The GOP gets around the problem with electing blacks by appointing them.
It may have some benefit, anyway, but it repreents avoiding an issue, instead of confronting and solving it.
Clarence Thomas ended up on the SC due to affirmative action hiding in plain sight. He was far from best, or even well, qualified His primary qualifications were his skin color and his conservatism, although the Repubs didn't understand what kind of conservative he was. They're not good at understanding anyone but themselves, and even there understanding is lacking in scope.

As far as your comment about the GOP losing support if they pull the race card… on the one hand I agree with you, but on the other hand the GOP has been successful in dividing the country (think gay marriage and the “us v. them” mentality of the Bush administration). So what the Republicans decide to do is what they think will work, not what we think will work with our back seat driving. Just to be clear I don't mean Republicans in general, there are tons of decent and Republicans, I refer to the Republicans who have years of strategy experience and are advisors in these matters.

Not true. (Nor is the other series of “firsts” you listed.) We were ready for a President Powell in 1996, 2000, 2004. 1992 would have been true as well; we just had a GOP president trying to get re-elected, plus Powell had another job he wasn't ready to leave.

If they do it this year, consider not only the self-destruction of their attempt to retain the White House, but the ripple effect throughout the other elections. Dissatisfaction with the GOP was general, broad, already in 2006; the election results that year were not only about Bush or Iraq, despite what Bush-haters may believe. It was broad dissatisfaction with the GOP in Washington in general, and it's not simply that they behaved as Dems once in power (in the Congress) and even were corrupt, but they still don't offer voters a constructive, positive alternative to the Dems, widespread interventionism, and cradle-to-grave entitlements.

If they compound their plight by being racist, they'll do as well as the Dems do if the Dems try anything to satisfy “progressives” [sic; radicals]. For every approval they get, they'll lose several more.

Not everyone is simply PC. There's also (as with Hillary Clinton) that “final hurdle” (being elected President) that is bigger than ever the closer it is getting to being overcome.

The GOP has previously used the race card and they will do so in the future. The GOP will not make bold statements and comments but subtle accusations. The audience the GOP is aiming for will have heard it loud and clear while the rest of us are left debating whether or not the statement was racist, or whether Team Obama is just claiming it's racist. If we have to discuss whether a particular statement is racist or not probably means it is. Though there have been some absolutely horrible twisting of comments during this campaign so it's not a hard and fast rule. Furthermore when people intentionally twist comments to suit their purpose, it distracts from healthy discourse on the truly “bad” statements out there.

I want to take a moment to get slightly off topic and remind everyone of the very real and positive impact this election has had for both women and African Americans. Two years ago who would have thought that the battle for the Dem. nomination would be between a woman and African American? Even just a few months ago people did not think America was ready for an African American president. This election caused many people to think about their own views on race and gender. It took some courageous people, from all walks of life, to stand up and face bigots down, to say that gender or race did not matter. If these Americans did not speak up when they heard bigoted comments then we would not be where we are today and this shows what a wonderful place our country is. If the candidates value diversity and the citizens they are supposed to lead then they will need to speak out against all forms of bigotry. So far Obama has gone way further than McCain on this, whether it's in support of women, latinos, blacks, gays or other minorities. Obama's warning that the GOP will use bigotry to get votes is simply the truth- they've done it before and continue to do so. I hope the American people see through these GOP tactics and demand a leader that does not allow bigoted comments to go unchallenged.

Why not use the Senator Obama's “first” status in a negative way? There's an audience that is receptive. It may be distasteful but it's the American political way. I expect it and would be BEYOND surprised if “the race card” isn't played.

***

Wrong. Anyone here who's read my posts of late will tell you I am basing my comment on direct knowledge of Obama's extermination of fellow progressive minorities in the Chicago bid for Senator. Here's the link so you yourself can see where my “prejudice” comes from. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-07...

Nice try by the way.

Obama can't very well refer to it publically now that the Dem healing process is underway. That;s why he limited his remards to the GOP, i think.

Talking about candidate 'paranoia', then, is largely a superficial reading of the political world. They all have good reasons to be concerned. Notice the bodyguards?

Hillary and Obama reacted diferently, though. Hillary's camp chose to complain very publically.
Obama's camp chose to keep it out of headlines as much as possible.
Therefore, perceptions are different, and I'm not sure that there is a clear “better' way that, in the end, benefits the candidate.
Some women are definitely overdoing it and are creating a backlash against Hillary.
Since Obama has not gone public before, the reaction is stronger when he does.

I do wish commenters would resist making on-the-fly assesments withoutt looking more fully into what theiy're commenting acout.
They, too, are often just trying to make headlines, though. and research time can be an inconvenience. Often it's a purposeful exercise in creating false perceptions.

It's just plain dangerous how much is dominated by perrceptions rather than reality..

(far left lies notwithstanding)

It does not follow, of course, that this is referring to Obama's race, but to, for example, his record, in the same way we'd be viewing Daley's record back in Chicago or the record of Hillary or Bill Clinton. Now, a lot of losers in our society will say it is all about race, even though it isn't, and it's they who are in need of a great degree of self “pre-emption” as well as getting their heads back in the air like the rest of us.

I thought originally of saying “fifty points,” but that is hyperbolic — if the GOP tried a truly racist attack on Obama (not the dishonest “racism” the loser Left will claim), it would lose several percentage points immediately and permanently, not to mention the Presidential election. (The interesting speculation would be about to what depth it would lower the GOP's election results this year in other contests.)

I noticed instead the “pre-emptive” remark (which may or may not have had ugly motives behind it, i.e., dishonesty as we see with the PC crowd, who behaves as if it's 1960 rather than 2008 when it comes to racism) and the quite dishonest PC claim, which is a routine liberal lie, that when we observe no racism, it's still there (we must have our myths to cherish, after all), just in “code” [sic]. (The prediction based on this “claim” also in this article is worthless.)

Things fall down, not up. No, there is no “code” used in a sinister fashion by our Evil Victimizing Oppressive Society [sic] concealing the actual upward motion.

Apparently this poster has a priori made up his/her mind that Obama has an “insidious nature” and will now “closely look at” it. This is quite revealing

It is assumed that if anyone notices a glaring foible about Barack Obama, it is automatically assigned as GOP originated. Here we go with the implied threat: “get onboard the Obama (soon to derail) train or else we'll label you a neocon”.

I'm tired of this abuse as a moderate democrat. We have every right to look closely at the insidious nature of a man we are considering promoting as our representative to the highest office in the land. And we don't have to be associated with horrible people because we are doing so. Many Clinton supporters who would have nothing to do with the GOP and will opt instead to write-in Hillary Clinton this Fall are against Obama's nomination from the raw and sordid facts of his past, his manipulation of reverse racism and his sad lack of experience in the job he's applying for.

We don't need to be associated with the GOP in order to notice this. Give us a break!