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.

I saw the clip from the Jon Stewart show and didn't happen to watch that particular episode but I got the joke right off the bat when it was shown on the Fox News Show clip. I naturally assumed that Barack Obama's medical history would be a lot smaller and that's how I took it so I didn't find it misleading on Fox's end and if anyone did they weren't too bright. Certainly wouldn't have expected 1,200 pages and I used to be an insurance processor for a lot men his his age group!

But I guess I kind of fall in the middle, I like to get as many points of view as I can and I watch all cable news programs including Fox, CNN, CNBC, BBC, whatever is out there. If I only watched one that would be unfortunate. It's not easy to decipher the truth from any news program out there. There are states out there between New York and California and we have to remember that too.

I watch Keith ? Olbermann too, even though he's obvious very liberal, I think it's good to get as many points of view as possible but still trying to figure what is true and what is biased or what is taken out of context is still very difficult for the average American, JMO.

Edited June 10, 200818 yr by brandyII

not trying to make this a habbit but when talking about fox news i get on a roll.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6cCYhOvdUc]YouTube - Olbermann: Fox News moderation approves of Racism[/ame]

Sure Fox news has some bias. All news have some bias. But here's the thing....Fox news is the only organization that leans towards the conservative. Every other news organization leans more liberal. So the trick is to not swallow anything whole, without thinking about it a little. Personally, I like Bill O'Reilly ok......His show isn't a news show, though. He gives his opinion on current events (sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't). Same with Keith Olbermann (although I almost never agree with him). It's important to distinguish between news reporting and punditry (although that line is being blurred by the network news organizations).

And BJean, I loves ya as a person, but politically.......wow. Surely any reasonable person can't believe a blanket statement like "all republicans do this" or "all democrats act like this". When you write vague stuff like that, I think it makes you seem a little less credible.

Watcher, you're trying to prove media bias with YouTube?!? C'mon now....That's like citing The Jon Stewart Show as a credible news source.

lol its not even the bias that im mad about they blatantly lie double talk and curve stories to the right. that's a practice that i dont see from other news networks. even ABC dont like about the stories they report on and ther seem to be generally right wing as well.

I think most right wingers would disagree with you, I'm familiar with both sides of the fence and I'd say most right wingers would not think of ABC as right wing at all!

yeah, if I watch network news, it's usually ABC. I've given up on NBC. CBS is so-so. I'm generally a cable news junkie (Fox news and CNN are usually my drugs of choice, lol)

I'd vote for the best man or woman no matter what race. Do I think that America is ready? Nope. I think Colin Powell would be one HELL of a president! I don't like politicians in general though.

Frankly, I don't see anyone I want to vote for this year...

I'd vote for the best man or woman no matter what race. Do I think that America is ready? Nope. I think Colin Powell would be one HELL of a president! I don't like politicians in general though.

Frankly, I don't see anyone I want to vote for this year...

why is that?

When race is no longer an issue..meaning it is not mentioned during a campaign. THEN, I think we're ready. Granted HRC is probably to blame for a lot of it this time, but I just don't think the American public at large can truly stop seperating the issue of race. It should not be a rallying point nor should it be detrimental. I'm not saying folks can't be proud of their own, but it should not be such a big deal in a general election.

We've come a long way, but until race or gender is a non-issue, I don't think we're ready. For all those folks who live in a highly urban environment who are truely past the this point and ARE ready, there are a lot more rural areas (like where I live) where racial and gender divides are hidden close to the surface. Folks will spout the PC rhetoric to make everybody feel good, but when the curtain closes in the voting booth...it will bubble to the top. Sad...

Lots of folks may link her too closely to Bush, but I think Condi Rice would be an excellent candidate for Prez or VP.

I'll bet McCain will choose Bobby Jindal as his Veep because he is young, blows Obama's list of accomplishments away, and because he is Indian. No one will say that last part...but there you go. His youth and ethnicity will balance McCain's age and pasty whiteness.

Obama will choose a white guy...probably someone with more foreign relations experience (anyone), again to balance the ticket and negate the issue of race somewhat.

So Race is being used...not in the way it should, but at least they are not running from it, but embracing it as part of the process. We're just not there yet as a nation unfortunately to make it a non-issue.

Well I certainly do not share YHO, Jack. IMHO Fox news is more biased than all of the other networks put together. And yes, the other networks certainly do show some bias from time to time. It just doesn't ALWAYS seem to be their agenda, as it is on Fox. Again, IMHO.

Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. There are some things "reported" on Fox that because you agree with the things that are said and the way they say them, you do not even notice how slanted they are. And I am sure that the same is true for me on the other networks.

The really sad thing is that when I was young, the news was just that... the NEWS! Nowadays, what we are fed as news is packaged sound bytes used to shock us, dismay us, enthrall us and mostly to influence us. And of course, it does. Newspapers have always editorialized, although they used to try to be somewhat fair. These days, it is common to know that each rag is 100% _____________ (fill in the political label).

The fact that we are discussing it is a very good sign that Americans are on to them! Hoo-ray. It's a start.

Which brings me to another topic that I noticed in an earlier post: Please don't think that Obama has made an issue of his race. He did not enter the race because he thought that Americans were ready to elect a brown person. He entered the race because he is a very intelligent man, he has better hopes for this country and he thinks he can make a difference. He is as tired as many of us are, of the way this country has been run by the Republicans. It's a dirty job, after all, this running for public office and being our country's top elected official. Who would really enjoy some of the awful stuff that comes with the territory? You have to be a darned strong person (or have some darned strong arms propping you up) to get you through the entire ordeal.

I don't know what you've been reading or listening to with regard to Jimmy Carter. How in the world you can find fault with what he's doing around the world is completely beyond me. That some people can be so naive as to think that the answer to peace on earth is to bomb any country you don't agree with, is way beyond me. Just exactly when did working with your enemies to reach a peaceful coexistence become passe?

This last 7.5 years has rekindled the hawk in us Americans. It was NOT 9/11 - that event did not make us puffed up and wanting to beat every other country to smithereens. We didn't feel that way after 9/11. We felt like we wanted to go get the perpetrators. We wanted to take them out and put an end to their threat.

Our president and his cohorts have made invasion of other countries seem like a logical solution to many of us. They've made us think that talking with our enemies is somehow unpatriotic and stupid. Well, war is stupid. Fighting and aggression that kills people is stupid. It reminds me of another thread on spanking at LBT. People think that sometimes you have to hit your children. I say you have to outsmart them. You have to be smarter than your enemies. It gets you so much farther into a beautiful future than being the biggest bully on the earth or than bullying your kids does.

As for the accusation that I am not credible because I have chosen sides, it's okay. I have defnitely chosen sides and if that makes you not read my posts I'm fine with that.

I used to believe that being Democrat or Republican didn't matter, I believed that only the candidate mattered. But I have been here for a long time and I have a whole lot of experience and I have witnessed many presidents and I have voted for Republicans and Democrats. I will admit that I haven't voted Republican often because I have I been sorry that I did every time. It did take me a while to learn, but I do know the score now.

Edited June 11, 200818 yr by BJean

I take a couple days off and i have page(s) to real ... lol

Ericalyn ... hmmm:huh2: I red your list:whatchutalkingabout:blink::confused2: ... did u just read and post that or did you do a little fact checking for your self.... i saw 5 that were in you list but were disproved by the media his books and his colleagues in the senate.

Just because it is written doesn't make it true... I mean some people think that accurate news comes from fox news channel and the drudge report.... and we all know that those are repeatable news sources. for crying out loud billO:rolleyes: is probably the exact opposite of what news is and i see alot of his talking points in your post.... so im just curious

Bjean again you rock...:tongue2:

Oh I see. Fox News is THE ONLY biased news organization. Oh okay. Isn't it ironic that liberals can have their voice, but a conservative better shut the hell up. Why is that? I thought liberals were all for freedom of speech. Does that right only apply to them? Conservatives aren't allowed to have a voice? Nope. We have to just keep our opinions to ourselves because how dare we voice an opinion!!

The liberal media is everywhere - ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Headline News and yes, gasp, even Fox (there is a Colmes to the Hannity side). So there is a news network, Fox, that leans to the right. SO FRIGGIN' WHAT?! In my opinion, liberals rants about Fox so much because they can't STAND the fact that people are listening to Fox News. It's not enough that there is a plethora of liberal news reporting agencies, ohhhh noooo, Fox must be destroyed!

Keith Olbermann spends most of his air time ranting against Fox. It's hysterical. He practically foams at the mouth with rantings against Fox. Hey, here's a thought. If Fox is so wrong, if they're so lacking in integrity and spewing lies out of the pit of hell, then WHO CARES? Doesn't that make them irrelevant? They shouldn't be a concern to the liberals, now should they? It's the liberal media that gives Fox News its biggest voice! DUH!

I know. I know. You're going to say that Fox News lies, etc. Blah blah blah. I forgot - CNN, MSNBC, Headline News - they're all purveyors of truth. Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart, Chris Matthews and all the rest - they're not biased. They don't lean one way or the other. They are the epitome of fair reporting. Always seeing both sides. Equally hard on the liberals and conservatives. Right?! Right?!

Not.

Yeah, I didn't think so. You can continue being delusional. I'm not going to even bother arguing this point any longer. As my Grandpa always said, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

Oh I see. Fox News is THE ONLY biased news organization. Oh okay. Isn't it ironic that liberals can have their voice, but a conservative better shut the hell up. Why is that? I thought liberals were all for freedom of speech. Does that right only apply to them? Conservatives aren't allowed to have a voice? Nope. We have to just keep our opinions to ourselves because how dare we voice an opinion!!

The liberal media is everywhere - ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Headline News and yes, gasp, even Fox (there is a Colmes to the Hannity side). So there is a news network, Fox, that leans to the right. SO FRIGGIN' WHAT?! In my opinion, liberals rants about Fox so much because they can't STAND the fact that people are listening to Fox News. It's not enough that there is a plethora of liberal news reporting agencies, ohhhh noooo, Fox must be destroyed!

Keith Olbermann spends most of his air time ranting against Fox. It's hysterical. He practically foams at the mouth with rantings against Fox. Hey, here's a thought. If Fox is so wrong, if they're so lacking in integrity and spewing lies out of the pit of hell, then WHO CARES? Doesn't that make them irrelevant? They shouldn't be a concern to the liberals, now should they? It's the liberal media that gives Fox News its biggest voice! DUH!

I know. I know. You're going to say that Fox News lies, etc. Blah blah blah. I forgot - CNN, MSNBC, Headline News - they're all purveyors of truth. Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart, Chris Matthews and all the rest - they're not biased. They don't lean one way or the other. They are the epitome of fair reporting. Always seeing both sides. Equally hard on the liberals and conservatives. Right?! Right?!

Not.

Yeah, I didn't think so. You can continue being delusional. I'm not going to even bother arguing this point any longer. As my Grandpa always said, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

EricaLyn you are correct, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Headline News and yes, even Fox like you said with the C & H side are left/liberals, Fox tends to lean to the right, I see nothing wrong with that, specially when ALL of the other media are leftists and liberals, if it wasn't for Fox we might as well just have ONE news channel for our whole country with ONE and only ONE left and liberal view... that wouldn't be fun... and it would be selfish too. I'm not sure if Fox has provided inaccurate information or not before, maybe so, the rest of the media? well, I think we all from the right and the left sides know the answer, otherwise we would have to say that ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Headline News are "perfect", and we all know that's impossible right?

Edited June 11, 200818 yr by ELENATION

Well the one good thing is that Fox is so obvious with their bias, they sort of do the rest of us a favor. We don't have to work very hard at trying to figure out whether their reports are fair and unbiased. With the others, it is sometimes a little harder.

I'm not talking about the political pundits, like Hannity & Holmes, Chris Matthews, Jon Stewart, etc. We ALL know who and what they are. They can be fun to watch and hear just like it is fun to read and watch here. We learn more sometimes, when we are exposed to different viewpoints from our own, doncha think?

Well the one good thing is that Fox is so obvious with their bias, they sort of do the rest of us a favor. We don't have to work very hard at trying to figure out whether their reports are fair and unbiased. With the others, it is sometimes a little harder.

I'm not talking about the political pundits, like Hannity & Holmes, Chris Matthews, Jon Stewart, etc. We ALL know who and what they are. They can be fun to watch and hear just like it is fun to read and watch here. We learn more sometimes, when we are exposed to different viewpoints from our own, doncha think?

Hi BJ, I agree with what you said with H & H, Chris Matthews and Jon Stewart and whether I agree with them or not, they don't bother me and if those are their views, that's fine and like you said they can be fun to watch and yes I also agree that we learn more when we are exposed to different viewpoints from our own, that's why Fox is there for the liberals! so they can learn more:tt2: and it's just Fox! liberals don't have it so bad at all ! IMHO, I see Fox being somewhat biased as much as I see the rest being biased though, all obvoius.

Regarding Jimmy Carter meeting with Hamas for instance....well I think

we have diplomatic levels for some type of dialogues ,even though it's happened before when a president who meets with a hostile leader might run into problems, Nixon in China for example... but I think it's still an option in some cases.

I don't think that if we don't agree with another country's views we should just declare war on them or bomb them , even if they present a threat to our country ,we could still use diplomacy to try to solve the problems and war being the last option only after we have exhausted all other options, otherwise sure war is stupid, sometimes in history it has been necessary though and it's so unfortunate because losing lives is the ultimate loss, completely agree with that. As a republican, one of the things I liked about Ronald Reagan is that he was traitorous (sp..?) he tried it whenever it was possible and I think it was a good thing, therefore I don't think that diplomacy instead war is unpatriotic, I don't think that at all, but Jimmy Carter meeting with Hamas? that makes absolutely no sense to me (IMHO) actually Obama who I don't particularly share political views with, he even draws the line at meeting with Hamas, and I'm aware of his position of meeting with other heads of states, but he said that he didn't agree with Carter's decision to go forward with that meeting because he doesn't support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. As much as Obama and Bush don't agree on mostly anything, Obama said that he would break with Bush's stance of declining to talk to some other international adversaries but that stance does not apply to Hamas, so it's pretty much a shared position among republicans and democrats.

The way I see it, its perfectly normal for terrorists to meet with each other and normal for heads of state to meet with each other, but the gathering or mixing of head of states and terrorists is detrimental to the human cause.

Edited June 11, 200818 yr by ELENATION