What? So your argument is that we should continue to nominate white guys so we can continue to hide away our country's prejudices, be it racism or sexim, or any other ugly form of hate? Keep it packed away in a neat little box while we call ourselves the land of the free?

Screw that. Rip off the band-aid. Shine a spotlight on anyone who's ignorant enough to vote out of prejudice, hate, or fear.

You have no idea what this race is going to prove. No one does. All you're showing here is your fear that our country is more ignorant than not. Well, I don't buy it.

Now, over the years these folks have enjoyed voting against Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry.

Actually, for what it's worth, Stevenson carried Kentucky and West Va. in 1952...And Dukakis carried West Va. in 1988.

Beyond that, what Chris Brown said.

John B. Judis spelled it all out in The New Republic:

In North Carolina, where the white Democratic electorate is liberal and tolerant (only five percent of the primary electorate voted against Obama because of race, compared to over 11 percent in Pennsylvania and Ohio), Obama could still win only 36 percent of white voters. In the fall, when African Americans will only make up about 23 percent of North Carolina's electorate, he would have to win 38 percent of all whites to carry the state.(...) In the Iowa Caucus, Obama defeated Clinton among "moderate" voters by 33 to 31 percent and barely lost "conservatives" by 22 to 21 percent. He was perceived as a middle-of-the-road candidate or, even better, as standing above ideology. But he increasingly is seen as the "liberal" or even "very liberal" candidate. In Indiana, he bested Clinton among liberals 55 to 45 percent but lost moderates by 53 to 46 percent and conservatives by 65 to 35 percent. He can't carry that political image into the fall and hope to defeat McCain. In most of the swing states that he would need to win, liberals occupy a much smaller niche than they in the Democratic primary. Moderates are the key.(...)In the 2004 election, voters repeatedly expressed their preference for a "strong leader," but Obama has yet to establish himself in this respect. He is regularly judged more "honest and trustworthy" than Clinton, but those qualities have proved less important to choosing a president. In Indiana, voters thought Clinton more qualified to be commander in chief by 54 to 43 percent. Nine percent of Obama voters acknowledged that Clinton was "more qualified to be commander in chief." In North Carolina, eleven percent of Obama voters preferred Clinton. Obama appears to be somewhat effete, which will, unless remedied, cause him difficulty against McCain in the fall, particularly among white males.(...) Obama initially held his own among voters who attend church regularly. In New Hampshire, he bested Clinton by 37 to 32 percent among weekly churchgoers--and he didn't have to include religious African Americans in the total. But Obama has increasingly lost this vote and gained adherents among the non-religious. In Indiana, he lost to Clinton among weekly and occasional churchgoers but defeated her among those who never attend church. That can hurt him in the fall in states Obama wants to win. In Virginia, for instance, weekly and occasional churchgoers made up 83 percent of the general electorate in 2004. The challenge for Obama will be to reach out to religious voters without reminding voters of his ties to Reverend Wright.

To pull this off Obama had to win quickly before people ever got a real chance to look at him.

It's a shame. With Al Gore everything would have turned out all right.