Is America Ready for a Black President?

Nice article, requires spell checking and minor editing. Mr Gill focuses only on two democratic choices, completely sidelining republicans as if they dont exist, or, maybe Mr Gill simply doesnt like republicans. Given the choice between a black, a woman or a mormon (think mitt romney) i would chose the mormon. Just because war isnt going well doesnt mean americans wont vote along party lines, I'd rather have a mormon president than a black, woman, southern baptist or a catholic.
Meh Punjab dee khet dee mooli

Gill Saheb:

A good question but a difficult one to answer. I think that if America is ready for a Black president, it would be for someone like Obama, not only because he has a white mother but especially as he does not flout his blackness too much - it would be like Dr. Kalam's acceptablility as not only the President but also as Prime Minister of India.

But even if he is rejected, the question would remain whether he was rejected because he is Black or because of his Madrassa education in the childhood and his being perceived as Muslim. As your article points out, it is likely that this issue will emerge, not by Hilary or any of her Democrat rivals directly but through subterranean campaigns and conservative media and talk shows. And if he wins the nomination, his Republican opponent may not even be averse to making it an open issue. I, for one, would like it to become a public issue so that Obama can tackle it head-on rather than remain in the background and do quiet damage to his candidacy.

Further to #2, opinion polls may not accurately measure prejudice. Some people may be reluctantly to openly admit racial prejudice to a pollster but may have no such constraint when in the privacy of a polling booth.

America is not ready for a Black or an Ethnic president. Giuliani stands no chance, even to get a nomination. Middle America is not there yet. Hillary will make a good President.

Obama has very little to show for, he is inexperienced and he hasn’t been tested under pressure yet. Hillary is a known commodity and with her what you see is what you get.

#4 can you please define "ethnic president"?
Meh Punjab dee khet dee mooli

Kulharee:

In 1960, many about Americans said about John Kennedy that America is not ready for a Catholic President. And wasn't Eisenhower an ethnic German?

Ethnic as in Dukakis, Tsongas, Giuliani, etc. US is 30% Germanic, and at one time German was being considered to be the national language. Kennedy won because Nixon sucked.

They are pathologically paranoid of Islam.


This is BS, plain and simple. They are afraid of islamofascism, not islam.

Plus, there was a poll that said americans would sooner elect a muslim to the white house than an atheist.

I think O'Bama is just a poster boy. He will be the presedent of USA on the day when fish will ride bicycle. On the other hand Guiliani closely fits the profile of a typical US President - psycopath, and a genocidal maniac - so I think he is the first choice of the establishment i.e. US elite. Voting system is a very articulate and calculated fraud and does not count.

America is ready for a black president but not Obama. Obama does not have demonstrable experience as senator or governor. Lot of potential though.

Collin Powell would have won in 2000, if he had decided to run.

Stop bashing Americans please :)

#10 Posted by Pardesi
Stop bashing Americans please :)
_______________________________________

Anyone who does not bash USA or suggests not to bash USA should have his DNA checked...for geneology. :)

#11 echo

No need to check :). Solid Mandi Bhaudeen Punjabi Khalsa DNA and proud of it.

On top of it, not a Namak Harami and therefore a loyal American :).

Beware!

There might be a President Aurangzeb Obama someday...you might have to watch your diet then. Khalsa DNA's do get mixed up with Papppas, Jaats & RaamGarRiyyahs, khatris, and Gujjars...

and then one ends up as Mandi Bhaudin Punjabi Khalsas licking the hand that feeds them..like in 1857.

Reply to #13 by echoboom,

Boom sahib:

You say, "and then one ends up as Mandi Bhaudin Punjabi Khalsas licking the hand that feeds them..like in 1857."

You conviniently forget the pathans (and the gurkhas)! Why? Selective recall or ignorance of history?

All of us from that region have same DNA and are humans first and formost. Proud does not mean arrogant. It just means secure in who you are.

Obama is a nice guy, just needs more experience. Dont care what any president's religion is. This place civilizes people over time and they will do what's right for USA.

GT is right. 1857 loyalties were based upon each community's interests and their experiences at the hands of others. Nothing new.

Bye for now.

Not at all Pathans & gurkhaas too...post 1857
and Pre-1857 Brahmins, muslim nawabs, poorabyaas, & tilangaas.

This namak loyalty is the root problem. Dharam loyalty without never namkeen.

here the claim was by khalsaa..so the reply.

we are all guilty of this namak-slavery.