wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] Charles from Harlem September 21, 2007 - 10:31AM

  I want to question your assertion that Barack Obama is the first serious black presidential candidate that could really win the US Presidency. Why is he the 1st black candidate who could seriously win?

  In part, it's because he's the 1st black candidate that affluent, liberal whites find attractive (and i used that word decisively) not so much that blacks are enamored of him.

  charles in harlem

  
  
• [2] markbnj from www.my-poem-a-day.blogspot or markbnj.blogspot.com September 21, 2007 - 10:35AM

  OK. I am going to post an Article on WHY I don't Support OBAMA. (on my blog above

  In summary It ISN't Race (see my post about the horrors of the Jena 6 here: http://markbnj.blogspot.com/2007/09/race-jena-6.html

  Essentially, (as one BLACK caller just said),

  it's not about RACE, it's about the fact that

  HE IS A NEWCOMER to National POLITICS...

  and

  Would he win???

  (If you follow the link for the jena 6 above you'll find the article I post about this...

  MarkBrown in nj

  
  
• [3] Russell D'Costa, Esq. from NY September 21, 2007 - 10:37AM

  Newcomer to politics!?! What about pre-presidency "dubbya"? I could be wrong, but I don't really think he was too experienced.

  
  
• [4] Paulo from New Jersey September 21, 2007 - 10:39AM

  I think after eight years of George W. Bush, we have the perfect case for why lack of experience in international affairs can be lethal to a presidency and dangerous to a country. However, a completely inexperienced politician, Abraham Lincoln, led us through the nation's greatest tragedy. Ultimately, I think Obama isn't ripe yet, but I'm also afraid that once we can say for certain that he is ready, his star will have set in the minds of most people and he will simply fall into the has-been (or never-was) narrative.

  
  
• [5] Brian from Manhattan September 21, 2007 - 10:41AM

  Although I'm a white voter, I would vote for Obama IF he convinces me he is not merely a "light" version of status-quo Washington politics.

  The woman who called in earlier with fears that America (i.e. white Americans) may not be ready for a black president and may vote Republican reveals a troubling, but ironically viable concern.

  I believe Obama could strongly appeal to white America if he addresses the same issues faced by poorer, disenfranchised whites as blacks have long faced -- in other words, adopt more of Edwards' "two Americas" views.

  
  
• [6] RD from NYC September 21, 2007 - 10:41AM

  Great point Paulo!

  
  
• [7] ab from nyc September 21, 2007 - 10:44AM

  Yeah and looked how Bush turned out

  The fact that the media can't really acknowledge the fact that he is actually bi-racial (yes he is half white folks-one white parent) proves this country is still too racist to elect someone of color. We still have to force people of mixed racial heritage to be thrown into one category or another. God forbid he should actually be referred to in a way that would actually acknowledge his mixed parentage--why? because that's too uncomfortable for America? Because the average American wouldn't comprehend that? This country is too racist to elect him or any person of color in a wider election regardless of his experience.

  
  
• [8] Christopher Benton from Brooklyn, NY September 21, 2007 - 10:44AM

  We need a president who can put the pieces back together of our Constitution that the current administration has ripped apart. We need a president that can construct a real foreign policy that doesn't create hatred around the world and subsequently make us safer. It shouldn't matter if the person for the job is black, white, male or female. If we vote based on qualifications and a real vision then and only then will we change our country.

  
  
• [9] Pam from Wstr. September 21, 2007 - 10:45AM

  Why is it that every four years, we get a slate of candidates any of whom we would be thrilled to have in the White House; BUT, after the election, those who haven't won the top spot recede into oblivion or into gadfly positions when it would be wonderful for the winner to choose one of them for Vice President and make of him a true partner, and have two tested people represent the views of the president, his party's constituents, and the citizenry?

  
  
• [10] clay September 21, 2007 - 10:48AM

  I agree with the point that he is new comer to national and international politics. He's young and has a long way to go. I don't know that he's ready, and that is my central doubt.

  As to why he's the first viable black candidate, it's because he's actually coming from politics not the pulpit. Obama may not have a lot of political experience, but he's done something more than lead marches and pose in front of cameras.

  We need leadership has a skill set beyond being able to speak in verse and quote the bible.

  
  
• [11] ab from nyc September 21, 2007 - 10:53AM

  Excuse me, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr and Jesse Jackson did a LOT more than simply "lead marches and pose in front of cameras". Perhaps, you didn't mean for it to come off that way but there's a distinct odor of ignorance in the characterization within your statement.

  
  
• [12] clay September 21, 2007 - 11:54AM

  The question was why Obama is considered a viable candidate over the 2 previous Black presidential candidates, Jackson and Sharpton.

  I believe that any viable Black candidate for anything is going to need to get out of the church and do something more than lead marches and protests.

  People like Obama and Cory Booker get sniped at from our own people because they aren't bowing to the previous leadership. Because they have the gall to lead on their own and to actually participate in the business and political world without begging for acceptance from the likes of Jackson, Sharpton, Butts and Flake.

  Other groups have gained influence by branching out and allowing leadership from throughout the community, it's just us that won't follow anyone who isn't anointed by a preacher.

  
  
• [13] ab from nyc September 21, 2007 - 02:36PM

  Ok, I see your point now that it's more fleshed out and I actually agree with you there.

  
  
• [14] Feb Moria September 22, 2007 - 09:06AM

  How can we still be talking about "experience" when Obama has been in legistrative office much longer than Clinton (8 yrs state senate, 2 years in the senate) or Edwards (only 4 yrs senate?)

  Obama has the ingredients of the best leader, college degree in international relations, Constitutional law, civil rights practice, community organizer. From the grassroots to the highest level of diplomacy he understands it all.

  Add an extraordinary appeal to all America, black and white, he is the best America will have in a long time

  
  
• [15] geoffinsantacruz from Santa Cruz, CA September 24, 2007 - 06:42PM

  People who say Barack doesn't have enough experience are misstating the case: he only lacks the years of national press coverage that Hillary got for free as first lady. In all the types of experience that matter, he is well supplied. Community organizer, civil rights attorney, constitutional law professor, state lawmaker, and an international perspective that sets him free of parochial blinders when it comes to dealings with other countries. I might also mention, right on the Iraq War before opinion caught up with him.

  New Yorkers (Hillary) and Carolinians (Edwards) will be boosters of their local candidates, and they're both excellent choices. It's just that in this embarrassment of riches, Barack is the best. The more you get to know him and his record, I'm convinced you will agree with me.