Growing number say country ready for black president

Posted: 04:01 PM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A new poll suggests that the number of Americans who believe the country is ready for a black president is on the rise.

Seventy-six percent of those polled in a CNN/Essence Magazine/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Thursday say that the country is ready. That's up 14 points from December 2006, at the start of the presidential campaign.

"Some of the increase in the number of Americans who say the country is ready for a black president is a simple recognition of Barack Obama's success in the Democratic primaries," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.

"We're not asking this question in a vacuum. In many cases, respondents must have had Obama in mind when giving their answer, even though he is not mentioned anywhere in the questionnaire."

The senator from Illinois is locked in a battle with Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York for the Democratic presidential nomination. Obama currently leads Clinton in states won, delegates pledged, and in the overall popular vote in the primaries and caucuses held so far this year.

The poll also indicates that more white Americans than African-Americans think the country is ready for a black president. Seventy-eight percent of white Americans surveyed say the country is ready, as opposed to only 69 percent of African-Americans polled. Both numbers are up substantially from December 2006.

"Drawing on their own life experience, blacks are a little more skeptical than whites," said Bill Schneider, CNN's senior political analyst. "But blacks, too, have come around, particularly after the Iowa caucuses demonstrated that Obama could win in an overwhelmingly white electorate."

Holland added, "Among blacks, the belief that the country is ready for an African-American president is highest among blacks who share traits with Obama. Optimism about the country's acceptance of a black president is higher among black men than among black women, higher among college-educated blacks than among those with no college degree, and higher among younger blacks than older blacks."

The poll also suggests that more Americans think the country is ready for a black president than a woman president. Sixty-three percent of those surveyed said that the country is ready for a female president. That's 13 points lower than those who say the country is ready for black president.

"Do Americans see more prejudice against a woman than an African-American," Schneider asked. "More likely, they see more negative feelings about this woman than about this African-American. Because it's true. More people have an unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton than of Barack Obama."

It's also important to note that the poll asked whether the country is ready for a black or woman president, not whether the respondent would vote for a black or woman president.

"Few people will acknowledge their own prejudices, but they will answer whether they think the country is ready to elect a black or woman president," Schneider said.

The CNN/Essence Magazine/Opinion Research Corporation survey was released on the eve of the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

The poll was conducted by telephone from March 26 to April 2, with 2,184 Americans questioned, including 1,014 blacks and 1,001 whites. The survey's margin of error is plus or minus 2 percentage points for the overall sample and plus or minus 3 percentage points for the questions asked just of black or white Americans.

HAHA I looooved this. Well worth reading.:biggrin:

http://www.lapbandtalk.com/f7/poll-democrat-republican-23923/index18.html#post1032604 -- also well worth reading.

All this arguing about the winking, the hairstyle, the accent, and the flirting of Sarah Palin making her an unacceptable candidate for being chosen to be the Republican nomination for Vice President is not getting us anywhere.

Most of us know why she was chosen. And even General Colin Powell, former Secretary of Defense, and all-around brilliant man, made the most important point about her selection.

I won't quote him or provide a bunch of links, although you're all welcome to do that.

I'll just tell you in my own words what I heard him say: the extremists in the Republican party had not thoroughly embraced John McCain because McCain had not shown himself to be right wing enough for them. McCain doesn't believe in abortion, but (until recently) he didn't believe that women's right to choose should be taken away. There are other issues that were troublesome to the extremists, but that was what they said was a "deal breaker".

Consequently when John McCain realized that there was no way he could win the election without the support of the right wing extremists, he had to do something to prove to them that he would be open to abolishing abortion. That's why he chose Sarah Palin. She embodies everything the extremists believe is right, good, patriotic and American.

Even Palin has softened her stance - in order to be more electable - by saying in the debates, and elsewhere, that she believes that the question of women having the right to choose should be left up to the states. (And btw, how ridiculous is that? It's similar to alcohol prohibition by state - people just cross the state line to get what is illegal in their own state.)

I'm gonna call bull-pucky on it. She wants all women's right to choose taken away in each and every case, with one exception and that is when the woman's life is endangered. Of course she'd be glad to be the one who decides when a woman's life is considered to be endangered.

The choice of Sarah Palin is a huge mistake on the part of McCain. Her appointment did appease the extremists, but what he didn't count on was the number of regular voters it would turn completely off.

He didn't count on the number of important newspapers that would find it so unacceptible that they would endorse his opponent, Senator Obama.

He didn't count on someone like Colin Powell, a very important and brilliant man who could have won the presidency if he had wanted it, to endorse Senator Obama. He didn't count on the numbers of prominent people who have, from McCain's own party, decried the nomination of Sarah Palin.

They do not oppose Sarah Palin because she winks, or because she's a woman, or because she takes off her boots and puts on her gloves or because she compares herself to red-neck men. They do not oppose Sarah Palin because she's been made fun of by Tina Fey.

They oppose Sarah Palin for lots and lots of reasons, but not for those mentioned in the previous paragraph. Intelligent people, people who are not driven by extreme viewpoints, oppose Sarah Palin because of her radical beliefs and because she has made it known that she intends to impose those extremist beliefs upon the entire population of the United States. People oppose Governor Palin because she is not smart enough to take on a few news commentators, when the president and vice presidents of the United States should be able to be smart enough to preside over not only our own Congress and military, but also preside over meetings with heads of state from around the world.

In the past we might not have realized how very important that is. But after having George W. Bush be unable to effectively represent our country and use intelligence to influence people, we know how very important it is to not allow someone like Sarah Palin be first in line for the presidency. All of this is not just IMHO - it is lots of people's opinion.

I commend your diversionary tactic, Jack. Not enough to listen to those guys, but I appreciate the attempt nonetheless. :tongue2:

Jack, that was awesome. Thanks for posting it. I'd like to shake that man's hand.

BJean, did you listen? Because if you did, you would know it's not "those guys" -- it was one guy in the 3 separate videos.

Nope. Didn't have time. Too busy posting diatribes. :tongue2:

This isn't going to stop, is it? Even after the election, it's just going to go on and on and on......

Jack I didn't listen, but the real reason is because I suspect it is not the genuine article. Too much garbage has been generated by this campaign and I'm out of patience. But I certainly do agree with you that listening to people with differing viewpoints is enlightening. I always read your posts thoroughly (or at least I try to be thorough and fair when I'm trying to understand your point of view.)

The only reason I've posted any of the political garbage is because I think I'm one of the few with an opposing view here. Somebody had to give the other side equal time, doncha know.

Btw Jack, I disagree that diversions are only diversions because they differ from your own viewpoints. Diversions can be lies or misrepresentations wholly put out to divert attention away from the honest issues that one side or the other doesn't want people to discuss openly.

Nope. Didn't have time. Too busy posting diatribes. :tongue2:

You should listen. Sometimes it helps to get another POV.

Btw Jack, I disagree that diversions are only diversions because they differ from your own viewpoints. Diversions can be lies or misrepresentations wholly put out to divert attention away from the honest issues that one side or the other doesn't want people to discuss openly.

He speaks very much to honest issues. I have no doubt that you will disagree with his position on those issues, but his background and his arguments are very insightful (regardless of whether you agree with him or not). I don't see how you can call this a "diversion" (meaning, in your words, lies or misrepresentations) when you didn't even listen to it.

Bjean you are not alone. There are many of us that agree with you. They call your a kool aide drinker and say you don't listen. That's the pot calling the kettle black

gadget what are you talking about? I was speaking to an issue that Jack and I were trying to come to terms on. How does your post relate in any way, except to be negative and accuse me of interpreting something incorrectly? You must not have read both of our posts very well.

I must say that I understand why you would be uncomfortable with a discussion about diversionary tactics in politics though.

Cluck you continue to amaze me. It is very meaningful to know that someone understands what's going on.

Edited October 20, 200817 yr by BJean

bjean

There are many of us out there. The rights propaganda is not working any more. All they have is taxes, taxes taxes. No one is listening because they have lost the peoples trust. When Nov 4th comes and hopefully their day of reckoning they may finally look at what "W" has done to their party and this country. They are in denial.

The one thing that Republicans have learned is that personal attacks work well for them. It is a diversionary tactic. It takes the attention away from their miserable plans for running the government.

They want us to believe that they can run the government without taxation of any kind. Who is dumb enough to believe that? Well, it seems that people like Joe the Plumber have bought into it.

Fortunately people like Warren Buffett and Colin Powell know better and are willing to stand up and tell it like it is.

But clusk, I don't think they're into denial so much as that they are focused on their own agenda.

They continue to divert attention from their real goals by insulting their opponents. Fortunately people like you and me are no longer sucked in by this tactic. Unfortunately they are willing to do anything to reach their goals.

That's simply what we have to deal with - it is our Cross to bear. I am thrilled that we have a man in Senator Obama who is intelligent enough and a good enough person to handle the task.

Now if the other folks see this post as being hateful or whatever they call hate mongering, you are correct in noticing that they have a double standard at work here.

gadget what are you talking about? I was speaking to an issue that Jack and I were trying to come to terms on. How does your post relate in any way, except to be negative and accuse me of interpreting something incorrectly? You must not have read both of our posts very well.

Jack posted some videos which you didn't watch but criticized as being diversionary tactics. You stated that diversionary tactics are lies and misrepresentations meant to divert people away from honest issues. I stated that the videos weren't a diversionary tactic, had good information, and weren't lies and misrepresentations -- but you wouldn't know that because you didn't watch them. I think I read both posts quite well.