I found my post on Jackson's run. I was off on the popular vote number in my recent post. He won 7 million votes, not 12 million. He won 1200 delegates,(got those 2 things transposed in my mind. Jackson won 14 percent of the WV vote even among racist crackerized backwoods WV folks,btw. My point was, that there are plenty of white male candidates that ran during the 88 campaign and during THIS primary and were not able to put up the numbers that Jackson put up. They would have loved to have garnered 7 million votes or win 12 primaries, or amass 1200+ delegates but they couldn't. Yet no one says Joe Biden or Mike Gravel didnt run SERIOUS or credible campaigns. Jackson also won an all white state in Vermont since Negroes like to shout hallelujah over that type of thing.....As I said before, he did all of this without turning his back on who he was or kowtowing to white people's fears and prejudices about Black folks and he did it on a shoestring budget without the white media on his dick, to boot.

We disrespect and devalue our OWN sh*t and our own folks in an effort to "legitimize ourselves to other people and I find it despicable and lacking in dignity.

He captured 7 million votes and won 11 contests; seven primaries (Alabama, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Puerto Rico and Virginia) and four caucuses (Delaware, Michigan, South Carolina and Vermont).[14]. Jackson also scored March victories in Alaska's caucuses and Texas's local conventions, despite losing the Texas primary.[1] [2] Some news accounts credit him with 13 wins. [3] Briefly, after he won 55% of the vote in the Michigan Democratic caucus, he was considered the frontrunner for the nomination, as he surpassed all the other candidates in total number of pledged delegates.

gmahogony

Ok, looking at working class vote that obama struggled with. Why is it he's not doing so well with them? when on paper he's stronger than either clinton or Mccain on issues that this demographic favors. Mccain and clinton are both pro-nafta which a lot of people in ohio/pensylvania blame for loosing manufacturing jobs. Obama's views are at least nuanced when it comes to nafta. And McCain/republicans are responsible for the poor economic situation these people find themselves in. It just seems a lot of those people don't vote based on who'll help them get through their economic woes. But instead vote based on petty issues.

I think what the republicans do better than the democrats is they know how to manipulate voters and they treat them like children especially these appalachian and working class white voters, clinton also ran a republican like campaign full of pandering while not really helping these economically troubled people and that's the reason why she did better with the less educated crowd. Obama has established himself as a different kind of candidate and I suppose that's a gamble he's taking, but I don't think a populist campaign would work for him anyways.

Excellent points that you've brought up.I live in Virginia and the GOP is so unorgnaized here that Obama could very well win in the general.

As for Obama losing.Remeber the Michelle Obama "whity" tape which was proven false.

Another scenerio is the US invadoing Iran and the usual flag waving atmosphere riegning supreme.

Had colin powell not gotten screwed with bhus he would have been a candidate that whites would have voted for.

you can not seriously think that something has happened all of a sudden where race issues have changed do you. the time is right, the candidate had not appeared. they are picking obama and he started out a scam without a message.

you really don't give us black folk much credit do you.

BBC NEWS | Have Your Say | Can Barack Obama win the US presidential election?

intresting what people are saying on here

Team Obama's strategy is to take the fight to the heart of the Republican territory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/us...rssnyt&emc=rss

But older working class "Whites" and "White" women were never going to come over to the campaign anyway. For decades, even centuries, poor "Whites" have been manipulated by race. The are tricked into voting against their own interests. . .and the blame is tossed at "Black" folk. Neo-cons exploit these views. Neo-con are not only the new conservatives, many Democrats ascribe to these same views also.

Obama will lose these demographics easily. But he can make inroads into "White" community by appealing to the more educated and wealthy. He also unstoppable when it comes to the youth vote. This is not enough to win. He must find votes in the Latino Community and out of all the swing demographics, that is the group that I think he has the highest chance of winning. He can win it 65/35, if he devotes the resources. But he cannot waste time courting "Whites" who only see him as a "Black" militant. Sheesh. . .you can barely find one that doesn't think he is a Muslim.

So he can look at the Latino Community, even the Asian Community. But he shouldn't worry too much about that poor older "White" demographic. That is will McCain will get some votes.

Typical of so many articles coming out of America and Europe, from black and white, one can read this entire article (which I did) and have no clue whatsoever as what exactly AFRICANS consider the African to be.

The essential thrust of the article is (in my words) Obama is prepared to give that inexact, undefined, non-agenda thing that we want.

Why aren't articles from Africa and from the Disapora more exact in defining the African/African Disaporan agenda?

Then these types of articles can be more exact in how (or how not!) America, or the West, or any other part of the world fits into that agenda.

We know what the West did! That dominates most analysis. I was chastised once by a professor who claimed, correctly, that my thesis spent 80% of the time talking about past errors and no forward thinking analytical committment to proposed soulutions.

Regarding the reference to Somalia and Rwanda. I was very active with a particular group during that time and so much of America's missteps during that time was due to African waffling.

During Somalia, Bill Clinton fought a Republican controlled congress to aid Somalia. They refused. American nuclear submarines, which can spot a bicycle lifting into the ari from 1500 miles away control that control. There is no military need for Somalia. Bill Clinton was being pushed by Randall Robinson (TransWorld Africa) and the Congressional Black Caucus to help Somalia. The country was dying of hunger, with estimates that a million would die.

The U.S. sent massive shipments of food. But more food was being eaten at the docks by the rats than people because warlords controlled the routes that allowed the food to be carried to the people. Without Republican approval, Clinton demanded that the United Nations send in troops to ensure that the food be distributed to the people. The United Nations sent in a contingent of MUSLIM troops who they felt would be respected by the Somalians. The Africans waffled and sent few to none. The Somalians massacred 29 Muslim peacekeepers. Also, on U.S television, a reporter showed a Somalian child who literally laid down and died in front of the television cameras.

It was only, under that public outcry that Bill Clinton, challenging the Republicans, used executive privilege, to send in a limited number of troops to guard the supply routes for the food. Many warlords allowed safe passage for the food but one controlled the major route from the port. So the majority of the food still rotted at the docks. Ill-conceived or not, the raid upon that warlord's area was based upon opening up a supply route for food that no other nation seemed to want to get involved in.

After the killing and humiliation of so many American soldiers the papers were full of Africans cheering in other countries at this Somalian 'victory'.

Several years later, with Clinton still in office, came the Rwanda reports. From liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans the mood was that NOT ONE American troop would be sent to solve a problem that should be solved by Africans. Many knew of the worsening situation but people were asking, how will the Africans act if these Americans actually have to shoot these Hutsis.

The United States demanded that Africa compile a force to send to that area and stayed out of it, despite the fact that U.S. logistics would have been quicker and more effective.

All to say, that the first step to independence is to do that which we have the power t