Your comment on the last line of your post leads one to believe that if he gets the democratic nomination that he is a slam dunk for winning the White House.

You cannot be serious can you? As much as I would personally love to see Senator Obama as president Im not foolish enough to think that it is actually going to happen and CERTAINLY not enough to think it is a forgone conclusion in a country that elected Bush TWICE.

I live in Washington State and even I see Confederate flags on cars and even flying from a flag pole at a house! Winning the white house is not about quality of character anymore (likely not for a long time now). It is about image and perception of image. Like it or not we live in a country that will not stand for the image of a black man as our president. For that matter it will also not stand for the image of a woman as president and this one has a better chance than a black man.

I would vote for either of them in a heart beat but make no mistake about it. If the democrats nominate either of them the republicans could could run any man that is not currently under indictment and win.

It makes me sick in my heart to say it but I have lived in this country for long enough to know it is not going to happen. Not yet. Maybe in my lifetime but not in 08.

I just don't think you're right Brian. There are certainly people in the US who are still racist, and people who would not vote for a Black man. I doubt that those are more than 10% of the population though, and a good number of them probably don't vote, and a good number of the ones who do probably wouldn't vote for someone with liberal views on race anyways. We're in a country that has minorities as Secretary of State, Attorney General, Supreme Court Justice, and House Majority Whip. For someone as skilled and intelligent as Barack Obama, I do not believe his race will keep him out of the presidency.

Jonathan,
I hope you are right. Im not suggesting that the majority of the people would consciously say to themselves "I will not vote for him because he is black" but I do think that an an unconscious level it will play a key part of the decision making process.

It should also be noted that you mentioned several undoubtedly powerful positions but that none of them are elected positions. They are all appointments except for whip which is either appointed or obtained by seniority in the house. At any rate these are not positions that are elected by the general public.

I dont want to be right on this point. I really, really dont. But there is a pervasive underlying racism in this country. Call it racism or call it some word that means unconscious racism but race matters in this society and it is a HUGE leap from having a SecState that is african american and having a president that is african american. It is the presidency. It is different.

Anyway, I hope you are right. I really do.

Brian is 100% right.But presicely, to prove those 10% or so unconsciously racist people wrong, we the people with conscious must support Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

I think Jonathan is correct. The people who are too racist to vote for Obama are not likely to vote for any Democratic candidate, black or white. I think that Obama has a great chance of winning. I would have a hard time voting for him as he is not fiscally conservative enough for me and I disagree with his views on socializing medicine. But in terms of personal integrity and general likability, he stands head and shoulders above the rest of the crowd, Democrat and Republican.

Brian, relax. There aren't quite as many racists hiding under your bed as you think. Check the poll data, and you will see that being black is a rather small impediment to ascending to the presidency, especially compared to being Mormon, homosexual, or (gasp) Atheist. Remember, the plural of anecdote isn't data. (A Confederate flag! The horror! An America where Brian K sees Confederate flag bumper stickers is not a nation that is ready for a black president!)

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=2

Im not suggesting that potential democratic voters will consciously say "I hate blacks and will not vote for one". I think it will be much more subtle. To be honest Im less worried about the impact on democratic voters than I am on the undecided and particularly on the right wing. Right wing apathy in the face of Bush idiocy will be completely erased by the 'spector' of an african american or a woman president. You think you saw a get out the vote campaign for Kerry? Just wait till the scare tactics come out for Clinton or Obama!

That is how the racism in this country is going to show itself. Not so much with it's impact on potential democratic voters but rather on it's super-charging of the right wing base and the southern and middle-western working classes. The ones that have not voted in high numbers in the past but will be standing in lines overnight to make sure that Clinton or Obama is not their president.

A democrat (obviously from the last two elections) has a hard enough time getting elected in this country without the added social liability of being a woman or a minority.

I will be happy to vote for either of them but then again I was on the losing side of the last time a woman was on the ticket of a major party (one of the worst electoral defeats in history by the way.)

We stick together. If you treat our man bad, we will remember it come the general election.

I just want to chime in and say I agree generally with the other Jonathan, but that I don't really trust the polls that say people don't consider race (or a candidate being black) when voting.

Lots of academic work has shown that people don't want to appear racist or sexist when talking to a pollster, and give answers that reliably reflect less prejudice than they actually hold. This is borne out in the occasional race between a white man and a black man -- the black man can poll well even up until the last day, but when voters actually head to the voting booth the black man can lose a sizable percentage. It's happened before and it will probably happen again.

"Lots of academic work has shown that people don't want to appear racist or sexist when talking to a pollster, and give answers that reliably reflect less prejudice than they actually hold."

Seems reasonable, which is why the best designed of these types of polls are anonymous.

"This is borne out in the occasional race between a white man and a black man -- the black man can poll well even up until the last day, but when voters actually head to the voting booth the black man can lose a sizable percentage. It's happened before and it will probably happen again."

Examples? How well-designed were the polls that predicted the black candidate's victory heading in, and what were the standard deviations on their numbers?

I'm not saying you are wrong to be skeptical of poll data. Many polls are frighteningly unscientific in design. But it is a better starting point than anecdote, that is for certain.

One thing Brian K is dead right about, though, is that Hillary would mobilize the Republican base (and scare away a lot of the center) like no other potential Democratic candidate. You Dems should nominate Richardson, you'll win hands down. The Republicans don't have a candidate the can touch Richardson's center appeal, and they are already in the hole from the disastrous Bush presidency. Nominate Richardson and win this thing. Nominate Obama, and you'll most likely still win. Nominate Hillary, and you'll have a strong chance of losing.

"*" is correct IMHO. Hilary has very high poll numbers indicating people who would not vote for her under ANY circumstance. No other candidate on either side has such numbers. This does not have to be about race or gender - it can be about the candidate themselves. One must have their head in the sand not to realize the enormous amount of baggage that Hilary brings to the table. I have yet to hear of Obama having any sort of baggage - everybody has some - but Hilary is just over the top.
So - if Hilary were to be the democrat candidate and there was a "get out the vote" - don't assume it is just because she is a woman - that would not be fair to all the other woman on the planet. It may in fact be simply due to her as a person.
As for race being a factor for Obama - I firmly believe there will be a portion of the population that will vote FOR him specifically due to his race. I also believe there will be a portion which will vote AGAINST him specifically due to his race. Which group will be larger? I don't think it matters. I believe the race will be decided (as it seems most are decided) - not by the hard core people on either side of the particular issue (whether the issue is race or party affiliation or a specific part of the platform) - but rather by the moderates who sit in the middle. The moderates end up having all of the power. This group of people need to realize it - and vote their opinion at the polls on voting day - both the primaries and the general. They really are the ones who end up making the decision.
According to a recent poll by the (I would hope) respected polling organization from Quinnipiac University - Senator Hilary Clinton is the only candidate from the poll who had more people who have an unfavorable opinion of her than a favorable opinion - 46% of respondents view Clinton as unfavorable while 44% view her favorably. Senator Barack Obama has what appears to be the best polling numbers in this regard - with only 18% of respondents having an unfavorable opinion - while 46% of respondents have a favorable opinion (although Edwards and McCain have numbers close - but not quite as good).
So - to sum up - I do not see this as a race or gender issue. I firmly believe our country is ready for this and can handle it. Not everybody and not all areas - but the country as a whole - yes. Win or loose - I believe the candidate to end up in the White House will not be their due to their race or gender - but rather the person as a candidate.
As I see it......

Dear *,

The phenomenon I describe -- white poll respondents misrepresenting their biases and vote selections in order to avoid appearing racist -- is common enough to have its own name: the Bradley Effect.

It's named after Tom Bradley, an African-American man who was the mayor of Los Angeles. In the polls running up to his re-election, he had a comfortable lead over his white opponent. But on election day, to the shock of everyone who followed the race, Bradley lost by a small margin. The white opponent's campaign staff was not surprised, however, and had in fact predicted the situation months in advance.

There are other examples as well. See this wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect) or this Newsweek article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15366427/site/newsweek/) for more info.

The Bradley effect that Jonathan Stein brings up is exactly what Im talking about. Im not talking about overt racists. I think those tend to fall into the 'wouldnt vote for a democrat no matter what' camp pretty squarely. Im talking about those on the fence that are racist in a much less obvious way.

And this effect will act on top of anything relating to issues or actual quality as a candidate. But Fox news and the general ignorance will wear that down to the point where the bradley effect will come into play. Hell I predict that by the time the Right wing campaign machine is done 60% of the american public will believe that Barak Obama is a practicing Muslim. (Im not saying that there is anything wrong with being a muslim but it would be a significant liability for a presidential candidate. On that I think we can agree).

I guess it comes down to me having more faith in the power of the republican machine's ability to distort than I have in the power of the american people to resist being distorted.

Jonathan,

Thanks for the links. They provided some pretty good evidence that there is a good basis for your concern. Unfortunately, they didn't include a lot of information on the actual design of the polls predicting the black candidate's victory. But that doesn't mean I am discounting it.

I would also take note that the examples cited were from the 1980s. Views on race in politics have improved since that time according to the poll I linked. Of course, you have every right to be skeptical of that poll. I myself don't know much about its design. Nonetheless, it showed that in 1983 (one year after the Bradley campaign) only 77% of Americans were willing to vote for a well-qualified black candidate of their party. In 2007, that number had climbed to 94%. So the Bradley effect, while perhaps more important that I initially gave it credit for, is likely to make less of an impact now than it had in 1982.

The article you linked would seem to agree:

"In 2006, there was speculation that the Bradley effect might appear in the Tennessee race for United States Senator between black candidate Harold Ford, Jr. and white candidate Bob Corker. Ford lost by a slim margin, but an examination of exit polling data indicated that the percentage of white voters who voted for him closely tracked the percentage that indicated they would do so in polls conducted prior to the election. Several other 2006 biracial contests saw pre-election polls predict their respective elections' final results with similar accuracy.

...The overall accuracy of the polling data from the 2006 elections has been cited by those who argue that the Bradley effect is diminishing in American politics."

Bottom line, I still think Obama's race will not keep him from winning. His inexperience and (perceived) far-left views might. But I am willing to concede that in a very close race, whatever remnant of the Bradley effect still exists might cost him. I guess it's a matter of how close we expect the coming election to be.

Regarding the electability issue, sounds like there are "progressives" who are not quite yet ready to support someone other than a white male for president.

mojones,

Exactly my fear. A latant racism within many that would generally be identified and identify themselves as progressive (or liberal, etc.) that causes them to NOT vote for an african american or for that matter a latant (or not so latant) sexism that causes them to NOT vote for a woman. These 'progressives; not voting for Obama or Clinton (or just not voting at all) combined with a right-wing base hyper-energized by the thought of a black man or a woman as president and we will have ourselves a VERY steep hill to climb on election day.

I'd like to see a black person as President. I like Obama, but I may not vote for him. I'm still evaluating things.

I'd like to see a Latino person as President. I like Richardson, but I may not vote for him. I'm still evaluating things.

I'd like to see a woman as President. I like Clinton, but I may not vote for her. I'm still evaluating things.

I'd like to see a qualified, thoughtful moderate as President, someone who can reach across the aisle. Lord help me, what if I should have the audacity to think a white male best personifies the characteristics I most value? Am I a traitor to my progressive values?

Only if you choose to ignore that someone other than a white male can best personifies these characteristics.

It is racist to put race or gender at the top of the list of consideration. I personally like Edwards because he is good looking.

I'd vote for Obama before I'd vote for Hillary. In fact, Hillary's such a tool of the right-wing corporate elites and warmongers, the way she's helped blunder us into Iraq, I won't vote for her all in 2008 if the Dems yet again drink the Kool-Aid and nominate her. Although I'm a Democrat, my vote for the party isn't automatic-- the Democratic Party, you know, has to actually stand for something other than kissing up to corporate elites, to be worthy of supporting it.