Black Voters Like Obama

The big news in today's Washington Post/ABC poll is that black voters like Barack Obama. He now leads Hillary Clinton among black voters by nine points, a huge shift from last month, when the same poll found black voters preferred Clinton by a whopping 40 percent.

Reporters had jumped on that early gap to write speculative stories about Obama's supposed trouble with the "black vote." The Washington Post ran a front page article last month under the headline "Obama's Appeal to Blacks Remains an Open Question," citing Clinton's "3 to 1" edge among black Democrats. (Never mind that everything is an "open question" when the candidate hasn't even announced yet.)

Then this month, The New York Times offered a front page news flash under the headline, "So Far, Obama Can't Take Black Vote for Granted." The article quoted Debra J. Dickerson's claim that "Obama isn't black" in an American racial context, and then explored why "some black voters" are "so uneasy" about Obama. One barber explained that Obama might not be right for the Presidency because he was not "born, raised, bred, [and] fed in America." Whatever. That kind of talk has been shredded by The Nation's Patricia Williams, among others. Now these new poll numbers should remove one crutch reporters were using to write premature stories about how black voters supposedly did not like Obama "enough."

The poll has already been shooting around the blogopshere. Oliver Willis, who has written about Obama and the "black vote," argues the new poll is a reminder that the "arguments in the media and academia about Obama's 'blackness' are just kind of nonsense noise in the real world." Over at MyDD, Chris Bowers thinks that with these numbers, if Obama "continues to rise among African-Americans while maintaining his young, progressive, netroots base, it may only be a matter of three or four months before he catches Clinton in national polls."

Yet so far, the most fascinating part of the new poll has been mostly ignored. It's a section that could be called Pick Your Prejudice. (See questions 21-24.) Pollsters asked voters how certain "attributes" of a candidate -- like being black or female or smoking cigarettes -- would affect their vote. If you believe the numbers, smokers have a much bigger challenge than black or female candidates. Over 20 percent of voters say they are less likely to vote for a smoker, while only 13 percent say that about a female candidate, and a slim 6 percent say so about a black candidate. (Apparently older candidates should hang it up now: 58 percent of voters claim they are less likely to vote for "someone who is over age 72.")

Of course, like most early presidential polling, these numbers are pretty meaningless -- and probably misleading. You don't usually find sexists by asking people if they are sexist. The data reveals more about which biases people think are acceptable than what actual prejudices are out there. On that score, Mitt Romney may have a bigger challenge than Obama: 29 percent of Americans admit they are less likely to vote for someone simply for being Mormon.

Comments (56)

1. Don't forget...this is COULD BE good news for John Edwards.

   If it comes down to "Hillary v Barack" for the black vote, and the only place that really matters (primary-wise) is South Carolina...that's Edwards "make or break" if he loses Iowa, Nevada, and/or New Hampshire.

   And if Hillary and Barack split the SC black the vote, Edwards might be able to keep the SC white vote together behind him.

   Posted by Mask at 02/28/2007 @ 07:15am

2. guess i still have some time to pick a horse...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/28/2007 @ 09:23am

3. Black voters like Obama. Why is that?

   Posted by mtspence05 at 02/28/2007 @ 09:25am

4. On the other hand, if Obama is perceived as "dissed" by the black voter and Hillary is seen as behind the whole mess,(I believe Edwards is done anyway, no national appeal)then may be the black voter, tired of being used by the Dems around election time year in and year out, tiring also of lodging same old complaints, well, what if they sit this one out in 08 by a few % points... as a show of force, if only 15-20% sit out....Dems lose big time.

   Posted by john maasch at 02/28/2007 @ 09:26am

5. Black voters like Obama. Why is that?

   Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/28/2007 @ 09:25am

   Because he is not ol' Jesse or Sharpton....and he is black.

   Posted by john maasch at 02/28/2007 @ 09:27am

6. "Because...he is black."

   Posted by JOHN MAASCH

   Exactly.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 02/28/2007 @ 09:31am

7. "then may be the black voter, tired of being used by the Dems around election time year in and year out..."

   Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/28/2007 @ 09:26am

   Never happen, JOHN. For decades, the Repubs knew they could never win the black vote, and the Dems knew (and KNOW) that they can never lose it.

   S'why the fight is over the Latino vote and "soccer/security moms".

   Posted by Mask at 02/28/2007 @ 09:32am

8. "Dems lose big time."

   Posted by JOHN MAASCH

   If Hillary or Obama gets the ticket the Dems are gonna lose their asses, regardless.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 02/28/2007 @ 09:33am

9. I'm listening to an interview with Obama on NPR right now. The interviewer said something like, "What if you were not an African-American...?" The man's mother is a caucasion, right?

   Posted by mtspence05 at 02/28/2007 @ 09:50am

10. Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/28/2007 @ 09:33am

    Unknown, but possibly true. However, I could see Obama as Edwards' Veep and it having little negative impact.

    Posted by Mask at 02/28/2007 @ 09:53am

11. If Hillary or Obama gets the ticket the Dems are gonna lose their asses, regardless.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/28/2007 @ 09:33am

    I am not so sure...if the repubs put up a candidate that is polarizing, then the dems could win by default.

    Posted by john maasch at 02/28/2007 @ 09:54am

12. Mask,

    The repubs do not have to get the black vote, they never will get the black vote...they may get the black middle and upper middle class vote, but even tho that group is growing rapidly, it is not enough in nuimbers to over come the herding effect the dems have at the polls for huge blocks of groups....

    By having a portion of the black voters simply staying home, the repubs could be handed an advantage.

    Posted by john maasch at 02/28/2007 @ 09:57am

13. then the dems could win by default.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/28/2007 @ 09:54am

    lol . . . of course, by default is the only way Dems win ANYTHING, right?

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/28/2007 @ 10:00am

14. You don't think Hillary is polarizing? Just mention the woman's name and people react strongly. Sometimes it's a positive reaction, sometimes negative. You can't overcome that negative reaction; there's no turning that around.

    Obama? Let's be honest, folks: Will the US elect an "African-American" for president? I don't think so. We're not supposed to see a person's color, but that's exactly why he is such a buzz. You can't have it both ways.

    True, the Repubs could nominate a real monster, but the party has proven much more adept at choosing more palatable candidates. Unless something changes drastically with the Dems, it's the Repubs' election to lose.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 02/28/2007 @ 10:03am

15. Posted by HMAN23 02/28/2007 @ 10:00am

    No, of course not...but in this case if the repubs put up someone who is no competition, and all the hate out there for Hillary...what would you call it...same as putting up nobody...win by default...

    Posted by john maasch at 02/28/2007 @ 10:04am

16. I suspect we will have another lesser of 2 evils election.That's been the case since,at least, 1964.We'll never know about J.F.K.,of course.I suspect that both Hillary and McCain are very much hoping it will be a lesser of 2 evils choice.Richardson is the only candidate on either side who has both experience and is,so far,above reproach,but he has little chance.Mickey Mouse will probably get more write in votes than he usually does.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/28/2007 @ 10:23am

17. MAASCH,

    I apologize for the mother joke last time we dueled. It was uncouth and in poor taste. But don't expect any let-up to my assaults on your cloudland.

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/28/2007 @ 10:35am

18. JM & MTS

    Have you considered that the reason that many people, of all colors, like Obama because he's intelligent, articulate and a positivist (as opposed to the fear-mongering morons your folks generally champion)?

    Just a thought.....you know, when those funny words and pictures dance around in your head and then it starts to hurt.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/28/2007 @ 12:02pm

19. Personally I like the thought of an Edwards/Obama ticket...and Al Gore as Secretary of State (Egads....intelligent people who actually believe in science running the country. It'll be the end of civilization as we know it, no doubt. Dogs and cats living in sin...etc., etc.)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/28/2007 @ 12:05pm

20. Oh gods....what I'd give for a "real" debate.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/28/2007 @ 12:31pm

21. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/28/2007 @ 12:05am

    Problem for Edwards was just previewed about Gore.

    First time he starts talking about "conservation" during an energy policy debate...the Repubs fire off a line about how much the utility bill is at Stately Edwards Manor outside of Raliegh.

    Posted by Mask at 02/28/2007 @ 1:04pm

22. Posted by I'M NOBODY 02/28/2007 @ 10:23am

    I am with you on Richardson. Too bad nobody in the press seems to give a damn about him.

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/28/2007 @ 1:04pm

23. Posted by MASK 02/28/2007 @ 1:04pm

    I disagree - this will go nowhere.

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/28/2007 @ 1:08pm

24. It is certainly time for change. Whether it be Hillary, Barack or Elmo, change is long over due...Why? Up to this point NOTHING else has effectively worked. I simply hope the candidates if elected (even if not elected) will serve with some degree of dignity and integrity. I really do believe that MOST americans (those that are aware) are simply fed up with being HOODWINKED. "let the games" begin

    Posted by spectator1 at 02/28/2007 @ 1:23pm

25. Hillary will win the Dem nomination. All of this Obama and Edwards talk is sport. Obama has no platform, save for platitudes about "bringing people together" --- this in a country that is so divided, people don't WANT to be brought together. And anyway, brought together how? And to do what? Edwards goes on and on about poverty and New Orleans. He is 100% right morally --- and guess what: No one cares. If this country cared about New Orleans or the poor, we'd be doing something about both RIGHT NOW. It's not like we're waiting around for Rev. John to lead us.

    Hillary is the only one who gets what the electorate wants: Incremental, gradual change, but nothing too radical, too quick, too revolutionary. She is right now staking out the ground that will win her the general election.

    Is Obama black? White? WHO CARES??? These are not the issues on the minds of Americans today. And anyway, Hillary will get enough black support to put her over the top in the Dem field.

    Posted by Milton Marx at 02/28/2007 @ 2:46pm

26. Posted by HMAN23 02/28/2007 @ 1:08pm

    Dunno....he's out there talking about "Two Americas" and poverty, and the GOP ad cuts to a shot of his 20,000 square footer outside Raleigh.

    That plus an ad on how he's going to raise taxes 120 BILLION to pay for universal health care.

    Posted by Mask at 02/28/2007 @ 2:56pm

27. Posted by MASK 02/28/2007 @ 2:56pm

    So the only politicians who can rightfully champion causes for those in poverty are . . . the pols living in poverty themselves?

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/28/2007 @ 3:33pm

28. That plus an ad on how he's going to raise taxes 120 BILLION to pay for universal health care.

    Posted by MASK 02/28/2007 @ 2:56pm

    Was not aware this figure was on his platform. Likely no more than an inference - and nothing surprising from the GOP.

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/28/2007 @ 3:35pm

29. You people are just too afraid of the GOP. Quit worrying about their ads. You have been losing for too long, and it has made you gunshy. Karl Rove is over. He had his moment, mostly thanks to 9/11. Support whichever candidate you think is best, and don't think 10 steps ahead.

    Posted by Milton Marx at 02/28/2007 @ 3:44pm

30. Posted by HMAN23 02/28/2007 @ 3:33pm | ignore this person

    ---Didn't say it was fair or honest, HMAN. Just said it might work against him.

    "Was not aware this figure was on his platform. Likely no more than an inference - and nothing surprising from the GOP."

    Posted by HMAN23 02/28/2007 @ 3:35pm

    Nope...it's his plan- (too long for post)

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1586135,00.html

    Posted by Mask at 02/28/2007 @ 4:05pm

31. The plan would free up money for health care coverage by abolishing President Bush's tax cuts for people who make more than $200,000 a year and by having the government collect more back taxes, Edwards said.

    Like I said, the inference is that he would raise taxes across the board. Not true.

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/28/2007 @ 4:44pm

32. Not just the evil $200K'ers, HMAN....keep reading...

    "Finally, he would require every citizen to get coverage, unless they have financial or religious exemptions. Those who don't would forfeit their personal exemption on their income tax return."

    Small number will opt out...sure. But that's a tax hike for ANYBODY, even those with less than $200K.

    Posted by Mask at 02/28/2007 @ 4:49pm

33. Plus, Edwards' people admit they don't have "all the costs estimates" worked out. So he can't say he's PROMISING not to raise taxes when it comes up in debate.

    Posted by Mask at 02/28/2007 @ 4:52pm

34. OK -

    "Edwards plan would first require employers to cover every worker or contribute 6 percent of each worker's income toward coverage they buy on their own. It also would provide government-funded insurance to all adults under the poverty line and all children and parents under 250 percent of the poverty line, which is about $50,000 for a family of four."

    Your hypothetical opt-out category has bodies within the $50,001 to $200,000 - but probably few and far between that would actually choose to go without. And if dealing with the uninsured is really a cost issue for everyone else - then let them live with their choice to opt out.

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/28/2007 @ 5:02pm

35. HMAN

    As best as I can tell is the GOP plan is the status quo....no one gets health care unless they can afford it and most folks can't. Aside from "after the fact" emergency care that will saddle them with unfathomable mountains of debt that is.

    Geee.....I wonder why it is everyone's so worried. Who needs preventative care, or affordable drugs. So what if every other industrialized nation on the planet has some centralized/universal/social health care. We're the U S of A and we don't need none of that. Everyone knows that our way is the best...even if it doesn't work. After all, its here in the best damned country on Earth. Besides - all the shruB has to do is wave his magic wand and a tax cut will appear and fix everything.....

    Bwah-ha-ha-ha. Keep'em drunk, stupid and breedin (bread and circuses) - yesirree...the American Way!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/28/2007 @ 7:23pm

36. Okay...here goes again....the Unanswerable Question from the pro-Federal universal health care guys:

    "So, say the Fed takes control of health care...and YES, when they start passing out the checks, they control it....and say some Tom Delay Congress and Dubya Presidency take over...

    what stops them from using that power to prevent abortion services from being provided?"

    "Or making it a private service that only the rich can afford?"

    (after you work on that for a while...I'll do the Nightmare Scenario That Can't Be Denied Possibility)

    Posted by Mask at 02/28/2007 @ 8:29pm

37. Mask,

    Your Nightmare Scenario is pure lefty paranoia. The country is more than 70% pro-choice. That Tom DeLay Congress would be run out of town. They'd also be run out of town for totally privatizing health care.

    You may have missed this, but: Congress was controlled by Tom DeLay for a few years, and Bush won re-election in 2004, claiming a "mandate." Look at what happened when they even took the slightest step toward privatizing Social Security. Completely and totally failed, even with Dems completely in the minority.

    Lefties have been losing and getting beaten down for so long that we sometimes lose our grip on reality.

    Posted by Milton Marx at 03/01/2007 @ 09:59am

38. Mask -

    I agree with Milton. It is hard to respond to the "Unanswerable Question" when it is presented as the "Impossible Hypothetical."

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/01/2007 @ 10:27am

39. JM & MTS

    Have you considered that the reason that many people, of all colors, like Obama because he's intelligent, articulate and a positivist (as opposed to the fear-mongering morons your folks generally champion)?

    Just a thought.....you know, when those funny words and pictures dance around in your head and then it starts to hurt. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER

    If Obama was not black he would not be getting all this attention. It's that simple.

    A person's color is supposed to be irrelevant in contemporary America, a pernicious anachronism, but that's not the case. We all see color with our eyes and thoughts, memories, experiences come to mind. Why do blacks like Obama, for example? He is affluent, Harvard educated, the son of an African father, white American mother...what do the vast majority of blacks even know about Obama other than the color of his skin. There's no getting around this, and like it or not, America is not going to elect a "black" man in 2008. Race is still very much a factor in the US. Let's be realistic and stop pretending everything is all right.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/01/2007 @ 12:39pm

40. If Obama was not black he would not be getting all this attention. It's that simple.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/01/2007 @ 12:39am

    Hogwash. If that were the case, why didn't Sharpton poll anywhere near where Obama is at? Jesse Jackson?

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/01/2007 @ 12:52pm

41. Posted by MILTON MARX 03/01/2007 @ 09:59am

    Posted by HMAN23 03/01/2007 @ 10:27am

    Gentlemen, I'm not talking about some monumental declaration and "This is no longer allowed" moment. I'm talking slow...steady....BUREAUCRATIC use of the power that you want invested in the Federal Government over health care.

    Once the CHECKS are coming from the Fed...and the Fed becomes "pro-life" (it's not impossible, despite the PRESENT situation) and it becomes harder and harder for aborion providing physicians to GET PAID ("I'm sorry, Dr. Smith...you didn't fill out these three NEW forms that Congress just said needed to be filled, and THESE six new affidavits...and this request for D&C equipment that needs to be sent in in triplicate....so we'll have to hold your check")???

    How about a bit more "lefty paranoia"?.... the medical records.....to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse the Fed will HAVE to eventually get a hold of those. Make sure Mrs. Johnson isn't spending the taxpayer's dollars on "unapproved medical expenses".

    If you don't think that will happen...then we're back to my OTHER scenario, where by WE, the taxpayers, are footing the bill for tummy tucks, liposuction, eye lifts, and chin implants.

    Posted by Mask at 03/01/2007 @ 1:14pm

42. Hogwash. If that were the case, why didn't Sharpton poll anywhere near where Obama is at? Jesse Jackson?

    Posted by HMAN23

    Would Obama be getting all this attention if he was white? I think not.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/01/2007 @ 1:22pm

43. Mask -

    The medical records potnetial abuse makes me nervous.

    But, on your first point, that is not what you initially wrote. You did say "prevent abortion services from being provided."

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/01/2007 @ 3:02pm

44. Would Obama be getting all this attention if he was white? I think not.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/01/2007 @ 1:22pm

    I disagree and think my Sharpton and Jackson examples cripple your argument.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/01/2007 @ 3:03pm

45. Oh for heaven's sake, Mask! If you're so concerned about National Health Insurance, single-payer, "Medicare for All" or even a full-scale National Health Care Service, go do some research on all of the other countries that have such systems. Or look into how the government currently handles peoples' Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security records. None of us here are experts, though we may have some knowledge. I've shared mine on national health insurance and single payer proposals in the past, if memory serves, and if the feds - or the states - decide not to pay for abortion (just like Medicaid only pays for it in a dozen or so states now) that doesn't mean it won't be legal, affordable and accessable just because its not covered by the national insurance plan. Not that we should live with that, or with the current status of abortion under Medicaid.

    One more thing. If you finally get off your tush and do some homework, please look into the fact that national health services and insurance systems have been under assault in many countries by the forces of economic "liberalization" and "privatization." The Frasier Institute in Canada is one example, and with them supplying the ideas and jobbed up studies and the Tories, Liberals and social democrats of the NDP the political cover for Capital, the Canadian system has been systematically starved of necessary funds for a decade or more. Nevertheless, national health services and insurance plans remain hugely popular in country after country according to whatever polls I've seen, even after the decades of scare tactics and "intellectual" hit jobs. We don't need to re-invent the wheel, you know.

    Posted by cka2nd at 03/01/2007 @ 5:40pm

46. Republicans are known for their hatred of blacks, however Democrats have some issues as well. For those that only see Obama as black, or those that are concerned with his mama being caucasian, I shake my head at the ignorance, bigotry and simple mindedness of Americans be they black or white. American born citizens tend to be racist, single-minded and bigots on both sides.

    Others who come in from outside have a varying degree of acceptance, a global view, and a better understanding of history. It is sometimes shameful to admit to being American when dealing with the ignorant types, and many are posting on this board.

    Blacks have much reason to dislike Hill and Bill and Welfare Reform which splits any possibility of a black family is the result.

    Hill is an extreme feminist, man hater type. She and Bill created a black hole for young hungry single women to use young black men and the result is these young men are slaves.

    Instead of creating welfare reform for young black families, Hill and Bill gave the young black woman a reason to entrap young black men from good families, with good hair, smart to father their children, never mind these young men may want to attend college, or do something with their lives.

    These young -itches get pregnant, go to the welfare office, gain a free education, welfare and collect taxpayers money until they move up with the ability to create wealth.

    Consider that 70% of African American women are graduating from college, and less than 30% of young black men are graduating. Once these -itches file for child support, the young black man is arrested until he forks up, sometimes afterward. He now has a record, and can find a minimum wage job but that is it.

    His paycheck minus taxes leaves him barely enough money to buy a bus or subway pass. Oprah showed two folk cannot live in America on minimum wage. Once he misses one payment he's thrown in jail. I spoke with an owner of a company who is trying to do the right thing by keeping them employed but must pay them under the table due to the welfare reform, and many times must let them go. As a black man himself, he is so glad not to have any children, but it's not because plenty "bad women" did not try.

    These young men deserve better, hell many of them never leave their blocks before some demonic little kitten messes up their life forever. Their ancestors were slaves, and Bill and Hill with their reform has reverted present day young black men into slavery.

    The Clintonistas know they are wrong, Bill even admits he should have looked out for families over individuals, but now the pendulum has swung, he does not give a damn. Once blacks wake up, look at the records, you damn skippy they will vote for Barack Obama, and I for one want to make sure they smell the stink emanating from Bill and Hill to ruin any positive generational offspring.

    Posted by scheduler at 03/01/2007 @ 9:20pm

47. A media newspaper or personality really needs to take a look at this. No one has taken a look, but it's a heavy discussion in the black community, the failure of Welfare Reform.

    No one will be available to marry young black women, and I for one am telling young men to beware. Why do you think they are going outside of their race to make families?

    Obama is the best choice for me, without saying one word. His proof is in his punch. He chose a black woman and has two beautiful daughters. When he was the $13,000 humanitarian, he had to encounter this, and when he speaks of change there is so much damage done to the black family by Democrats or the Clintonistas, they should not get any black vote.

    Hill is scared. Bill is running around prostituting himself for funds all over NYC. I almost ran into him last night when he was speaking on different types of breads at a high end "whites only" restaurant in NYC. Only the invited were allowed in, and when a middle aged white woman tried to enlist she would pay to get in, the folk at the door told her no. She saw Bill although she did not hear him.

    She was overwhelmed by his good looks, and admitted the fact, but she also admitted he was there hustling for money for Hill on a down low without press involvement.

    When I asked her about Hill she frowned, when asked if she would vote for her, no, she said for Hillary is too cold, and just not who she wants for president at this time. Besides we know she's done nothing but vote for the war here in NY and against her constituents better judgment. Black Pols that are supporting her for now are pissed at the tactics she's using on Obama, and have told her to back off. We told her not to vote for the war, but she did it anyway. The woman from last night said she is leaning towards Obama, then Edwards.

    An Obama-Edwards ticket is the one I am looking for.

    College students are supporting Obama by the thousands, and that in itself is a movement that will get him elected if they are registered to vote. There is a grass roots movement for Obama like I've never seen in my lifetime, and I know a majority of the whites that live in this nation want to live in peaceful harmony, just as many of the blacks. It must have been like this when Kennedy chose to run, I am feeling it.

    The nation and other mags have reported that Ron Brown was taken down by his own party because he knew the dirt on the Dems, you know kind of like Geffen. Well now that Brown and his entire staff are in heaven, they are opening heavens door and Obama supporters are getting the message.

    So for those bigots, narrow minds who believe Obama will never win, wake up when he does.

    Posted by scheduler at 03/01/2007 @ 9:55pm

48. It must have been like this when Kennedy chose to run, I am feeling it.

    Posted by SCHEDULER 03/01/2007 @ 9:55pm

    SCHED....sorry, but you really need to crack open a history book.

    John F Kennedy ran against Nixon (and the Eisenhower Administration) on a mythical "missile gap" with the Soviets. In other words, he was claiming that Ike (who won WW-2 and as quoted so often by liberal, spoke out against the "Military-Industrial Complex") was....weak on defense.

    As President, Kennedy spoke to the NY Economic Club in 1962 and called for.....across-the-board tax cuts from the Eisenhower rates. Yep, Reagan-style....even for the "super-rich"...like himself and his family. Not something you'd see a Democrat do today, huh?

    Like Obama, a lot of the "Camelot Myth" was hyped by both friendly media and the times. Kennedy floundered around for a lot of the early part of his Administration. He pushed the "Man on the Moon in This Decade" thing as a response to OVERWHELMING Soviet superiority in space exploration. (Note he called for us landing on the Moon WELL after he would have been out of office...and he did it when we had barely orbited ONE astronaut (Glenn)....and Apollo was already in the works under the Eisenhower Adminstration, despite JFK getting "credit" for it).

    His moves on civil rights were tepid at best (it took his death and Johnson's politically suicidal move to lose the South, but gain Civil Rights legislation, that actually did something). His foreign policy was aggressive towards the Soviets and Cuba (Bay of Pigs), but he won a victory during the Missile Crises by staring Khruschev down while averting war.

    All the "Peace Corps", "New Frontier", etc. stuff sprung up with his martyrdom. As does the "theories" that Kennedy would have "kept us out of Vietnam" (Oliver Stone et al), based on nothing but a few remarks from a man who had run and governed as a staunch anti-Communist otherwise. (Remember too, he and Bobby were FRIENDS with Joe McCarthy until it looked like McCarthy's fortunes were fading).

    If Obama is the "New JFK"....we might do well. After all, what's better than a "progressive" who governs like a conservative. The Left THINKS it's "winning"....the Right bitches about him, but IS winning...and the country follows a sane, moderate path.

    Posted by Mask at 03/02/2007 @ 09:15am

49. Scheduler, You write, "College students are supporting Obama by the thousands..."

    Big deal. Keep dreaming that this will matter. Every election, we hear about the vaunted "youth vote" --- Rock the Vote, blah, blah, blah --- and every election it doesn't pan out as hoped. If you're banking on college kids and other youngsters helping push Obama over the top, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

    Posted by Milton Marx at 03/02/2007 @ 12:33pm

50. Milton -

    How about 2006?

    10 million young people, 18-29, voted in the 2006 elections - a 25% increase from 2002.

    Of these voters, the spread between Dem and Rep was 22% - the highest of any age group.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/02/2007 @ 1:03pm

51. Posted by MILTON MARX 03/02/2007 @ 12:33am

    Sam Graham-Felsen here at "The Nation" a big proponent (in a sort of on-again,off-again way) of the always-on-the-verge of "totally changing this country" "youth vote".

    HMAN, I think what MILT is referring to is the fact that the "youth vote" idea has been around for FORTY YEARS. Bobby Kennedy?...Eugene MacCarthy?... Remember the McGovern campaign? That was going to be the "youth vote" dominating the "old Establishment" and throwing out Nixon, ending the war, Age of Aquarius, etc., etc.,etc.

    Instead Nixon won 49 states.

    Odd to think a matter of a few years, the OLD "youth vote" will become the "senior citizen" vote.

    Posted by Mask at 03/02/2007 @ 1:38pm

52. Mask -

    You point to the 60's and 1972. I give you 2006.

    Sure, the Youth Vote has been pushed for a while (nearly every election I can remember). But, Milt also said more - that it would not "matter" and never "pans out."

    2006 gave a good example that they are becoming more relevant. And given the spread in the leanings of those voters, a large increase in turnout pays more dividends to Dems than any other age group.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/02/2007 @ 2:39pm

53. Posted by HMAN23 03/02/2007 @ 2:39pm

    You can only base future outcomes on past results,HMAN. The "Youth Vote" Revolution has been "delayed" for nearly 40 years...so why start believing in it now.

    I remember discussions of "how the 'youth vote' swept in Clinton" in 1992. Supposedly portenting some "new Renaissance of progressivism" for the 21st Century. It took a failed war and an incredibly incompetent, impotent, and corrupt Congress to finally get the Dems back into power 14 years later.

    And SOMEBODY is making up the "South Park conservatives" and I don't think it's old fogeys like me, though I'm a fan.

    Posted by Mask at 03/02/2007 @ 2:48pm

54. HMAN,

    One election doesn't a trend make. Anyway, in the last presidential election, the vaunted youth vote did spike, but no more than any other category. And youth divided pretty evenly between GOP and Dem. Again, I wouldn't hold out hope for a vote that, in almost every instance, hasn't panned out in 4 decades. And don't count on youth to swing your way --- there's plenty of young folks in big-box churches who could just as well vote GOP.

    The Democratic winner would do better to bank on the votes of the geezers who want to protect their Social Security checks and Medicare coverage --- and who won't sleep late on election day, or get so caught up in a video game they don't make it to the polls.

    I've been told a popular song among that vaunted youth group right now is "Waiting for the World to Change." Great. Go get a Starbucks, have your mom pick you up at the mall, watch reality TV, sit passively on your rear.... not a promising cohort, comrade.

    Posted by Milton Marx at 03/02/2007 @ 3:57pm

55. "And don't count on youth to swing your way --- "

    I'll count on one thing - Dems +22% in the 19-29 range. Seems to me the GOP youth didn't get their rears out of the pews.

    A trend has to start somewhere, Milton. And its not just one election, but the last two elections. Turnout from 2000 to 2004 went from 40% to 49%. About 4 million votes. Now sure, maybe its just a blip as you count on. Democrats should not take the youth vote for granted, but Republicans would be wise to not brush it aside and bank on it not happening.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/02/2007 @ 4:38pm

56. OBAMA=ROVE'S DREAM OPPONENT The GOP and its big-money supporters are spotlighting Obama, pushing his nomination, to sink the Dem's in '08. Obama has NO chance of winning the general election. As a black, yuppy lawyer, DLCer ('free-trader'), and glib Clintonesque BS artist, he represents everything that white working people hate, fear and despise, and will line-up with the GOP to vote against, as they did with Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and II.

    Isn't it curious that the first media pundits to broach Obama's name were conservative (e.g. David Brooks)? And look at the media buildup the guy gets. The only Democratic presidential candidates that are acceptable to Wall Street are either corporate shills or unelectable; Obama meets at least the latter criteria.

    The guy doesn't even have a real track record at winning elections for national office. His senate win in 04' was against another black candidate who was even weaker than him, namely Alan Keyes who was a complete wacko.

    Posted by wgilwood at 03/02/2007 @ 10:39pm