Argument 1.) Grow Up. White men from the south rule this nation and if you think we/they are going to relinquish that to a woman or a black man, then you are crazy. This nation is chock full of us/them and we/they will never let a black or a woman who have always been viewed beneath us/them run this/our nation. The last time we/they had a president who wasn't from the south, look what they/we did to him? Look what they/we did to his brother? What do you think they/we will do to the Black one? Why would YOU put a good man like Barack Obama through that? If you really support him, you won't send him out there in danger. We/They need a white man from the south. It's the only way we/they will win back the WHITE House.

Answer 1.) Well, I do agree that there are many older and much fewer younger Americans out there in the south who still feel that way, I disagree that they have as much political power in America today than they did in the past...... even in the most recent past. The entire demographic and social attitude of this nation with respect to woman and minorities , has changed dramatically, and that has spilled over into the south and there are more women of voting age than their are men. There are also more white southern progressives who do not embrace your/their feelings than there are those who do. These, coupled with the growing Latino voting population and the awakening of a more active and energized Black Voting Block, presents a challenge to the idea that American power belongs to one race and one gender in one part of the nation. A long time ago, your/their argument would have been embraced out of fear, of course, but today, that argument only incites anger, not fear, in those new southerners who reject your/their logic to the point where we/they are "prepared" to "prove" your/their theory wrong at the polls.

Argument 2.) Look, I like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I think they would make great Presidents, but come on, the South will never vote for these two. It just won't happen. America is toooooooooo sexists and racist to allow that to happen. We need the SOUTH to win in 2008. Carter and Clinton are the only two Democrats in recent history who became President and it was because they were white men from the South. You cannot deny that. You just can't. So stop trying and start looking for a southern white male. We need to win darn it! I want to win. Don't you dare call me a racist or a bigot for stating the TRUTH. I'm just thinking strategically here. It's not fair, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know,......BUT such is life.

Answer2.) First of all, you are not speaking strategically. You are speaking hypothetically and you are basing your opinion on the past. Sure, Carter won in the 1970's. Let's see. What kind of people were old enough to vote back then? Since, the very youngest of the voting populace would have been born in the late 40's early 50's, I'm guessing we were dealing with a nation of people who's ideology was shaped by the 20's through the 60's. So we had people who grew up in a nation where the Old South Ideology as it pertained to women and minorities, had some serious clout and the nation as a whole, pretty much embraced it. People knew something was wrong , but it really didn't effect them all too much. It was the norm. It was all they knew. Folks didn't do much "talking" back then unless, of course, you were a .....white male. I mean, after all, this was an era where women "knew their place". Mrs. Beaver could have the crap beat out of her the night before by Mr. Beaver and she would still be up the next morning serving up a big breakfast while telling little Johnny, "Oh, Mommy hit her eye on the door. I'm so clumsy" . I don't need to tell you about the Minorities. We hear about that part of history every day. Bill Clinton's election actually was an election of change and not status quo as people did not vote for him because he was a white man from the South, but rather because he represented a brand new generation. His was an election of CHANGE and empowered by the Baby Boomer Generation. Both Carter and Clinton's Elections represented the sign of the times more than they did the fact that they were White Men from the South. At least, Clinton's was for sure. But I will say that it does the Carter and Clinton Legacy a great injustice to assert that they only won, or were effective because they were White men from the South as opposed to their plans and ideas for moving America forward.

Argument 3.) If Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is at the top of that ticket, Southern white men who don't usually vote , will be galvanized to come out in full force just to vote against them. Why bring this unnecessary drama upon ourselves? This is not a time to take risks. We need to get out of Iraq. We need to pass UHC. We need Unions. We have to send a white man from the South so that these southern white man will be appeased and not feel threatened by a woman or a black. Why oh why do we want to play russian roulette like this? Wait a few years until after a white male southern Democrat takes the White House and then we can play these little Social Victory games. Right now, we need to win and we must have a white man from the south in order to do that.

Answer 3.) I want to win as well and I don't think that the strategy you are proposing is the right one. First of all, it's obviously based on out-dated fear. I simply prefer hope. While some racists that live in the South who are not active voters may be galvanized by a woman or a black man on the ticket, I believe that they will be outnumbered by white southerners who are sick of the South being misrepresented. Here's why. Every single time I come across a news story about the Aryan Brotherhood or the Nazis or Ku Klux Klan coming out and demonstrating against Blacks , Jews, and their newest target: Latinos, it never fails that when I look at the footage and the photos what do I see? WHITE SOUTHERN PROTESTERS who shown up to their demonstrations with signs and loud speakers telling them that they don't speak for them. The racists groups are ALWAYS out numbered at a bare minimum, 8 to 1 and they always succeed at drowning out the voices of the racists groups. I have even seen some of them arrested for beating the crap out of the bigots. I don't believe that white southerners would risk going to jail for defending Blacks, Jews, Latinos and beating up bigots in their own race, if they were not also willing to vote for them. Do you? So, I embrace the logic of hope rather than fear because I have actual proof when it comes to this argument. If white racists are galvanized to vote against a black man or a woman because they are a black man or a woman, then there will be white southerners who will be counter-galvanized by that galvanization to show up at the polls and out vote those people. It would be a show down and good will trump evil as they have demonstrated when they protested .

Argument 4.) Exit Polling/ Pre-Election Polls: Look, people will say they will vote for a woman or a minority, but when they get in that booth all alone, they will dig deep inside their southern soul and ask " Do I want a woman or a black running things?" They will conclude "No" and they will vote for the White male even if they have to break with the Party and vote republican. Why, oh why do we want to shoot ourselves in the foot like this? We know this is going to happen and yet we are looking to the very two people who will destroy our party because one has a vagina and the other one has chocolate skin. Why try to change things now? Let's just focus on winning. Let us not try these social experiments. Let us send a white man from the South. It's a tried and tested strategy. If it ain't broke , don't fix it. Please, oh please don't do this. Don't do this to us!

Answer 4.) I reject that logic. First of all, you are looking at out-dated polling. Today, it has been proven time and time again , that Americans are far more truthful and accurate when they answer this question. Whether or not the woman or the minority won their election, the exit polling confirmed that people were honest when they stated that they would vote for the woman or a black . So, today , when over 70 percent of the American people say they would vote for a female and 85 % say they would vote for a Black man, they are telling the truth. The playing field is now more equal in that respect and the focus is more where it belongs [the actual candidate] and less where it does not belong [the race and gender of said candidate] I don't believe that people will get in that voting booth and say to themselves "Do I want a black or a woman running things?" I have a different idea of what will happen when those undecided southern voters get in that voting booth and again, I base this on the actions of southerners today and not Southerners in the past. They will get in that booth and ask themselves "Well, gee. I'm a white southern man and I'm still poor. I have this Black man or this woman in one party[Democrat] telling me they are going to make things fair for all of us and they have a record of doing just that, and I have a fellow white man from another party[Republican] who has been telling me this for years but I'm still poor. Hell, I'm voting Democrat"