I hadn't gotten the impression that we had any strong candidates in this race.  Dale Cardwell sounds like a bit of a flake to me.

It's a shame, because very few races could galvanize nationwide Democrats like the prospect of a competitive race against Saxby Chambliss.

while i certainly agree that identity politics are the refuge of the disenfranchised throughout our history your argument has consistently been counter-intuitive: opposing barack because he is black, and telling yourself that it's because he doesn't stand with you on the issues.  it's just strange.

you seem remarkably unaware that georgia has elected black candidates for statewide office...

The problem is that Obama has projected the same image as Majette.

Vernon Jones is a sure loser. He even backed Bush in 2004 iirc.

They nominated Majette in 2004 didn't they?

Oh, wait, no it isn't.

First off, he's NOT in the same position as Obama.  Obama is presumed to have won his primary against a former First Lady of the United States with enormous name recognition.

Jones is in a primary with several other state-level Democrats of nowhere near the same noteriety.

If the black voters are interested in him, then you have to look at the reasons why.  Black voters don't overwhelmingly vote for Alan Keyes, despite him being black.  So it seems that they have bigger issues than just race.

It is true that black voters do tend to be unified in support of candidates, but this is more because their communities are often tight-knit and they generally have very particular interests (poverty, civil rights, and other issues that are endemic to the black American experience).

What I don't see is why you continue to play slice-and-dice with demographics.  Why can't you say "Jones enjoys very strong support from the African American community" instead of "Look! Racial voting causes backlash!"

Our democratic process is what it is.  Jesse Helms, despite being a sleazebag, is not a pushover candidate.  Yes, there might have been racial pushback, but that's not a reason not to nominate strong candidates.  If we nominate the best person for the job, and they lose, it makes us stronger next time around when the guy elected screws up.  Would we have had a Democratic revolution in 2006 if Al Gore had won in 2000?  No.  The merits are debatable either way, but that's just how it works.

Also remember that North Carolina is not the entirety of the United States of America.  If near all-white Minnesota can elect Keith Ellison, a black muslim, to the House of Representatives, then there's hope for us all yet.

Yeah, because if there's one thing that's true in American politics, it's that black people have way too much power.

where to start.  your dismissal of gantt as a legitimate candidate seems bizarre as does your assumption that that easley could have held helms to 52% (let alone beaten him) at the height of the republican era.  easley still doesn't have the organization that helms had in north carolina (and i'd personally challenge your assessment of him as a "superstar").

your reduction of gantt's loss to racial or identity politics seems even more naive than the diarist (and he's pretty naive)!

you are utterly clueless about what obama is doing or has done.  your attempt to reduce obama's appeal or campaign this way is both simplistic and demonstrates a profound ignorance of american politics, the democratic primary, democrats in general and the state of elections in the 21st century.

i completely understand your dismay that democrats did not see in hillary what you did.  i'm sure that she's a better candidate than her campaign produced.  if only she could appeal to the american people (she is, after all, the only candidate in this cycle who had higher negatives than positives -- a red flag for rational observers), then she'd probably have won more states, more delegates, and been a contender.  instead, she basically needed to be on the ballot all by herself because she's been a consistent underperformer.

which has always made me wonder whether her supporters actually cared about winning the white house...

Your racist friggin' filth doesn't belong on this message board. I'm sorry your candidate couldn't run a competent campaign, but there is NO excuse for your behavior. Barack Obama is a legitimate candidate, and NOT because he's black. Or perhaps the good people of Iowa, Wisconsin, Utah, North Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado, Virginia, etc, were overwhelming black?

I think your efforts would be more helpful at Hillaryis44.org. Head on over.

You and several other posters here are flat-out stating with no evidence that blacks are voting by race.  When evidence is pointed out to the contrary, you say "isn't he a Republican?"  Duh.  That's the point.  People are making decisions based on character, policies and effectiveness.  That you would reduce it solely to race demosntrates that you either look at the world only through a racial lens or you have a very low opinion of AAs.  Stop maligning people.  AAs are no less rational than you or I.

that person is running?  Barrow is a Bush Dog Democrat.  He's not been very loyal to the party in the House and he's primaried b/c of it.  The fact that the primary candidate is black is a coincidental as the fact that the MD-04 candidate was black.  Which is to say it fits the demographics of the community.  Stop inferring stuff that is just not there.

Incredible.  Can you point the place in this diary where Andre said people shouldn't vote for Jones because he's black? I'm extremely tempted to TR you that blatant lie. You should be ashamed of yourself.