People....keep in mind...we are in historic times...enjoy it!

[HardWorkingDem]

My goodness.

It is 2008 and the two top runners for the Dem nomination are a woman and a black man. As a party we should be jazzed and excited, but what do we get here?

Party cannibalism.

I'm disgusted when reading some of these threads.

[Bicoastal]

1. Sorry, I'm holding my breath for a robo-candidate. nt

[lurky]

3. ...

[donheld]

2. K & R

[knowledgeispwr]

4. Don't mean to be a party-pooper, but I have a little hang-up

Why is it always "a woman and african-american/black man"? What about black and other minority women? They seem to be lost in the shuffle. It seems like it would be more accurate to say "a white woman and a black man." I'm not trying to quibble, but language can be important and it seems to ignore the fact that minority women face challenges of being both ethnic minorities AND women.

I do agree that it is significant and historic that we have two such candidates with serious chances.

[HardWorkingDem]

6. okay......

People, we live in a historic time, we have a black man and a woman as the top two Dem candidates. We should be jazzed and excited, instead we have a bunch of cannibals running around eating their young.

okay, to make all happy, here is the feminist friendly reply....

People, we live in a historic time, we have a woman and a black man as the top two Dem candidates. We should be jazzed and excited, instead we have a bunch of cannibals running around eating their young.

[knowledgeispwr]

10. thanks for ignoring my point EOM

[HardWorkingDem]

12. Actually....

if you really think of it, in our male dominated society it might be more significant that a woman is a front runner versus that of a black man.

[knowledgeispwr]

13. You're missing my point still

I'm not talking about whether it's more significant to have a white woman or a black man president; both are significant. I'm saying by just saying "woman" in this context makes out "white woman" to be default leaving out minority women. The fact that you missed my point supports this assertion.

[Ravy]

5. Great way to follow a pre-historic administration!!! nt

[glarius]

7. Can I ask something now which may be very sensitive.?

Do you think that Obama, even if he is selected by the Democratic Party as your candidate, cannot win the election because the southern states of the U.S.A. will never vote for a black person to be president?....I hope I am wrong.

[HardWorkingDem]

8. My most optimistic view is this....

I think Obama is tapping into something that so many people are missing. I truly hope this is what is going on. And if Obama does not win if nominated, then at least we know where we stand as a country and we also know we are making progress. It's just too bad it is so slow.

[knowledgeispwr]

9. The answer is 'No' - A few reasons

1) Winning the South isn't necessary to be elected President, though the democrats should still try to win over the South and build up the party
2) In general, Hillary Clinton is hated in the South among republicans (no surprises here), independents (hurtful in an election) and even among some democrats, so it's doubtful she'd do much better. On a related note, Obama has much more crossover appeal than Clinton
3) People who would never vote for a black person aren't limited to the South

[ErnestoG]

11. Three words - S.C. Primary.

[Two Americas]

14. historic times

When millions of poor women and minority people, and all of the left behind and forgotten people in this country get a chance for justice and equality, then I will call that a historic moment.

If advocacy for those left behind by the party bothers you, and if those voices are in your opinion unwelcome, and if that disgusts you and is what you call "party cannibalism," that is unfortunate.

[HardWorkingDem]

15. WTF?!?!?

what are you talking about?

[Two Americas]

16. pretty clear I think

What don't you understand?

[Sapphocrat]

17. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were "historic," too. n/t