To pretend that racism and sexism don't influence SOME opposed to Obama and Clinton. . .

. . .is to be naive. And to think that some of the Democrats against Obama who are backing other candidates are not racist or some of the Democrats against Clinton who are backing other candidates are not sexist is also naive.

We have to be very careful not to automatically question the motives of those opposed to either, however we should not bury our heads in the sand.

Can't be angry that he's winning these people in Iowa, then turn around and say he can't win nationally because of this exact same voting demographic.

That is the way the cookie crumbles.

end up accusing us of being bigots.

This is arguement for illegals too. If you lived near or in a major city you would know better. Actually the illegals are from all over the world (Ireland, Poland, Russia, etc.) not just Mexico. They are the largest invasion.

Nope I am not threatened. Hillary and Obama politics are not acceptable to me as a Democrat. Globalism and religious programs paid for by our wallets is not only expensive but divisive and undemocratic. The Bilderberg Group members are arrogant traitors as far as I'm concerned.

You are kidding right?

I think there's less than some people think, and more than we would want.

for Obama, and I almost fell off my chair! :) She's voted republican since the Reagan days, and I know she's embarrassed by Bush and hates the war. Still, I thought she'd vote for someone like Edwards if she changed sides. I know she'll never vote for Hillary. Too ingrained for that, but she's not my first choice, either.

I personally know a couple of couples for whom Hillary Clinton is a true point of contention. Both of these couples are anti-war, anti-corporatist lefties, yet the wife is blindly pro-Clinton and adamant on the subject. "When will there ever be another chance for a woman to get elected?" "What other woman is there who could have a chance?" Those are frequently heard rejoinders. We've all pretty much steered all conversations away from this due to the strain.

Many posts have been made about the despicable nature of males here that would have sparked outrage had they been the other way around. Many women are incensed by Hillary Clinton and are getting heat for not supporting her out of solidarity.

It goes both ways.

There's also been some vague anti-white racism voiced on the board, but it's been quite rare. The race-based support I see for Obama is more of positive pride rather than reactionary bigotry. Still, there's a thin line between group pride and bigotry, and we should all give each other a few breaks here and there.

Much as I don't like equivocation, it seems that things are pretty much in balance here. There have been very few overt racist statements made, but there have been a few.

As far as I can see, this country is ready to elect a woman or a Black as president. I don't think we're ready to elect a Muslim, a Jew, a Homosexual and CERTAINLY not someone who doesn't believe in a supreme being. Whether a Hispanic candidate could win nationally or not is another question, but if we ARE ready for one, I heartily endorse my Congressman, Xavier Becerra; here's a guy who's really got something, and he voted against the IWR. (He supports Dodd, by the way...)

Sexists aren't all male, racists aren't all white, and bigots aren't all Republican (although it helps...).

Just as it is for Americans who assume that the only people capable of running this country are white males. Why is it be wrong for me to be honest about taking those factors into consideration when it's so obvious that everyone else does as well?

Simply looking at the issue in terms of electoral calculation, and not trying to 'accuse' people of politically incorrect sentiments, the question is HOW MANY people that would otherwise vote for the Democratic candidate, would not vote for x BECAUSE of y. A lot of people won't vote for HRC if she gets the nomination, but many cogently insist that it has nothing to do with her being a woman.
As for the numbers, I think that the numbers of voters who would OTHERWISE vote for the Democrat, but who WON'T b/c the candidate is a woman or because the candidate is black are fairly small. And they of course are offset by any vote gains, including increased turnout.

MUCH MORE IMPORTANT is the intangible factor of the overall impression a candidate makes, which is much harder to quantify and of course, difficult to objectively evaluate. (I think Obama is strongest on the 'closest look without an axe to grind' test -- applied to the leading Democrats.

I read recently that a NY TIMES COLUMNIST expected hawk McCain would be elected in 2008! He's arguably the most honest leading Republican candidate, but you kind of wish he were only kidding ....

partly because she's a woman and partly because too many people can't stand her personally. As for Obama, I'm undecided. I'm still not certain if a black man can win the general election or not. Obama is affable and positive, which I think makes him acceptable to a lot of people who might not be as accepting of another black man, but I'm still not certain that the closeted racism in this country wouldn't defeat him. And as petty as it sounds, there are people who will have trouble with his name. A perfectly reasonable (and intelligent) person that I know told me that he couldn't imagine a President Obama (yes, the name was a stumbling block to him). And you can bet that the repblicans will make a point of uttering his full name whenever possible just for the negative association of his middle name, an association that will work on some people.

against your opponent. It is not the GOP is enamored or even
have true good will. Hate your opponents.

They pulled this in Ga.

I realize in Iowa they may be honorable. Just saying Be Ware.
The GOP believe Obama is the easiest to beat. It has been
discussed on Fox more than once. (The fact that they view
Obama as the easiest to beat.