Seriously, Biden is a total idiot.......
 

As a Republican, I personally hope he stays in the race and trashes all the other Democratic candidates. His comments on Obama are simply Trent Lott-esque.......

"Mr. Biden, who ran an ill-fated campaign for President in 1988, is a man who believes his time has finally come, announcing this week that he was filing papers to make his 2008 Presidential bid official."


But he copied Obama's filing papers!

As a third party voter I hope that he runs against Hilary.

Who started the whole "Obama went to a wahhabi school thing?" If it was Hillary, did she hire Karl Rove?

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Yep, only took a little under four hundred years, but we finally have "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy". Guess it was only about a hundred years of work for each of those character traits. Good thing we've got Biden and his haw lantern scouting the path for us.

It was actually from a periodical called Insight on the News. Insight on the News is part of Rev. Moon's media empire (which also includes the Washington Times). So, I'm doubting it was Hilary's people that planted the story.

You also have to love him trotting out the "but he speaks so well!" chestnut.

It's the "clean" part that I just can't understand. Does he really think it's unusual for blacks to be clean?

John: FYI: Insight was a part of the Moonie empire, but isn't anymore. Moon dumped it, but the guy currently running it kept it going.

I must have missed that part of the article.

"articulate"

Didn't know that. I only knew Insight from the old days and when I saw that was the source for the Obama allegations, then I was sure it was unreliable.

My favorite part about the whole thing was for the media outlets that picked the story up, they totally omitted the fact that right after attending that school in Indonesia he went to Catholic school there as well. Just like your average terrorist-in-training.

Biden has no chance of winning, I don't know why he's trying to flatter himself by running. I'd put him behind Hillary, Obama, and Vilsack by a ton for starters, this is just a futile attempt.

Barring any unexpected revelations, the only candidates with a chance of winning the Democratic nomination are Hillary, Obama and maybe Edwards. I think Gore would also have a serious chance, but I don't think it's likely he's going to throw his hat into the ring.

Anyone else declaring for the Democratic nomination is doing so because they're either a) deluded b) running for VP or c) doing so to increase their speaking/book-deal money.

Spinning that (in the middle of a bunch of attributes) into a "but he speaks so well!" comment seems a bit of a stretch.

Then Fox News rode it off the rails, and we know Hillary isn't pitching stories to them ...

They attributed it from her camp. Seems a little early for her to mudsling. But she's not going to use him as her VP, so...I don't know that she doesn't want to make his camp a little hot under the collar especially since they're vying for the same behind-the-scenes people and early supporters.

Right, this was my take. That they wanted to kill two birds with one stone with that story. Seems like it'll take a little more than that, I'd imagine.

Brian: That's what articulate means.

Nobody had to dig up the story on Obama. It's in his books.

Clean-cut, I imagine. Not clean like "he showered." I think in contrast to say, a Jesse Jackson or really the whole image of the black politicians as grimy huckster. Obama really does rise above that, but he's the first to emergy on the national stage too without all of the civil rights baggage of the 1960s. And while people downplay it, I really do believe the fact that his dad wasn't American plays a huge part in his disconnectedness from all of that.

In terms of a "first mainstream black candidate" I don't think it ever occured to anyone that it would REALLY be an African-American in the true sense of the term. So, it's sorta...bizarre.

I do support his use of "blow dried" as a pejoratrive insult to phony politicians.

One thing we know for certain is that longshots never come from way back in the polls to win elections.

I'm hardly going to argue that Biden is a likely nominee, but if he's going to win, it's got be by separating himself somehow. If he becomes the Democrats' perceived "straight shooter" who happens to have some experience on issues of importance... well, that seems to me to be a reasonable straw at which to grasp. What is a better option? Run as just one more candidate with the same list of tired ideas and Bush-bashing as the last guy and the next guy?

You mean like this guy...

As JPhillips pointed out, it's not spin -- that's the English definition. "Articulate" is merely the fancy (read: political) way of saying so. Biden simply said that this is the first African-American who has talked well, dressed well, seemed intelligent, and was good-looking...he just did so in more articulate language.

Before this ends up spinning even further into a racial spiral, didn't Biden say that this was the first A-A Presidential candidate with those qualities?

(Because if he actually said just the first A-A who was etc, etc. then you've got a helluva story on your hands here)

Not according to the story copied in the first post, he didn't.

You just seem to be taking that as way more of a backhanded compliment than I believe it was meant to be. Seriously, I think some people just want to be see offense in things. Clearly a president should be articulate (the current Bush notwithstanding), but call a black man articulate and all hell breaks loose. I also saw your later post answering Jon that his comments were of the first "African-American", not the first "African-American presidential candidate", when the "presidential candidate" was clearly implied since the whole interview was about presidential candidates. I clearly read his description of Obama way differently than you do.

It was years ago, but I remember someone doing a study that showed that you could pretty much predict who was going to win the presidency by which of the two major candidates had the least negative campaigning done against them in their primary.

Now, I have no idea what article that was, whether it is still relevant, or what standards the guy used to determine "negative campaigning," but it is probably something about which both parties need to think.

For the first time in forever, both parties' nominations are wide open, with no sitting President or Vice-President running. It would seem that such an open field would encourage candidates to go negative early and often.

Hell, we still have almost two years until the election, and we are hearing the attacks start already.

I don't know. The word mainstream doesn't strike me as a synonym with presidential candidate. It seems much more far reaching than that.

So you believe he chose the word "mainstream" to mean presidential candidate? Can I have some of what you're smoking.

Please. :)

Again, context counts. The whole discussion was about presidential candidates. Is Obama a fringe third-party candidate? No, he is a mainstream candidate...in one of the top two parties being talked about by the mainstream media as a real candidate.

I don't believe that's true at all. Where was Kerry in '02? Or Bill Clinton in '90? It's still anybody's game.

I agree with st. cronin, so everyone else MUST be wrong.

I couldn't disagree more.

So, Biden can't use english correctly and it's up to the end user to not once, but at least twice, come up with an alternate meaning to challenging words like "mainstream" and "articulate." Got it.

Look, I'm not calling the man racist but did he say something ridiculously stupid? Yes he did. Trying to mangle it to make him look good is pretty much a huge stretch.

Completely different situations. Neither 2002 nor 1990 featured an early Democratic candidate with either the war chest & control of the national party (Hillary) or the star power (Obama) that you're seeing now.

Wasn't Clinton an also-ran in the Democratic primaries, way way back in the polls? Granted, its not an election, but he turned it around in a big way.

Once the candidates are decided, can a longshot win an election? Ask George Allen and his 20+ point lead.

But just the fact that there are two of them is bad news for both of them. If there was just one of them, I would be more inclined to agree with you. I think this is going to get very ugly, in an entertaining way, and all three of those top candidates could blow up.

That's why Joe should wait a bit. I think he'd be better served by Biden his time a while before making a move.

If we could predict the future, it wouldn't be the future. Candidates peak too early, shoot themselves in the foot, or otherwise fall apart. In hindsight we can see why, but pretending that we saw it in the moment is an illusion.

Let me just add, that those three (four, actually) names are definitely the most likely candidates. But I think it's at best 50/50 that one of them is actually the nominee. There's too much time, too many things can go wrong.

I'm not trying to make the guy look good, and I'm not coming up with new meanings to mainstream and articulate. You are the one that chose to equate "mainstream" to "presidential candidate". I'm saying that he didn't include the words "presidential candidate" either explicitly or in code because he didn't have to. The whole conversation was about presidential candidates. You are taking a sound-bite and fitting your own context around it. I'm suggesting we fit the sound-bite into the original context.

Look, first of all, I said "barring unexpected revelations", so I understand the possibility that one of these candidates could blow up (i.e. Howard Dean). My point, however, is that the material advantages both Hillary and Obama have at this stage were not possessed by any Democratic candidates in 1990 or 2002.


In hindsight we can see why Clinton won the nomination before the 1992election, but that's not my point. My point was that in 1990 I remember thinking "these guys are all a bunch of losers, I don't think any of them can win." I also don't remember any real front-runners in 2002. Sure, Kerry had a lot of party organization backing, Dean had the grassroots, and Edwards was having some success with the middle ground, but I don't remember thinking of any of them as front-runners. In fact, I remember the consensus in 2002 being that if Gore joined the race, he'd wipe the floor with all of them.

So, again, my point is that the situation now is completely different to those two examples. Hillary and Obama are clearly front-runners, and possess current advantages that the other Democratic candidates simply don't have, and aren't likely to gain. Sure, either Hillary or Obama could implode, but if they don't, I don't see how anyone but either of the two of them wins this nomination.

Actually, I didn't equate "mainstream" to "presidential candidate." I twice denied that when someone says mainstream he means presidential candidate. Barring just forgetting the words he chose to use, then they have, oh, you know, meaning. What is the meaning of the word mainstream in this statement? Why was it used?

You say it doesn't matter. Since he was clearly talking about presidential candidates that the words he uses don't mean what they mean when speaking english otherwise. Even if he meant mainstream political candidates that are black he's just insulted Keyes, Jackson etc saying they do not possess the qualities of intelligence, articulation cleanliness, looks, etc.

Either way, it's a dumb thing to say.

flere, my point isn't that the other situations are similar. Rather, I'm saying front-runners have a way of disappearing in unpredictable ways in primary season. Little things (like Iowa and New Hampshire) can totally change the outcome. External events can also change the whole feel of an election (Bush I's unexpected collapse certainly changed the whole feel of the 92 election). And suddenly someone comes out of "nowhere" and wins the nomination. And then, in hindsight, we see why that person came out of "nowhere" and the flaws in the frontrunners that we ignored before. If Clinton's campaign implodes, for example, we might say her negative ratings were her undoing. If Obama meltsdown, may be we will chalk it up to inexperience and he will look like he never stood a chance in hindsight.

Knowing with any degree of certainty who the Democrat's 2008 nominee will be in January 2007 is hubris. Even limiting yourself to the options of Edwards, Obama, and Clinton seems foolish, IMO.

Have to agree with John Galt. It is WAAAY too soon to be saying who are the only ones with a chance. You have to wait until at least the summer to get a decent picture, and even then, you have primary bumps and skeletons in the closet, etc.

You also have to look at other things Biden has said. For example this when asked why he could win southern primaries,


or this

Clearly he was talking here about a presidential candidate going into one of these places and by effecting a disguise accent you might be able to order a sugary pastry without being assailed by the public. Clearly a wise tip to dispense to his rivals.

Could you give some examples? I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I'm honestly trying to think of examples where a clear front-runner went into a primary season and didn't get the nomination, barring unforseen revelations or a "Dean-esque" meltdown.


I honestly think it's different this year. Barring unforseen revelations or a "Dean-esque" meltdown, I think one of those three is the nominee in 2007.

Way, way too early for a prediction but my Nostradamus vision says that Edwards wins the nomination after cutting a deal to make Obama the vp and getting his support.

Right, you twice denied the connection...which nobody made. What did he mean by mainstream? I don't know, why don't you read my post where I stated explicitly what I thought he meant. I'll even quote it so you don't have to scroll..."Again, context counts. The whole discussion was about presidential candidates. Is Obama a fringe third-party candidate? No, he is a mainstream candidate...in one of the top two parties being talked about by the mainstream media as a real candidate."


Are you even trying to comprehend what I am saying, or are you just interested in picking a fight? Words have meaning, and context has meaning. You shouldn't need an explanation for that, but I'll give you one anyway. If I say you are "intelligent", does that tell you all you need to know without context? What if that statement was made in the context of MENSA candidates? Sounds like a compliment to me. What if the context was dog show contestants? Not such a compliment there. Hell, what if I was using sarcasm? Context matters.

As far as the insult to Keyes and Jackson, your argument has merit. But keep in mind that if I said Obama was different becase he had these (whatever these are) 6 qualities, that doesn't mean that everyone else lacks all 6, just that they don't have all 6.


So you don't agree that Obama is the first mainstream black candidate with lots of good qualities? Which part do you disagree with? The fact that he is mainstream (as he is being talked about in the mainstream media)? The fact that the word "candidate" wasn't used during a discussion about candidates? The fact that he is the "first" mainstream candidate (Keyes or Jackson deserving that title)? The fact that he posesses those qualities?

Hard to imagine a context where these statements wouldn't look bad. The only thing that could have made these statements worse was if he actually called someone articulate *shudder*.

Edit: For the context-impared, only the second statement contained sarcasm. As an exercise to the reader, toggle the sarcasm-flag off and on for the two statements. Do they read differently?

The Dems had a very weak field of candidates in 1992. Cuomo didn't run. Gephardt didn't run. Gore didn't run. There was no one in the field that had the instant name recognition/financial edge of Hilary Clinton or the media hype of a Barack Obama. And Clinton wasn't invisible in 90. He was at least as well known as Vilsack. And Kerry (along with Edwards) was considered one of the early frontrunners in the Dem primary if Gore decided not to enter.

Brian: I don't want to pick a fight and I actually agree with you regarding "mainstream". However, if you want to look at context, you have to look at historical context as well. Using a word like "articulate" in describing why Obama as a serious challenge is offensive. Notice Biden doesn't single out Edwards or Clinton or Vilsack or anyone else. He only makes a point of calling the black candidate articulate. That's because he obviously finds it unique that this black man is so well spoken.

Biden's an ass and a gaffe prone ass at that. I don't think he's going to burn a cross in Obama's yard or anything, but he clearly sees black politicians as lesser than white politicians. Add to that his just downright stupid public comments and I'm embarrassed that he's a member of my party.

And if only there wasn't such a long and established history of such statements being directly tied to racist thought -- long enough that when I say he's trotting out the old "but he speaks so well!" chestnut, folks know what I'm talking about. It shouldn't be a surprise, to Mr. Biden or anyone, that an African-American can be articulate, handsome, bright, etc. And yet apparently in almost four-hundred years of Africans and their descendents being on this continent, Mr. Obama seems to be the first one to have all these qualities and pursue a political career with them.

I know you want to beat at the pinata of political correctness here, BrianD, but the man's statement is asinine. There have been plenty of men and women who have been candidates for political office both large and small. Because of men like Mr. Biden, this is the first year in which any of those men or women actually had an outside shot at being taken seriously by the political establishment...and heck, since Mr. Obama looks and talks so good, why, he's apparently transcended his race (which is in and of itself a relative term as it applies to Mr. Obama, and pretty much everyone else) enough to be a candidate, unlike every other African-American, none of which are articulate, pretty, and smart enough.

Or anyway, that's the literal interpretation of a dumb statement that he had no business making. He doesn't say a word about the man's political stance, experience, or qualifications (even to denigrate them). He talks about how he's pretty, smart, and talks good, which is apparently such a rare combination in African-Americans that Mr. Obama is the very first mainstream one to have them all.

In January 12, 2003 the Gallup poll said:

Lieberman 19%
Kerry 17%
Gephardt 13%
Edwards 12%
Graham 6%
Hart 6%
Sharpton 4%
Dean 4%

I agree that historical context is important, and I completely understand why "articulate" could be offensive. In fact, when I read the article I figured that someone was going to jump on the use of the word. Had that been the only compliment I would have seen it as offensive. In the middle of other character strengths listed, I no longer see the outrage. Biden listed a number of character strengts and then commented that he didn't know if Obama's Senate career has been long enough to allow him to win. What do people focus on? The word "articulate". Now I am willing to admit that I probably don't "feel" the proper historical outrage at the term, but I wonder if this is the kind of thing that can ever go from being a backhanded compliment to a real compliment?


I'm not particularly familiar with Biden's history or his personal faults. I have no interest in protecting him or standing up for him. My comments were just on the content of the article.

But—and the “but” was clearly inevitable—he doubts whether American voters are going to elect “a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate,” and added: “I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.”

And for the record, Biden didn't write the article. I'm not willing to assume what he did or didn't say aside from what got quoted in the article.

I believe the front-runner for the Democratic nomination in 1990 was actually Paul Tsongas.

Somebody needs to re-read the Maximum Football thread.

Well sure, if you don't count Cuomo who ended up not running. I can't find any 1990 polls at the moment. But let's say you are correct, it still doesn't prove your original point, unless you are arguing that Tsongas in 1990 was as strong and well known as Hilary, Obama, or Edwards are now. And that would be a pretty stupid argument.

But I don't really remember him as much of a front-runner. Certainly not like Hillary or Obama today. Tom Harkin, after all, won the Iowa primary, and it was Clinton coming in 2nd to Tsongas in New Hampshire (neighboring Tsongas' home state) which gave Clinton the momentum.

By the way, you're not related to Paul Cronin, are you?

That isn't my argument at all. My argument is that if this is a football game, we aren't even at halftime yet. Sure, the front runners look strong, but anything can happen. The front-runners, except for perhaps Edwards, also have very significant weaknesses.

I don't know. Who is he?

Paul Tsongas beat him in one of his senatorial elections. Came up when I was double-checking some facts on him on wikipedia.

Well, if anybody on my father's side was ever involved in Democratic politics, he doesn't get mentioned, so it's possible. I never heard of him though.

;)

But you used 1992 and 2004 as examples. Neither of those years was there any candidate that had the same kind of national name recognition or financial war chest of Hilary. And none of them had the star appeal of Obama. And that's because the star candidates in those years (Cuomo and Gore) decided not to run.

Yes, we might not be at halftime yet, but Hilary, Obama, and maybe Edwards are so far ahead of the field, it would be really difficult for anyone else to make a dent. I'm not saying it can't happen, but it would far more improbable than it was for Kerry or Clinton to win.

He was a Republican, actually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_W._Cronin

And actually it looks like he lost a Congressional election to Tsongas.

It's like a marathon. We're at 13 miles. The leading pack consists of Hillary, Obama and Edwards, and they've got almost a 1 mile lead on the rest of the field.

Hillary's got about 100 yards on Obama and is looking strong, but it's suspected that she doesn't have enough in the tank to respond if Obama draws level with her. She is the pre-race favorite, though and has led from the start.

Obama was with the anonymous pack for the first 7 miles then put on a burst of speed to almost catch up to Hillary. He looks great, and his running is effortless at the moment, but he's still got a fair amount of ground to make up on Hillary.

Edwards trailed only Hillary out of the gate, and has recently been passed by Obama. He's struggling, and most pundits don't think he has the ability to catch up to either of them, though he's well-placed if either should falter.

...and to complete the analogy, Al Gore is actually still at the starting line, giving an interview, but we know he has a motorcycle he can use to catch up to the front-runners if he so wishes.

Don't think I'm related to him.

And Joe Biden just got caught trying to pull a Rosie Ruiz, which he has been known to do before.

That's too bad. I was looking forward to taunting you with "Your X Lost To Tsongas" in future political arguments. Childish, sure, but then I'm a Democrat. Oh wait, wrong thread.

Nah, Biden's stopped at a water table at about 11 miles telling anyone who will listen how he's going to win the race.

:D

The fact that the word candidate was extraneous but "mainstream african american" had to be explicitely said. It's a stupid thing to say. That's it.
You can make the stretch to say what he meant to say and that's fine. I wasn't arguing that point. His words clearly leave an impression on enough people ( the writer of the article for one ) that it's politically a dumb thing.

Also, I'd say Jackson made quite a credible run at the democratic nomination so yeah, that's wrong too. He was easily a mainstream candidate at that point in time.

Now, you tell me, which of the fourdisqualified him. Is he unclean, stupid, ugly, or inarticulate?

dola

I'm actually a great admirer of Paul Tsongas.

Jackson came in 2nd in '88...before he was revealed as the huckster he is now. I think he probably just meant "this guy could actually win" referring to Obama.

But Colin Powell wasn't exactly a slouch back in the 90s when he decided against running. I dunno that he would've won, but...in retrospect, he might have put together a convincing campaign had he chose to enter the race.

So the comment was poorly timed and ill concieved. And reveals how out of touch the Democratic Party is with the base that seems to lock 'n step vote for them (black folks) no matter what sort of trash comes out of the mouth of party leaders, no matter what their race is, with some exceptions obviously. This isn't so much a big surprise, as much as it makes you wonder if people are really listening or if the mirage of an even more hostile GOP (whereas, I think they're somewhere between indifferent and lacking understanding..but would be receptive if more were at the table) keeps people so many voting Dem year after year.

And yes, I understand the history and trends. Just thinking out loud.

But Jackson had already damaged himself with the "Hymietown" remark in the 1984 primary. He made a great run in 1988, actually leading after the Michigan primary, but the 84 gaffe was going to doom him at some point. Even if he somehow won the nomination, it would have been a disastrous general election. In 1992 Jerry Brown seriously derailed his own campaign by announcing Jackson as his VP choice right before the NY primary.

Umm ... he pretty much is the first black Presidential candidate to get far enough to be considered "mainstream". He is, unlike Jackson and Keyes before him, probably a legitimate contender for his party's nomination and perhaps even for the office itself.

And that is indeed pretty rare, even rarer than a black football coach reaching the Super Bowl.

So which black Republican will seriously run? And assuming Obama = Lovie Smith (Illinois), who will be his Rex Grossman (his seriously untalented white boy who he stands by).

CONDI!!!!

I think that -- just like football coaches -- the issue here isn't that black folks weren't articulate or clean-cut before. It's the fact that Americans had all sorts of goofy ideas about what blacks can and cannot do, so...they remained hesitant.

Just like NFL owners hiring black coaches or having black quarterbacks lead their franchises.

So this issue isn't about being good enough, it's about a populace being able to look past its own ignorance.

And Obama is more of an anomly just given his interesting background and how the "mainstream" (e.g. white people) can relate to that, as opposed if he was Barack Obama from Newark or Compton or something.

That wouldn't end well. :)

J.C. Watts could probably pass a decent VP candidate for somebody, if you wanted to play the Illinois Senate race of "match our black candidates" game. Not that he's not servicable otherwise, but he's been out of the game for a while and seems more content to just make money from the lobbying side of the house.

I'm still not convinced Obama will win the Democratic nomination. And no way if Hillary wins that she chooses him as her VP.

The GOP can't seem to get blacks elected to Congress these days, let alone the White House. I think if the black vote was a priority for the party or if there was ever an inclination to make it a priority, there would need to be a lot of grassroots changes in approach and such alike. They've blown majority opportunities in recent years -- especially back in 02 and 04 -- to capture winnable districts, because they fail to raise money for these candidates the same way they do for others.

The national party seems to think that if you put a black face out there, that's enough. And it's not. It has to be a combination of big ideas and grassroots communicaton, especially if you're talking about a candidate in a district that has a substantial black population or in the case of a Senate candidate like Michael Steele.

I think this past year's black candidates just picked a bad year to show up on the scene en masse, more than anything. But again, I blame the party for that and figure it's a lot like hiring black coaches to coach the Bengals, but not some flagship franchise until they can "prove" themselves. Politics is obviously a little different for other dynamic reasons, too.

In other words, I wouldn't hold my breath. Save for a Barack-like ascent of some sort of "clean, articulate, good-smelling" black hope to appear on the GOP scene speaking the language of God, Guns and Country.

I don't see one on the horizon anytime soon.

You do realize that it was a conversation about politics, and specifically presidential candidates, right?


Personally I would have picked "mainstream" as the disqualifier in that statement.

Look, I understand you took offense to the statement, and that is really all that matters. If it was offensive to you it was probably offensive to others. I suppose I shouldn't belittle that just because I didn't feel the same offense. Of course you know that race will come up often in this political race, and not everything that could be taken the wrong way should be.

I was going to make the same point, but it seemed like it might work better coming from someone else.

Gee, ya think?

But absent that issue, are we even talking about a candidate that has so little experience? Or more to the point, is he even a candidate if he's white?

Since when has experience mattered? Did Bush have more experience than Gore? Clinton have mroe experience than Bush? Carter have more experience than Ford?

Barack has been a US Senator for 2 years and was in the state senate 6 years before that. Edwards was a Senator for 4 years when he first ran.

Dude pulls second in the democratic primary and you don't call that mainstream? Hmm.

I actually wasn't offended by the words, frankly. I do think the words have the power to offend and if someone who doesn't offend by mere words like this finds the wording peculiar you can be certain that others are going to use this against him. That's why it's stupid.

Actually, we tend to elect governors more than senators for what it's worth.

Outside of McCain, where's the experience for any of the top tier candidates on either side? And remember, experience, policies et al. don't matter much. The presidential election is all about likability. That's why Obama is a real contender.

I know that, but I was just responding to Jon's question on experience. Edwards was a white candidate with not much more Senate experience, and less overall experience.

I was going to say something to the effect that if that is the understanding you got from my written word then that doesn't speak highly of your ability to understand what Biden said when you see it written but I didn't. Now I'm strictly stating it as a joke. ;)

I'm outta here. Home beckons. My workday is done. Have fun discussing this.

I'm not sure what people mean when they say "experience." If we are talking about Obama's experience in matters of foreign policy and areas that the President needs to be expert and skilled on, I'm not convinced that makes a difference in his ability to convince people to vote for him, and it wouldn't mean much to me personally.

If by "experience" we mean instead experience running a national campaign, that speaks more to his electability, and Obama's lack of experience there would worry me - not in terms of would I vote for him, but in terms of would I bet money on this guy winning the nomination. Clinton (especially) and Edwards have quite a bit more "experience" there, and I do think that's important.

Edwards was a southern candidate used to try and counter the republican stronghold on the region. That was why he was chosen and he really hadn't gotten very far in his own campaign.

No, I wouldn't.

Me & you had as good a chance of being President as Jesse Jackson had.

Ooh, insightful post for st.cronin. Nicely done.

I actually agree with Jon here, for reasons that I stated earlier in this thread. There was no way that Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson was mainstream or had a remote chance of winning the Presidency.

But Jon asked if we would even be talking about a white candidate who had so little experience. People were definitely talking about Edwards.