last 8 years? Bush?

"Mr. Podesta has been mapping out the transition so systematically that he has already written a draft Inaugural Address for Mr. Obama, which he published this summer in a book called “The Power of Progress.” The speech calls for rebuilding a “grand alliance” with the rest of the world, bringing troops home from Iraq, recommitting to the war in Afghanistan, cutting poverty in half in 10 years and reducing greenhouse gases 80 percent by 2050."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/us/politics/25transition.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"When I pull this thing off, I have a request for my opponent: I want him to save that manuscript of his inaugural address and donate it to the Smithsonian, and they can put it right next to the Chicago paper that says, 'Dewey defeats Truman,' " McCain said in this Las Cruces, N.M., suburb."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/25/mccain_makes_hay_of_obama_inau.html

I sure as hell hope so. I can't wait to get to the polls early AM on the 4th to mark my ballot for Barack Hussein Obama. Of course, I lived in Los Angeles when we had wonderful Tom Bradley as our mayor & I always loved him. I'm hoping I'll be as crazy for Barack in 8 years; we'll see.

As for that old white man & the redneck troll ............

West 81st--Great. It would be hysterical if somebody did her family "tree" and four or so generations were anti-Americans. I assume all Jews except for McCain's good friend Joe Lieberman are.

Oh that Barney Frank--Jewish, Gay and from Massachusetts home to the only two senators who didn't vote to give Bush power to declare war

Alpine292, when I first read your comment I substituted Palin for McCain and was shocked that she knew any history before she was born

This thread's question has more assumptions built into it than the sum total of all its posts.

Lowery - please expand. No offence taken, just interested.

BWC

You are assuming that it's an "issue" to be Black, and an "issue" to have "Hussein" for a middle name, and you're assuming by your question that the answer is no, or that, if the answer is not no, then the asker of the question is surprised. The race of this candidate, and his middle, first and last names, are not legitimate campaign issues.

Lowery we're not assuming that it's an issue. it's obviously not one for us. But it's so much fun to take take Palin apart as she assumes all the things you believe aren't issues

I think questions like the header posted only backfire on the McCain campaign and make Republicans seem like racist backwater hate-mongerers.

Unfortunately, Palin has been pandering to the lowest common denominator when she's trying to tie Obama to the domestic terrorist & thus to Al Queda & implying that the only true U.S.ers are rural or small town & think the way that she & McCain do. She gives anyone within the sound of her voice a bad name, as far as I'm concerned. I hope she crawls back under her rock as soon as this thing is over.

"Lowery we're not assuming that it's an issue. it's obviously not one for us."

It is implied by the person who started the thread that that person believes it is an issue for most voters. Turning it on its head, for instance, one can hardly conceive of someone saying, "Hey, over here in London we're just wondering, are you Americans REALLY going to vote for a WHITE guy whose middle name is SMITH? I mean, would the majority of you guys actually DO that?"

It's hard to even know what the agenda of the question itself is. It slants the entire Presidential race through one prism and one prism only. Of course there are varying degrees to which different Americans (360 million of us, I think) notice or care about a candidate's race, or the degree to which we call Barak Obama "Black" or "of mixed race" or "a White guy with kind of dark skin" or "a mulatto" or his middle name being "Hussein," and on that spectrum of where it registers on the individual person there is then superimposed the spectrum of each individual's other attitudes about a variety of other things. But where I really get off the train with this whole subject is the Obama's-middle-name thing. If his middle name were "Levy" or "Aaron" would that make him Jewish? Would his being Jewish make him anything else by virtue of his being Jewish? Does it matter what a Presidential candidate's religion is in a country that screams at the top of its lungs "WE STAND FOR FREEDOM OF RELIGION"?

I don't know what any of this has to do with Palin. Has she opened her mouth and asked the question that's the title of this thread? Or is that another instance of people projecting onto Palin everything they imagine or want a small town girl from Alaska to be who's a card carrying NRA member and a Republican? Personally, I think Barack Obama is kind of boring, is probably a good negotiator and team worker, does not have an agenda of any sort other than what his campaign team have cobbled together while they weren't raising money, and that he is a huge unknown who is vastly preferable to McCain. I could not care less what his middle name is, nor his race.

West81st, it's "Jewess".

Well, anyway, London's Financial Times just endorsed Barack Obama.

I don't agree with all of Lowery's points (Obama's lack of an agenda; that he is a complete unknown), but I certainly agree that he is vastly preferable to McCain. A far better question would be "Are Americans really going to elect another Republican President when George Bush has a 22-31% approval rating and the stock market is lower than it was in year 2000?" Far more than Barack Obama's racial heritage or name, this election is and has always been a referendum on the last eight years. Whether that's fair to John Mccain or not is another question, but that is the reality of the race.

Assuming John McCain wins over 90% of the voters who approve of Bush, using the highest conceivable Bush approval ratings at the moment McCain would need to win at least 30% of the voters who DIS-approve of Bush's performance. If we take the average Bush approval of the past month, McCain would need to win nearly 40% of voters who DIS-approve of Bush in order to win.

If this sounds possible, consider further: since the disapproval number includes the over 90% of Democrats who disapprove of Bush, and who are voting overwhelmingly Obama, that means McCain has to win over 60% of the independents who DIS-approve of Bush in order to win. In historical context, that is basically impossible. Al Gore won well under 25% of independents who disapproved of Clinton. George H.W. Bush won under 25% of the independents who disapproved of Reagan. Mccain will do better than that, but is there any serious chance that he will win? No.

Some people love to obsess over Barack Obama's race, but the happy fact is that for most Americans race does not determine their votes. And let's be clear: this is true for black Americans as well as white Americans. I am sick of people saying blacks are voting for Obama because he is black. John Kerry got 89% of the black vote and last time I checked he is as white as they come. Racism continues to exist in America, and it continues to be a major problem. But in this election it is not a major factor.

I think the more relevant question is, "Is America ready to elect a man who in concert with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will turn the US into a socialist entity" - the heck with his name and race. Obama's tax plan is essentially welfare since he is giving additional money to those that don't pay taxes. While you can argue the current bailout of the banks etc is socialism, I think it's necessary but temporary. Obama's et. al. plans would be permanent.
As bad as Bush's approval ratings are, the approval ratings of the Congress (both houses are led by the Democrats) are significantly worse. This is what scares me, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid running around with no one to rein them in. My vote is more anti Pelosi & Reid than pro McCain. Pbama supporters can take comfort in knowing my vote doesn't matter since NY is solidly in the Obama camp.

Happyrenter, I believe that your figure of 89% reflects those that voted rather than eligible voters. Since three "white guys" ran in 2004, my guess is Bush/Nader got the other 11% since
there was no one else to vote for but "white guys". If J.C. Watts ran instead of McCain, guess what, the two black candidates would get 100% of the white vote. BTW, there's nothing wrong with a black person voting for the "black guy". The vast majority vote self interests first, which is fine.

"Mccain will do better than that, but is there any serious chance that he will win? No."

McCain is likely to lose not because he's not moderate enough, but because he's not conservative enough. Conservatives have no one to vote for this year. Liberals have their guy. Bush winning twice was proof that you need to nominate a conservative on the GOP ticket.

Also, I love how Europeans have this view of Americans as racist when Europeans are the ones who originated and profited from the triangular trade in the first place. Europeans are the original racists.

When was the last time a black ran for presidency/leadership of a major European nation, let alone had a shot to win.

i hope so. mc cain will mean lower taxes for me but i trade that for a better country.

europeans are super racists! go to italy, listen how they talk about people from albania or africa. or their neighboring region for that sake. in uk, your accent will be used to figure out where (geog and class) your roots are. they are not only more racist but also more classist. for all usa has to improve, there is more meritocracy here than anywhere else i know of.

Hi all,

I seem to have incensed a few people on the board although though they may have taken my original question and statement and gone tangentally off topic. My apologies for their confusion. :)

Lowery - I have not made any assumption about the answer to my question by simply put it to the board to stimulate a discussion. The origins of my question was based on a lot of your own American media which I have read and watched which dwell on the issue of race and religion of a presidencial candidate ( amoung other things of course). If the real issues of the US economy, the Iraq invasion, the American healthcare and education are truly the most important things in the majority of Americans minds then that is a great acheivment and we all hope they vote accordingly, Republican or Democrat. So I have not made assumptions on issues of colour or race but simply put it to the board if there are issues ( knowing that the people who read and answer this board are not a representative sample).

Amity95 - I have no idea what your talking about. I am not an American so am neither a republican or a democrat.

Admin and totallyanonymous, please don't generalise the whole of Europe as one as msot Europeans cannot really relate to it. Its like Europeans calling the whole of the Americas ( North, central and south) as sharing one identity. I agree there is racism in Italy as well as every country in the world including the US. America's history is deeeply intwined with Europe's so there is little point in arguing who is more racist. I can tell you however there is a lot of mixing of races in the UK and at least in England there are less segregated communitys purely because we are geographically small so communitys are forced to mix. We are far from perfect. We have affluent areas and poorer areas but I can tell you there is a healthy mix of different ethnic backgrounds in both areas. The rich /poor divide is prevalent in every country I have ever visited. Admin, I think you may have read books and watched British movies from 50 years ago. There maybe remnants of this past but from what I can see not a common problem. America has different accents also that match a geographical regions too as you know.

So I truly don't wish to cause offense to a few of you who took offense. I simply would like a healthy debate and stimulate dialogue. Are race and religion of any importance to the 'majority' ( not just you highly educated New Yorkers who peruse street easy) of the US electorate as to how their vote is cast or is it all about the real issues?

BWC

Uh, brainwashed, we all know you are not American. You asked a question, and my answer alluded to the response that that sort of question elicits from many people - i.e., the question itself sounds like a deliberate attempt at a smear. I am an independent - ie., neither democrat or republican - but it is exactly that sort of innuendo from the McCain campaign that definitively made it impossible for me to vote for McCain-Palin (despite being somewhat sympathetic to them at the beginning).

Amity95 - Well done in choosing a party to vote for based on perceived innuendo. I thought I was independent in your country's elections as I am not American, but if you think otherwise then that is absolutely spendid. Are you labour or conservative(UK partys)? I could ask you if you have any other more substantial reasons why you are voting Obama-Biden but this would be a topic for a different thread.

BWC

brainwashedconsumer, "The origins of my question was based on a lot of your own American media"

So that there are certain buzzwords you are referring to in order to ask people what their take is on it. There was also an article in the French news (don't remember which paper) about a year ago in which it was stated somewhat ironically that the US Prez race seemed to be not so much about Iraq or healthcare so much as it was about faith. This was then fleshed out with a montage of quotes from US news reports and TV appearances that focused on what the candidates religious practices were and, most importantly, whether they had any at all. My reading of it (not my first language) was that it was poking fun at the posing of every candidate with bibles in their hands, and the talking heads' self-serious (though ludicrous) debating on whether the US could have a Mormon President, or one whose father was a Muslim, or one who attended a fire-and-brimstone church where the minister said such-and-such. This was all pre-Palin.

Although I enjoyed the article and shared the views in many ways, it also reminded me of the not-so-credible claims of everyone from Canadians to Europeans to Latin Americans that "in OUR country no one CARES who our politicians are having sex with," which is absolutely false. I love lampooning hypocrisy as much as anyone else does, but I often get the feeling that non-Americans lampooning America's hypocrisy protest too much.

Your question is probably quoting directly from something broadcast worldwide from the USA, and by stating that that question has buried in it all sorts of innuendo, I am stating that the question you pose carries with it all sorts of innuendo. If you are repeating someone else's innuendo-laden question, then so be it. However, it also reminds me of a visit I took to Harlem with a tourist from a foreign country, who happens to be a relative. I was mortified as he pointed at the people on the sidewalk on 125th Street and stated to me in a pontifical, self-satisfied tone, "These are just people!"

Yes, well, what did he expect to see on the streets? Ducks?

If your question is whether race is the determining factor in this Presidential election, or the middle name of one of its candidates, I think you've gotten your answer here. It's an issue to some, though only about 10% of those people would ever admit that it is. Some experts have made much of the "my neighbors" phenomenon in opinion polling. The pollee is asked "would you vote for X?" The answer is usually yes. Then they're asked "would your neighbors vote for X?" and they usually say no. There is supposed to be a closer correlation between what those people saying about their neighbors' vote than about their own. This theory has been trotted all over the place for the past year as Obama has romped through the USA and won a greater number of votes than, so far as I know, any primary candidate of ANY political party in our history. (Hilary Clinton was very close.) So despite the fact that most of us Americans say we're voting for Obama, we still actually do vote for Obama. Wow, isn't that amazing? Amazing to WHOM?

"Admin and totallyanonymous, please don't generalise the whole of Europe as one as msot Europeans cannot really relate to it."

Your original question is premised upon a generalization of Americans. Or did I miss something.

Admin, recall that during the conflict in Bosnia, ethnic Albanians fleeing from warzones were refused entry into Italy and, amazingly, were also refused entry in Albania.

The way you phrased the question comes off as ignorant.

Why would it matter what race Obama is or what his middle name is? And will EUROPE ever be ready to elect a black president or a black person in a high position in politics?

How come there are no black people in high position like we have here in America?

AMG - Yes I believe Europe has many positions of power held by ethnic or non-indeginous people including black. My question stems from many articles written about the subject from Americans. I admit I don't have a PhD on the subject, just knowledge of many trips to different parts of America, reading various sources and watching various US News broadcasts and speaking to a lot of Americans. I am guessing you have similar knowledge and experience of 'Europe' and possibly the rest of world.

totallyanon - America is one country. Europe comprises many. Even when I referred to America I did ask what many on here ( a skewed population) thought of what an American in general mat feel. Admittedly this is a difficult demographic to define, so perhaps impossible to answer.

Again, I am not making a statement, jut asking a question that seems to make people uncomfortable. If one doesn't ask questions, one will never know anything.

I'm a HUGE supporter of Obama & hope that he prevails but I don't think that this question is at all slanted or outrageous but something that I & a number of my friends ask ourselves. The answer shall be revealed on or about November 4th. Sadly, racism is still alive & well in all parts of the world plus the McCain campaign is trying to paint Obama as 'the other' whether it be his race or religion or education or his political leanings or now his economic policy so I don't see the question as being out of line or inflammatory. Back during the primaries, Marc Cooper did a piece on the Dems & their propensity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory & he said, "The Dems are now running a black man & a woman; I guess they don't want to win this one, either." I don't see that as being either racist or sexist but a way of addressing the uncertainty of how much bias is actually out there. We'll see, what?

The more you look under the cover, the dirtier this guy is.

Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803413_pf.html
Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

LA Times Refuses to Release Tape of Obama Praising Controversial Activist
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/la-times-refuses-release-tape-obama-praising-controversial-activist/
The Los Angeles Times is refusing to release a videotape that it says shows Barack Obama praising a Chicago professor who was an alleged mouthpiece for the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was a designated terrorist group in the 1970s and '80s.

According an LA Times article written by Peter Wallsten in April, Obama was a "friend and frequent dinner companion" of Rashid Khalidi, who from 1976 to1982 was reportedly a director of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA, which was operating in exile from Beirut with the PLO.

In the article -- based on the videotape obtained by the Times -- Wallsten said Obama addressed an audience during a 2003 farewell dinner for Khalidi, who was Obama's colleague at the University of Chicago, before his departure for Columbia University in New York. Obama said his many talks with Khalidi and his wife Mona stood as "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases."

there is racism in europe, but certain european countries, not all, have passed legislation making racism a crime, something yet to be seen in the u.s.
in countries such as norway, it is illegal to make racist websites. when one such racist made a racist website in norway, it was shut down. he reopened the website in the usa and it has been running ever since. many racists see the usa as a racist safe haven, because most americans believe it is a freedom of speech.

"many racists see the usa as a racist safe haven, because most americans believe it is a freedom of speech."

In fact, the KKK is granted permits to hold public parades, and it happened in NYC. That was the same year that the Mayor (Giuliani) tried to prevent permittng of a parade on 125th St. that had involvement of Farakhan. Reason: Farakhan is a racist.

"totallyanon - America is one country. Europe comprises many."

Thanks for clarifying that.

"Yes I believe Europe has many positions of power held by ethnic or non-indeginous people including black."

Such as? Last I checked, every head of a European country was not black. Wait, Sarkozy is Hungarian. Does that count?

totallyanonymous - you seem upset with your pointless defensive off topic grade school remarks. Why so sensitive about America? Please feel assured I wasn't attacking America and calm yourself down ol' boy, it ain't worth it.

BWC

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081101/ap_on_el_pr/election_black_hopes_and_fears

It seems for a some Americans,Obama's racial heritage has some bearing on how they feel about this election. To deny it would be naive.

"It seems for a some Americans,Obama's racial heritage has some bearing on how they feel about this election. To deny it would be naive."

So what's the point? If he's elected he's elected; if he's not he's not.

Its hard to get a clear view on a forum as this because it is so biased being a NY based forum. Americans rarely vote for the man or woman in national elections. They usually vote based on their party affiliations. New York would vote for a child molesting, known rapist toad if it said it was a democrat. As well as Utah would vote for a gun toting, polygamist, sand dune if it was a registered republican. Personally, being a southern democrat transplanted to NY 20 years ago in search of fortune, I am ridiculed for being an UWS independent. In spite of the fact I fall into the trap of voting for most of these (democrat) retards we support. The sad reality is, I am going to vote for Obama BECAUSE he is black. In spite of the fact that OBAMA, PELOSI, RANGEL and FRANK scare the living crap out of me. And I have voted democrat in every election since my last republican vote (Reagan). I think that is the funny thing. That 4some is scary for MOST dems, but what the hell, it can't get much worse, can it?

"but what the hell, it can't get much worse, can it?"

yes! it can always get worst. if obama wins, harlem will be a party. where is the epicenter of the party going to be?

"New York would vote for a child molesting, known rapist toad if it said it was a democrat."

Like Bloomberg and Giuliani? And that is NYC that voted for these Republicans. We all know upstate is clearly Republican.

Not sure your premise is correct.

lowery - I think patient09 clearly demonstrates there is a point. Since it is an issue to a certain section of the electorate, race will have an impact on the result, and therefore on all Americans.

http://www.thecoolhunter.net/ads/Obama/McCain---The-Colored-Race/

"New York would vote for a child molesting, known rapist toad if it said it was a democrat."

Ahh, I miss Slick Willie too.

"The sad reality is, I am going to vote for Obama BECAUSE he is black."

At least you're being honest. My suspicion is that this sentiment will bring this guy into office. Only problem is, voting a black into the White House will not change the perception (idiotic as it is) of people like BWC that the USA is somehow a racist country.

Show me another country with this many folks born into the underclasses can actually succeed. Again, BWC, name one European country with a black leader, either currently or historically.

Well, New York does somehow vote in this same Asaembly year after year...

Rumblings are that Rahm Emanuel will replace that useless shrilled know nothing Pelosi as Speaker next term. Scary I'm saying this, but thats actually trading up.

brainwashedconsumer - are you assuming that anyone who votes for McCain is doing so because of his and Obama's race? Probably not. Really, you have to have been subjected to the tiresome squabbling during the Democratic primary race to appreciate how over it people in the USA are. I have said to you already something which I will attempt in yet another phraseology: America is far more complex than most people can begin to fathom until they've lived here for many years. Even most Americans don't see just how complex it is. I know people from foreign countries who have lived here for three years or more and express astonishment with each year that passes by at just how complex America really is. Despite their disillusionment and shock at certain things such as standards of education (oh, yes, we all go to school here.....) and the usual complaints of hypocrisy and superficiality, it is a complex country.

Lowery - I do certainly agree that the US is a highly complex country. I have had endless discussions with a few students who are studying American studys here as well as historians about America and find it a fascinating subject. I certainly don't think everyone who votes for McCain is doing so because of his or Obama's race. I do think, however, some people will definitely vote according to race which I why I posed the original title question.

totallyanon - tut tut, so defensive again. :)

'Show me another country with this many folks born into the underclasses can actually succeed.'

Ok. Eg. Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Germany are countrys that I have had personal experience of which fit this category. There are more, although I have not had personal experience of them.

'Again, BWC, name one European country with a black leader, either currently or historically.'

The UK has Members of Parliament who are of Black, Asian and of East Indian origin. As far as the population census goes, Blacks form a far smaller monority in continental Europe compared to the US which makes your question slightly pointless/meaningless.

BWC

BWC, to give you an idea of how circuitous and loopey and finally pointless the looking at USA's Prez race in strictly racial terms:

What if Obama wins? Does that mean USA is not racist? Does it mean in USA racists are outnumbered by nonracists?

If Obama loses, does that mean USA is racist? Does it mean in USA racists outnumber nonracists?

Is there such a thing as people who are neither racists nor nonracists? How many shades in between are there? Are all those people by definition "white"? What is white? Is Obama "African American"? Wouldn't that mean he's descended from African slaves brought over from West Africa and then forced to work in (mostly Southern) plantations? That's not his background at all. Is he an African born in the USA? How can be an African born in the USA if his mom's a Caucasian?

Or............. what is Obama's race? Is he "Black"? Or is he "black"? Is he "white" or "White"? Is he white with darkish skin? How would various people describe his skin coloring? Would only people with dark skin say he has "light" skin? Would only people with white skin say he has "dark" skin?

If Obama were to lose the election, would every person who voted against him be a racist? Would every person who votes against McCain be not-a-racist? Sort of in between racist?

Does racism not exist if Obama is elected? Does it exist more or less if he is elected? I do believe that racism has become more subtle in the USA recently. I'll give you an example of the type of statement I have heard frequently from people about Obama: "Well, the media are afraid to say anything negative about him because then they would be called racists."

Think about that one for a few minutes. It takes a while to really wrap your mind around it. It's a variation on a theme I have heard from the same sources: "Well, Obama's like those people you know at work who your boss is afraid to fire because they don't want a discrimination lawsuit." This type of statement is widespread and is basically socially acceptable, whereas when people say out loud things such as "I don't like how there are more Blacks than anyone else in the busses and they don't even sit in the back of the bus" it is taboo. (Yes, a French visitor said this very comment to me in the mid '80s.)

If the majority of Americans vote for Obama for President, it doesn't necessarily mean much about race matters. And please don't forget something crucially important to recognize about the USA: Most citizens DO NOT VOTE. Not only do most citizens not register to vote (a bureaucratic process which requires filling out a form and mailing it), but the percentage of REGISTERED VOTERS is usually something like one-third. You can check the statistics pretty easily. Even if record numbers of voters turn out tomorrow, it will still be nowhere near a majority of citizens eligible to register and to vote. Rather, it is a minority.

Then we have the fact of indirect election - we elect electors, and in each state "winner takes all."

So to try extrapolate anything meaningful about USA Presidential elections is foolish. There is an entire cottage industry that profits off of analyzing and commenting upon the breakdowns of voters yidda-yadda, ad nauseam, despite the fact that VOTING IS ANONYMOUS and done by a MINORITY of citizens. Those idiots spouting off about what it all means are called "experts." They appear on TV shows and write for newspapers. It is a big joke, and the entire country knows it very well.

I'm not sure that any of these ironies really broadcast well to Europe. I think they get lost in translation.

**It is implied by the person who started the thread that that person believes it is an issue for most voters. Turning it on its head, for instance, one can hardly conceive of someone saying, "Hey, over here in London we're just wondering, are you Americans REALLY going to vote for a WHITE guy whose middle name is SMITH? I mean, would the majority of you guys actually DO that?"**

The sad fact is this nation is rife with prejudice, racism, and ignorance. Venture out of the microcosms of educated, forward-thinking society and into the backwoods of the Bible Belt and gun country and you'll find the OP's question is indeed legit and worthy of concern and consideration.
Because trust me, the under-educated, gun-toting, bible-thumping rednecks of middle America will indeed have an issue voting for a black man with a Muslim name.

It can only be hoped that ignorance will be trumped by reason.

Lowery, I agree with you. Meanings are not easily drawn from this question.

Is also true that the black population in Europe is thinner and that has not been subjected to slavery for 400-500 years.

If Obama is elected it will represent something huge-something that Europe couldn´t produce. The change could happen not only in the USA but in the social construct of the world. The end of the patriarchal-white system. Which no doubt gave us marvels and grief.

USA moves very fast, it seems, through misgivings and redemptions. This election seems like a sort of redemption.

**Is also true that the black population in Europe is thinner and that has not been subjected to slavery for 400-500 years. **

Say wha?? Who's been "subjected to slavery for 400-500 years" exactly? Slavery in the U.S. ended nearly 150 years ago. Ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation? Get your facts straight, please.

While you're at it, care to translate the rest of your post? It's barely possible to understand what, if anything, you are trying to say.

Squid, I think that the dichotomy between cities and backwoods in the USA is not clearcut. There are gradations, and they don't fit easily over geographical boundaries. There are racists in New York City. In the early '80s one frequently read predictions of our electoral politics future based on demographic changes. Since the Caucasian majority would be a Caucasian minority within a generation of the '80s, sage experts foretold the end of this and the beginnings of that. Supposedly it meant that the Republican Party would lose power, that large numbers of Latin American immigrants would vote Democrat, etc., etc.

It's a generation later, and surprise - Latin American immigrants vote for Republicans. Scratch that ignorant assumption.

To take the race = vote principle to its most extreme, all Blacks would vote for Black candidates and all Whites would vote for White candidates, given the choice. Since the African American population of USA is something like 10% (or is it 15?), you would never have a major-party nominee for President. But it doesn't work that way. The truth is far more complex, just as racism is far more subtle than just separate bathrooms for "white" and "colored."

I guess what I'm trying to say is that an Obama victory is not necessarily a victory against racism, nor would an Obama defeat be a victory for racism.

And for me the most telling election was the 2004 re-election of Bush - he invaded Iraq and we re-elected him?

Squid, I´m sorry I misrepresented the sqf of slavery. I forgot to subtract the last 150 years without it, and to somehow add segregation until mid XX century in the equation. But for the translation, forget it. You either get what I am saying or not. If you have extra time enough, go continue spreading black ink into every post you don´t understand and/or every fact that is not correct. I don´t have it.

I just did.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

Lowery - you have made a number of good points and asked some pertinent questions.

"What if Obama wins? Does that mean USA is not racist? Does it mean in USA racists are outnumbered by nonracists?

If Obama loses, does that mean USA is racist? Does it mean in USA racists outnumber nonracists?"

I think the answers are NO, to all off your above questions, BUT, political issues aside, the fact that Obama has made it so far (leader of the Democrat party) would mean the US has definitely progressed in race relations. If he wins, it would inspire a huge number of black children greatly as he would be a role model for them. They would know then that blacks can not only achieve greatness in sports and music, but in academia and leadership. This would not and could not have happened 45 years ago. If he loses then it doesn't mean America is racist as that would of course be a huge generalisation.

Is Obama black? Well he is mixed black-white ( just like Bob Marley ). A huge number of the black population are mixed. If an white American Irish man and a white American German got together and had a child, the mixed parentage is not apparent. Mixed race people with colour may be subjected to the same racial prejudice as pure black. But this another topic.

Squid - Implications are the mother of all misunderstandings. But you went on in your second paragraph to corroborate what you inferred. (" The sad fact is this nation is rife with..."). My question to you is just how many under-educated, gun-toting, bible-thumping rednecks are there and can they affect the results of this election?

Mimi - I get what your saying.

BWC

**Squid - Implications are the mother of all misunderstandings. But you went on in your second paragraph to corroborate what you inferred. (" The sad fact is this nation is rife with..."). My question to you is just how many under-educated, gun-toting, bible-thumping rednecks are there and can they affect the results of this election?**

BWC - I think you misread my post. The first paragraph is a quote from another poster (hence the asterisks). The second paragraph, which you cite, is my response to said quote.

In answer to your question -- far more than you or I may like to believe. What effect they'll have on the election remains to be seen.

Mimi - I believe you're trying to be clever but there seems to be a disconnect between idea and expression in your posts. Perhaps English is not your first language. If that's the case, my heartfelt apologies for any offense taken.

"My question to you is just how many under-educated, gun-toting, bible-thumping rednecks are there and can they affect the results of this election?"

Well, during the Dem primary, this was used as an argument for why to vote for Ms. Clinton by many of her supporters, that, after all, ***you and I*** may vote for Obama in November, but we have to reach to our poor, white, misunderstood brethren in the wilds of Pennsylvania, etc.

Rednecks can vote Democrat, just as New York City professionals can vote for President Palin. Voter turnout has been low at the past few Prez elections, but in this Dem primary, turnout was very, very high. There are just too many variables here to generalize/ise too broadly.

And let's not forget..... we're supposedly fighting a war against Islamic extremism because its inevitable outcome is terrorist attacks on the USA using weaponry purchased from that secularist enemy of Al Qaeda (and all Islamic extremists), Saddam Hussein. It may just be possible that Americans see the stupidity of that now, so that what Obama's middle name is doesn't impress them much.

The answer to my original question is YES. Congratulation to the Obaman and the American people.

BWC

Before Obama, the USA has produced even more black presidents: Morgan Freeman, James Earl Jones, Chris Rock and Dennis Haysbert and they didnt have it easy... oh and Sherry Palmer! a lot like Michelle ...

Banana - Yes Blacks have acheived greatness in sports and entertainment, but now they have acheived it with politics and leadership.

BWC - you should have been in my neighborhood last night - I had never experienced anything like it - the most positive energy - I could not help replaying flashbacks of the summer of 1968, for some reason, and as I tried to get to sleep I thought about how we take so much for granted, are so unaware of how our memories shape our perceptions of the present - I might stop quoting Scarlett O'Hara, "Tomorrow's another day," and just replace it with "Today is another day." Tell your friends and coworkers in Europe to pay particular attention to the most significant things about this election - (a) relatively high voter turnout after new records lows; and (b) a popular vote spread between Obama and his opponent that is a helthy 4 percent points or more, after blending ALL voters nationwide

(new spelling for helthy due to sticking keyboard) ;)

Lowery - I know. We are getting huge media coverage in the UK and are happy that there was a huge voter turnout. I sense a wave of euphoria around the world for probably the first time ever.

BWC

So a black woman can be Secretary of State and a black man can be the President, alright! but doesn't mean the end of racism, or war, or injustice and all the rest. Is black people saying now 'look how far we've come' because of this? I don't get it... are socialists now saying 'look how far we've come' too or what?

"are socialists now saying 'look how far we've come' too or what?"

No.

Today is truly a sad day for our country.