PDA

View Full Version : Geraldine Ferraro: "Obama is only winning because he's black and the media is sexist"


HolmeZz
03-10-2008, 07:42 PM
The Clintons and their surrogates have more excuses than they know what to do with. They're now reverted to claims of racism and sexism for why Hillary is losing.

http://www.dailybreeze.com/lifeandculture/ci_8489268

"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler."

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-10-2008, 08:20 PM
And with this post, Hamas calls the feminist icon a c*nt.

Brock
03-10-2008, 08:27 PM
It's fun watching the democrats gnaw each other's genitals.

Mr. Kotter
03-10-2008, 08:32 PM
Thanks, HolmeZz.

I'll add this to my other thread. Heh. ROFL

Baby Lee
03-11-2008, 04:21 AM
Ironic that I now feel like I owe the Clintons a modicum of gratitude for letting the left see precisely what pissed the right off all those years.

banyon
03-11-2008, 07:17 AM
She's still alive?

StcChief
03-11-2008, 07:44 AM
True and True

chappy
03-11-2008, 07:52 AM
She is telling it how it is.
I agree 100 percent.

jettio
03-11-2008, 07:53 AM
She's still alive?

No kidding.

Nobody ever heard of her when she became the VP nominee for one reason, her gender.

And Nobody has heard of her since.

Obama is where he is because people have gone to vote and caucus for him.

The voters choosing among the 8-9 Democratic candidates that sought the office is as meritocratic a process as there is.

jettio
03-11-2008, 07:55 AM
She is telling it how it is.
I agree 100 percent.

Obama must be the exception that proves the rule.

I may have to check the results again, but I seem to remember that every other black candidate for President, did not really come close.

beer bacon
03-11-2008, 07:57 AM
Where do you get off, black people? You have been getting free ride in this country for far too long.

Seriously, it is hilarious that a Clinton supporter can say something like this. It is especially interesting because Hillary would not be in her own unique position if her husband was not, you know, a former President of the United States. It is great to see all these hardcore "feminists" are 100% behind a woman riding her husband's coat tails. A husband who cheated on her while still in public office. A true icon of feminism.

chappy
03-11-2008, 08:10 AM
Obama must be the exception that proves the rule.

I may have to check the results again, but I seem to remember that every other black candidate for President, did not really come close.


Well Obama is very inspiring. Once he won a few he was able to mobilize the Black folk and the unaware young vote.
Also many Republicans are switching over hoping he wins for an easy victory in Nov. even though they say they want Hillary.
My dad had a good point the other day when he said there are millions upon millions of
Americans just like him that would never vote for Obama even if he was the best candidate. I am a die hard so I will vote for who ever wins but I don't believe Obama's bullsh*t I see right through it.

beer bacon
03-11-2008, 08:11 AM
Well Obama is very inspiring. Once he won a few he was able to mobilize the Black folk and the unaware young vote.
Also many Republicans are switching over hoping he wins for an easy victory in Nov. even though they say they want Hillary.
My dad had a good point the other day when he said there are millions upon millions of
Americans just like him that would never vote for Obama even if he was the best candidate. I am a die hard so I will vote for who ever wins but I don't believe Obama's bullsh*t I see right through it.

So your dad is a racist? I am not be understanding exactly what you are getting at. It would be great if you could verify if that is what your father was getting at.

Maybe you mean your father would never vote for someone with a Hebrew first name. Is your dad an anti-Semite?

chappy
03-11-2008, 08:16 AM
So your dad is a racist?


No he has friends of many races he just grew up in a different time.

beer bacon
03-11-2008, 08:19 AM
No he has friends of many races he just grew up in a different time.

You are saying he wouldn't vote for Obama based on race, correct? Maybe I should go look up racism in a dictionary. Ok I did. One of the examples of racism reads as thus: "I would never vote for that black man as President. Because he is black."

chappy
03-11-2008, 08:20 AM
So your dad is a racist? I am not be understanding exactly what you are getting at. It would be great if you could verify if that is what your father was getting at.

Maybe you mean your father would never vote for someone with a Hebrew first name. Is your dad an anti-Semite?



He may not be comfortable with the fact that Obama was a muslim.
I didn't ask sorry.

beer bacon
03-11-2008, 08:23 AM
He may not be comfortable with the fact that he was a muslim.
I didn't ask sorry.

Your father was a muslim? That shouldn't be an issue. Obama is a Christian, but I don't think he discriminates based on faith.

stevieray
03-11-2008, 08:31 AM
...there aren't any sexist remarks towards Hillary in this forum.

beer bacon
03-11-2008, 08:32 AM
...because there aren't any sexist remarks towards Hillary in this forum.

I'm glad that their are Hillary supporters on this forum like you to defend her.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 08:34 AM
Your father was a muslim? That shouldn't be an issue. Obama is a Christian, but I don't think he discriminates based on faith.

Obama is a charlatan. I hope he ends up with the nomination after maximum internecine bloodshed (figuratively speaking, of course).

beer bacon
03-11-2008, 08:36 AM
Obama is a charlatan. I hope he ends up with the nomination after maximum internecine bloodshed (figuratively speaking, of course).

He is one of those secret moolisms. At least that is what Rush told me.

stevieray
03-11-2008, 08:37 AM
I'm glad that their are Hillary supporters on this forum like you to defend her.

ya, that's definitely what I'm doing...:rolleyes:

what's funny is watching the cyber "bullying" towards anyone who doesn't endorse a certain candidate...even more amusing is watching many live viacariously thorugh political figures.

beer bacon
03-11-2008, 08:41 AM
ya, that's definitely what I'm doing...:rolleyes:

what's funny is watching the cyber "bullying" towards anyone who doesn't endorse a certain candidate...even more amusing is watching many live viacariously thorugh a political figures.

I agree with this. I am sick of people giving me the E-stink eye when I tell them there is no way I will vote for that kracker John McCain.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 09:23 AM
I agree with this. I am sick of people giving me the E-stink eye when I tell them there is no way I will vote for that kracker John McCain.

Yeah, there's been a lot of cyber bullying on behalf of McCain. :rolleyes:

beer bacon
03-11-2008, 09:25 AM
Yeah, there's been a lot of cyber bullying on behalf of McCain. :rolleyes:

Your methods of delivering sarcasm are crude.

Adept Havelock
03-11-2008, 09:26 AM
Yeah, there's been a lot of cyber bullying on behalf of McCain. :rolleyes:

stevieray tripped me with his cyber walker and told me to get off his lawn, I was blocking his McCain sign... :p

patteeu
03-11-2008, 09:40 AM
Your methods of delivering sarcasm are crude.

I guess I'm not sophisticated enough to work "mooslims" and "E-stink eye" into my work.

HolmeZz
03-11-2008, 10:29 AM
He may not be comfortable with the fact that Obama was a muslim.
I didn't ask sorry.

Are you retarded?

patteeu
03-11-2008, 10:35 AM
Are you retarded?

LMAO

Cochise
03-11-2008, 10:54 AM
I don't think it's inaccurate to say that his race has something to do with where he is right now. He was probably selected to run by Democratic kingmakers after Bush entered office partially because of it. There's no question that he's deriving some support just because of it. That's not to say you can't support him for valid reasons, but I think we'd be foolish to believe that this one invalid reason isn't playing a part at all.

I'm sure they realized after Gore's loss that Democrats with whom the public is already familiar never fare very well, so they performed some kind of star search, found this articulate minority guy in a state legislature about whom no one knew anything, and named him heir apparent. Gave him a speaking spot at the convention, someone wrote a rousing speech for him, put him in the senate even though he was campaigning for president 4 or more years ago. The Clintons have their own designs on America and didn't stay on plan of course. But it doesn't invalidate that race has a lot to do with this. I can't help but wonder if he still would have been the chosen one otherwise.

None of this stuff happens by accident. I don't think it's out of bounds to wonder how things would sit if the lay of the land were different :shrug:

jettio
03-11-2008, 12:02 PM
I don't think it's inaccurate to say that his race has something to do with where he is right now. He was probably selected to run by Democratic kingmakers after Bush entered office partially because of it. There's no question that he's deriving some support just because of it. That's not to say you can't support him for valid reasons, but I think we'd be foolish to believe that this one invalid reason isn't playing a part at all.

I'm sure they realized after Gore's loss that Democrats with whom the public is already familiar never fare very well, so they performed some kind of star search, found this articulate minority guy in a state legislature about whom no one knew anything, and named him heir apparent. Gave him a speaking spot at the convention, someone wrote a rousing speech for him, put him in the senate even though he was campaigning for president 4 or more years ago. The Clintons have their own designs on America and didn't stay on plan of course. But it doesn't invalidate that race has a lot to do with this. I can't help but wonder if he still would have been the chosen one otherwise.

None of this stuff happens by accident. I don't think it's out of bounds to wonder how things would sit if the lay of the land were different :shrug:

They?

Maybe he is driven by his own ambition.

And maybe you ought to go outside a little bit more. It is not impossible for someone with darker skin to create something on their own.

He has speechwriters that help him on the campaign, but he does help with those, and as far as I know he authored his 2004 convention speech.

The race and sex of the first 43 Presidents was also a factor, but the main reason each of them won is because they were declared the winner of an election.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2008, 12:11 PM
The Daily Breeze?

It's a free South Bay rag for Manhattan, Hermosa & Redondo Beach.

How strange. I guess that's the only "news" outlet that would run that story.

HolmeZz
03-11-2008, 12:17 PM
The Daily Breeze?

It's a free South Bay rag for Manhattan, Hermosa & Redondo Beach.

How strange. I guess that's the only "news" outlet that would run that story.

Uh, it was kinda their baby, kinda like the Scotsman story with Sam Power. Now all the major news orgs are running it.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2008, 12:23 PM
Uh, it was kinda their baby, kinda like the Scotsman story with Sam Power. Now all the major news orgs are running it.

Sorry for the threadjack. I just found it kinda interesting because I've always thought of the Daily Breeze to be kinda like the Penny Saver.

Cochise
03-11-2008, 12:25 PM
They?

Maybe he is driven by his own ambition.

And maybe you ought to go outside a little bit more. It is not impossible for someone with darker skin to create something on their own.

Right, because I said otherwise :rolleyes:

jettio
03-11-2008, 01:48 PM
Right, because I said otherwise :rolleyes:

You did state that someone wrote his 2004 convention speech for him.

Like a lot of your claims lately, you have no factual basis for stating that.

Since you have no facts underlying that statement, why don't you explain why you make the claim.

Obama wrote his own 2004 convention speech.

There is no mystery about how he got to today. He decided to run for President against a formidable opponent who had a lot of connections and a very good chance of winning the nomination of her party and the general election.

He hired some good people to help him towards his goal and they have done a good job all the way around.

There is nothing nefarious or mysterious about it. He has run a campaign that has motivated more people to go and vote for him than his opponent, even though his opponent is likely to be the most formidable defeated primary candidate in history.

memyselfI
03-11-2008, 02:01 PM
Unfortunately, she took a factually sustainable comment (that Blacks have supported Obamessiah and women have supported Clinton) and made it into a botched and ridiculous remark.

Obama could be purple and if he was singing the same poetry that has people forgetting about their woes and embracing his rhetoric then he'd probably be winning. Remember, I posted comments that sounded remarkably familiar to the Saviors and they were first spoken by the great uniter, George W. Bush.

It's not about Baaarack being black rather it's about him being a simpleton. That is his attraction. He makes people forget how hard things will truly be and instead portrays the world's problems as if he can fix them by teaching the world to sing and buying them a coke.

Some people are not supporting Hillary because she's a woman but because she's THAT PARTICULAR woman. It's an insult to women everywhere to say that because she's unelectable as POTUS to some that women are unelectable in general. I do believe there are sexist factors being applied to her as a woman and that would be applied to any woman (appearance, demeanor, life choices, etc.) but this particular woman has those factors on top of the disdain she generates from people who not only like her but find her a threat. And it's not because she's stupid...

or a simpleton.

Cave Johnson
03-11-2008, 02:14 PM
This guy's my ideal candidate. He's multicultural, easily manipulated, and non-threatening.

VOTE PURPLE SOCK PUPPET '08!!!

noa
03-11-2008, 02:29 PM
it's about him being a simpleton.


You might want to look up the definition of simpleton.

Obama is in no way a simpleton. If he lacked common sense, he probably wouldn't have gotten as far as he did in life.

Moreover, if you are concerned about his rhetoric being simplistic (which is not the same as him being a simpleton), what content is there to Hillary's BS? She just CLAIMS she has more experience and is ready to field that phone call, but that's equally simplistic and mindless. She has NOTHING to back it up. But some Dems gobble it up b/c she claims she is experienced and can get things done. She says it over and over and over and has fooled some people, but she has no record of experience that qualifies her any more than he does. She didn't deal with national security as First Lady. She didn't have clearance to do anything, learn anything, travel anywhere of import to national security. As a Senator, she still hasn't done much on that front, at least not enough to truly set her apart from Obama.
Neither of them has the record to back up their rhetoric, but this is a presidential election, so you'll be hard pressed to find a candidate who actually does.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 02:57 PM
You did state that someone wrote his 2004 convention speech for him.

Like a lot of your claims lately, you have no factual basis for stating that.

Since you have no facts underlying that statement, why don't you explain why you make the claim.

Obama wrote his own 2004 convention speech.

There is no mystery about how he got to today. He decided to run for President against a formidable opponent who had a lot of connections and a very good chance of winning the nomination of her party and the general election.

He hired some good people to help him towards his goal and they have done a good job all the way around.

There is nothing nefarious or mysterious about it. He has run a campaign that has motivated more people to go and vote for him than his opponent, even though his opponent is likely to be the most formidable defeated primary candidate in history.

I don't know if I heard Obama deliver his 2004 speech, but I'm fairly confident that if we dug it up and reviewed it we'd find that it is full of hollow platitudes and empty happy talk just like so many of his 2007 speeches have been. The spell of his colorful language and emotionally appealing intonations has been broken and the content of his characterizations has been exposed and found lacking.

OK, I dug it up. Here are some excerpts:

I say to you tonight: we have more work to do. More to do for the workers I met in Galesburg, Illinois, who are losing their union jobs at the Maytag plant that's moving to Mexico, and now are having to compete with their own children for jobs that pay seven bucks an hour. More to do for the father I met who was losing his job and choking back tears, wondering how he would pay $4,500 a month for the drugs his son needs without the health benefits he counted on. More to do for the young woman in East St. Louis, and thousands more like her, who has the grades, has the drive, has the will, but doesn't have the money to go to college.

We have more to do!

Now let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated.

We have real enemies! [who?]

In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope? John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope. [Meanwhile, George W. Bush and Karl Rove call on us to be cynical.] I'm not talking about blind optimism here -- the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't talk about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. No, I'm talking about something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a mill worker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. The audacity of hope!

Hope! Hope! Hope! Not blind optimism, but something more substantial like HOPE!!!! *wild applause*

LMAO :Poke:

noa
03-11-2008, 03:04 PM
Jeez, you guys act like you want Obama to sit down and talk policy only. You want him to be more boring. That's a winning strategy. I see nothing wrong with his lofty rhetoric. He's a politician and his job is to inspire people to vote for him. That's the name of the game.
Every candidate uses lame talk like that. Remember "Compassionate Conservatism?" Remember "Uniter, not a divider?"

HolmeZz
03-11-2008, 03:10 PM
You must hate Reagan, Pat. Good communicator with all that pretty language, he spoke to our enemies, and he cut-and-ran from Lebanon.

HolmeZz
03-11-2008, 03:24 PM
And oh yeah, an amnesty bill.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2008, 04:53 PM
I don't think it's inaccurate to say that his race has something to do with where he is right now. He was probably selected to run by Democratic kingmakers after Bush entered office partially because of it. There's no question that he's deriving some support just because of it. That's not to say you can't support him for valid reasons, but I think we'd be foolish to believe that this one invalid reason isn't playing a part at all.

I'm sure they realized after Gore's loss that Democrats with whom the public is already familiar never fare very well, so they performed some kind of star search, found this articulate minority guy in a state legislature about whom no one knew anything, and named him heir apparent. Gave him a speaking spot at the convention, someone wrote a rousing speech for him, put him in the senate even though he was campaigning for president 4 or more years ago. The Clintons have their own designs on America and didn't stay on plan of course. But it doesn't invalidate that race has a lot to do with this. I can't help but wonder if he still would have been the chosen one otherwise.

None of this stuff happens by accident. I don't think it's out of bounds to wonder how things would sit if the lay of the land were different :shrug:

That's a pretty good endorsement of the fact that you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about.

Obama was a huge dog in '04 and was largely an afterthought. He rose to prominence largely because of his speech at the DNC, but he was way behind Jack Ryan (who was considered a golden boy for the R's) in the polls early in the year. Of course, then it surfaced that he tried to get 7 of 9 to gargle his balls in a French sex club, so he dropped out, and Obama got to face the venerable Alan Keyes.

HolmeZz
03-11-2008, 05:13 PM
Ferraro has completely f*cking lost it.

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up,' Ferraro said. 'Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

"Sexism is a bigger problem,' Ferraro argued. 'It's OK to be sexist in some people's minds. It's not OK to be racist."

She sounds like every old white woman who doesn't understand why anyone likes Obama. By her logic no Black candidate should ever be viable because other black people like them. Would any one of our prior 43 Presidents have won the office if they weren't white men? Hasn't Hillary gotten just as far on the basis of being a woman? That that would be a historic first? There are more women than blacks voting in every contest.

Her argument is borderline retarded.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 06:49 PM
Jeez, you guys act like you want Obama to sit down and talk policy only. You want him to be more boring. That's a winning strategy. I see nothing wrong with his lofty rhetoric. He's a politician and his job is to inspire people to vote for him. That's the name of the game.
Every candidate uses lame talk like that. Remember "Compassionate Conservatism?" Remember "Uniter, not a divider?"

In general, you're right of course. There's nothing wrong with lofty rhetoric.

Right now though, I think Obama is in real danger of being defined in a pretty negative way partly because of the way many of his fans have been attracted almost exclusively to his lofty rhetoric. It's in the interest of both Hillary and McCain to help this process along. He's hurt by the relative closeness of his policy positions and Hillary's. It would be a lot better for him if he could point out policy distinctions with her on a broad range of issues instead of always going back to the "you voted for the war" card. He'll have more of a chance to do that when he faces off against McCain if he can avoid a collapse down the home stretch with Hillary. I'm concerned that McCain will treat him with kid gloves like Hillary did for so long before she realized that he needs to be pounded off his message and forced to react. That's my amateur opinion at least.

BTW, "compassionate conservative" and "uniter, not a divider" were two of my least favorite parts about the Bush campaign. They sounded like an apology for the lack of compassion of most conservatives and a promise to govern with the watered down conservatism of his father respectively to me.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 06:55 PM
You must hate Reagan, Pat. Good communicator with all that pretty language, he spoke to our enemies, and he cut-and-ran from Lebanon.

And oh yeah, an amnesty bill.

Reagans pretty language didn't leave you wondering if he was an right wing conservative or a centrist. Maybe it was the context of his highly public record of being unabashedly conservative that helped in that regard.

Speaking to enemies isn't bad, but it's not always good either. I'm not against speaking to enemies if we have something to say and as long as we can use the talks to our advantage.

In retrospect, cutting-and-running from Lebanon was definitely a mistake, IMO. But that's looking at things in hindsight. At the time, it seemed far less consequential.

Amnesty also looked better pre-hindsight. But I've got to admit that I'm not that much of a hawk on the amnesty issue. I think that in the end, something that some people will call amnesty is bound to happen. I just hope we have effective border security before that happens.

P.S. I don't hate Obama. I just don't want to see him as POTUS. Particularly with substantial majorities in both houses of Congress.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 06:59 PM
Ferraro has completely f*cking lost it.

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up,' Ferraro said. 'Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

"Sexism is a bigger problem,' Ferraro argued. 'It's OK to be sexist in some people's minds. It's not OK to be racist."

She sounds like every old white woman who doesn't understand why anyone likes Obama. By her logic no Black candidate should ever be viable because other black people like them. Would any one of our prior 43 Presidents have won the office if they weren't white men? Hasn't Hillary gotten just as far on the basis of being a woman? That that would be a historic first? There are more women than blacks voting in every contest.

Her argument is borderline retarded.

I heard her talking on TV today and she sounded pretty reasonable about this whole deal. She gave Obama lots of credit for being a strong candidate, but she stuck to her guns about the notion that he's helped by his race. I think she's right. BTW, she also made the point that even though she was qualified to run for VP in 1984, she realizes that she wouldn't have been on the ticket if her name had been Gerald Ferraro.

irishjayhawk
03-11-2008, 07:06 PM
I may have asked this before, so pardon me, but:


Is any candidate who has a following automatically a "messiah"?

vailpass
03-11-2008, 07:12 PM
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) (who was not married to a former POTUS) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler."

So, what's the problem? Does anyone disagree with this statement? My edit is underlined.

HolmeZz
03-11-2008, 07:33 PM
So, what's the problem? Does anyone disagree with this statement?

Durrrr. Given history, it's just a tad bit easier to win as a white man than any other combination of race and gender. Just a tad. The idea that being black is beneficial in running for high public office is absurd and refuted factually by any statistical measure you want to point to.

She's writing off Obama as a candidate because he has support within the black community. By that logic no black candidate is ever going to be worthy. Contrary to popular belief, a black person's vote counts as much as a white person's vote.

Saying he's unqualified and that he's 'lucky' to be black(because it's the only reason he's winning) is reducing him to an Affirmative Action hire. I know most of you don't care about that, but that doesn't sit well with most people nor should it.

vailpass
03-11-2008, 07:50 PM
Durrrr. Given history, it's just a tad bit easier to win as a white man than any other combination of race and gender. Just a tad. The idea that being black is beneficial in running for high public office is absurd and refuted factually by any statistical measure you want to point to.

She's writing off Obama as a candidate because he has support within the black community. By that logic no black candidate is ever going to be worthy. Contrary to popular belief, a black person's vote counts as much as a white person's vote.

Saying he's unqualified and that he's 'lucky' to be black(because it's the only reason he's winning) is reducing him to an Affirmative Action hire. I know most of you don't care about that, but that doesn't sit well with most people nor should it.

Obama is where he is because he is black. He is taking 80%+ of the black vote and would not be in the running for the nomination otherwise.

Hillary is where she is because she is a Clinton. She is cashing in on her husband's popularity and would not be in the running for the nomination otherwise.

Res ipsa loquitur.

It is neither good nor bad to say so, it is only telling the truth. I don't blame either person for using the edge that they have.

memyselfI
03-11-2008, 07:56 PM
I heard her talking on TV today and she sounded pretty reasonable about this whole deal. She gave Obama lots of credit for being a strong candidate, but she stuck to her guns about the notion that he's helped by his race. I think she's right. BTW, she also made the point that even though she was qualified to run for VP in 1984, she realizes that she wouldn't have been on the ticket if her name had been Gerald Ferraro.

She's stating fact there. The media can spin it as racist but she's stating fact. His race is helping him in the race with his race. Hillary's gender is helping her in the race with her gender.

HolmeZz
03-11-2008, 08:01 PM
Obama is where he is because he is black. He is taking 80%+ of the black vote and would not be in the running for the nomination otherwise.

Quite clearly and it's exemplified by wins in Iowa, Utah, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Idaho, Washington, Virginia, Connecticut, Maine, Hawaii, Wyoming, Delaware, Vermont, Nebraska, and Colorado. Those kinds of states can really carry a black candidate.

vailpass
03-11-2008, 08:09 PM
Quite clearly and it's exemplified by wins in Iowa, Utah, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Idaho, Washington, Virginia, Connecticut, Maine, Hawaii, Wyoming, Delaware, Vermont, Nebraska, and Colorado. Those kinds of states can really carry a black candidate.

I'm sorry I hadn't realized the General Election had already run.
Is it really your contention that being black has not given Obama an advantage he would not otherwise have?

Are you really saying that a white man could run with no more substance and experience than Obama has and generate the same results, especially among the black vote?

Look, if you are sensitive about the issue and therefore unable to be objective then fine I'll drop it but please stop being intentionally obtuse.

memyselfI
03-11-2008, 08:14 PM
I'm sorry I hadn't realized the General Election had already run.
Is it really your contention that being black has not given Obama an advantage he would not otherwise have?

Are you really saying that a white man could run with no more substance and experience than Obama has and be a contender?

Look, if you are sensitive about the issue and therefore unable to be objective then fine I'll drop it but please stop being intentionally obtuse.

There is no way when all the white Republicans start to vote in the general election will Baaarack be able to win if he's still trailing in the white vote even if he's winning the black vote with 90%.

And the CONS will vote. They will hold their nose and vote for McCain. Correction they will vote against the lefty liberal Baaarack. Obamessiah's 'movement' is delusional if they think all those CONS and Indies in their corner plan to stay there.

HolmeZz
03-11-2008, 08:17 PM
She's stating fact there.

You're working on two different notions. Clearly him being black helps him with the black community. Duh. And Hillary being white and a woman helps her with those demographics. But that's different than saying Obama is winning entirely because he's black(and blacks are very much a minority as far the voters have gone). It's the equivalent of the Obama campaign saying Hillary was winning solely because hispanics hate blacks.

Another misnomer is that Obama was handed the black vote. If that was the case, Hillary wouldn't have been polling much higher than him among blacks originally. He improved once people got to know him, which is exactly what happens in basically every demographic. Then comments by Bill and her camp alienated the black community and exacerbated the problem.

vailpass
03-11-2008, 08:18 PM
Race playing a part on both sides of the dem race in Mississippi. Race has played a big part for Obama in every state so far. What a sorry state of affairs.

March 11, 2008
Exit polls: Mississippi Democrats divide on racial lines
Posted: 09:48 PM ET

Obama and Clinton supporters in Mississippi appear divided among racial lines.
(CNN) – Mississippi Democratic voters were sharply divided among racial lines in Tuesday's primary, exit polls indicate.

As has been the case in many primary states, Obama won overwhelming support from African-American voters. They went for him over Clinton 91-9 percent.

But Mississippi white voters overwhelmingly backed the New York senator, supporting her over Obama 72 percent to 21 percent.
According to the Associated Press, only two other primary states were as racially polarized — neighboring Alabama, and Clinton's former home state of Arkansas.

The exit polls also indicated roughly 30 percent of Mississippi Democratic voters said race was an important factor in their vote, and 60 percent of those voters supported Obama.

In Ohio, roughly 1 in 5 voters said race factored into their decision. Roughly 60 percent of those voters picked Clinton over Obama.

www.cnn.com

jAZ
03-11-2008, 08:21 PM
My guess is that Ferarro isn't going off message here at all. I think this was thought out ahead of time. She plays the gender/race card. The media reports it widely. Obama's camp responds, she the follows up with the "repressed white person" card.

Which plays into Hillary's current voting base in rural PA and the southern states like MS and NC coming up. It's dog whistle time.

Fuggin stupid if she's trying to win a general election, but I guess it's what they think that it takes to hang in in the primary. According to MS exit polls, she won 75% of the white vote. This is just part of that strategy.

memyselfI
03-11-2008, 08:25 PM
. He improved once people got to know him, which is exactly what happens in basically every demographic. Then comments by Bill and her camp alienated the black community and exacerbated the problem.

According to Michelle Obama they've woken up and overcome their inferiority complex and that is why. :doh!::rolleyes:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OHzYl8Rg8C0&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OHzYl8Rg8C0&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

HolmeZz
03-11-2008, 08:25 PM
I'm sorry I hadn't realized the General Election had already run.

You said he's only won places because he's pulling in 80%+ of the black vote. Putting aside the fact that blacks have every right to vote that you do, please tell me how those states were decided by the black vote.

Is it really your contention that being black has not given Obama an advantage he would not otherwise have?

Certainly it helps him in the black community. And it hurts him in other demographics. There's going to be instances of that regardless of what gender and race a candidate is. Just based on our history, it's much easier to get elected as a white male. That's not even debatable.

Are you really saying that a white man could run with no more substance and experience than Obama has and generate the same results, especially among the black vote?

Not among black voters, but he wouldn't have the issues he has with a lot of white male and female voters, particularly in the south. It cuts both ways. Hillary would likely lose a good chunk of her older vote as well if Obama was a 100% white male. He also would've faired better in Ohio and not had the problem with the hispanic community that he does.

HolmeZz
03-11-2008, 08:29 PM
Race has played a big part for Obama in every state so far. What a sorry state of affairs.

Iowa, Utah, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Idaho, Washington, Virginia, Connecticut, Maine, Hawaii, Wyoming, Delaware, Vermont, Nebraska, and Colorado.

Let's hear it.

dirk digler
03-11-2008, 08:33 PM
I heard her talking on TV today and she sounded pretty reasonable about this whole deal. She gave Obama lots of credit for being a strong candidate, but she stuck to her guns about the notion that he's helped by his race. I think she's right. BTW, she also made the point that even though she was qualified to run for VP in 1984, she realizes that she wouldn't have been on the ticket if her name had been Gerald Ferraro.

Oops..she is a closet racist

A Ferraro flashback
"If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," she said.
Really. The cite is an April 15, 1988 Washington Post story (byline: Howard Kurtz), available only on Nexis.
Here's the full context:
Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, "Millions of Americans have a point of view different from" Ferraro's.

Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, "We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I'm making history."

HolmeZz
03-11-2008, 08:35 PM
No blacks should be in the race.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 09:39 PM
She's stating fact there. The media can spin it as racist but she's stating fact. His race is helping him in the race with his race. Hillary's gender is helping her in the race with her gender.

I agree with both you and vailpass.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 09:46 PM
You're working on two different notions. Clearly him being black helps him with the black community. Duh. And Hillary being white and a woman helps her with those demographics. But that's different than saying Obama is winning entirely because he's black(and blacks are very much a minority as far the voters have gone). It's the equivalent of the Obama campaign saying Hillary was winning solely because hispanics hate blacks.

Another misnomer is that Obama was handed the black vote. If that was the case, Hillary wouldn't have been polling much higher than him among blacks originally. He improved once people got to know him, which is exactly what happens in basically every demographic. Then comments by Bill and her camp alienated the black community and exacerbated the problem.

Geraldine made it a point to say that he wasn't winning entirely because he was black. What her statement today on TV amounted to was that his race is necessary but not sufficient by itself. He also needed to have some combination of his intelligence, his gift for speaking and campaigning, etc. But he wouldn't be beating Clinton right now if he weren't black.

One of the keys to his success was the way he was able to swing the black vote away from Clinton so completely. A white candidate couldn't have done that, IMO. Barack didn't have the black demographic at first. He first had to prove himself in Iowa with his retail campaigning and his appeal to white voters of that state. But when blacks across the country saw him succeed and realized he wasn't another false hope like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, he pulled a lot more black voters away from Clinton than a white guy could have.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 09:51 PM
Oops..she is a closet racist

It's not racist to discuss race. You're reading a lot of your own personal biases into the generic English language today.

HolmeZz
03-11-2008, 09:55 PM
Geraldine made it a point to say that he wasn't winning entirely because he was black.

I know what you want to believe she said.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler."

I.E. Obama wouldn't be winning if he wasn't black therefore Obama is winning because he's black.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 10:13 PM
I know what you want to believe she said.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler."

I.E. Obama wouldn't be winning if he wasn't black therefore Obama is winning because he's black.

Necessary but not sufficient means that he wouldn't be winning if he weren't black but being black is not enough by itself. He also had to have other positive traits as well. IOW, she didn't say being black is the only thing he has going for him. Maybe that's what you meant, but your "entirely because he's black" phrase sounded to me like you were taking Ferraro's statement to mean that his blackness was his sole redeeming attribute.

HolmeZz
03-11-2008, 10:22 PM
Maybe that's what you meant, but your "entirely because he's black" phrase sounded to me like you were taking Ferraro's statement to mean that his blackness was his sole redeeming attribute.

No, I meant it's entirely why he's winning. And that's what she said.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 10:28 PM
No, I meant it's enitrely why he's winning. And that's what she said.

What she meant and what you mean are two different things then because she means what I said, as evidenced by the interview I watched today. Unless you're saying that you mean the same thing I mean, in which case I'm left wondering what you're being critical of.

beer bacon
03-11-2008, 10:32 PM
No blacks should be in the race.

Black people in southern states should not have their votes count as much as voters in "blue" states. Perhaps to make up their irrelevancy, AA votes in the South should only count for say...3/5ths of a regular vote.

HolmeZz
03-11-2008, 10:33 PM
What she meant and what you mean are two different things then because she means what I said, as evidenced by the interview I watched today. Unless you're saying that you mean the same thing I mean, in which case I'm left wondering what you're being critical of.

Combining her belief that Obama wouldn't be in this if he wasn't black and the fact she said Jesse Jackson was only a candidate in '88 because of his skin, it's pretty clear what she means and it's pretty clear what she believes. Her notion that America is 'caught up in the concept' is a loaded statement that he isn't qualified or worthy of the support he's gotten.

And that's not even addressing the fact that she's reducing the validity of the black vote in the process.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 10:37 PM
Combining her belief that Obama wouldn't be in this if he wasn't black and the fact she said Jesse Jackson was only a candidate in '88 because of his skin, it's pretty clear what she means and it's pretty clear what she believes. Her notion that America is 'caught up in the concept' is a loaded statement that he isn't qualified or worthy of the support he's gotten.

And that's not even addressing the fact that she's reducing the validity of the black vote in the process.

She also said she wouldn't have been on the ticket in '84 if it weren't for her gender. She's obviously a sexist and has contempt for the female vote, too.

And btw, he isn't qualified and whether he's proven himself worthy of the support or not, he wouldn't have gotten it if he hadn't been black.

HolmeZz
03-11-2008, 10:42 PM
She also said she wouldn't have been on the ticket in '84 if it weren't for her gender.

I know you don't have a Bachelors in Logic, but one statement doesn't make true or add any validity to the other.

Furthermore, she wasn't elected to be Vice President. She was selected to be. She didn't have to work to get where she got. Obama has. She wouldn't know what that's like. It's why she ran for the Senate twice and got shutout.

And btw, he isn't qualified and whether he's proven himself worthy of the support or not, he wouldn't have gotten it if he hadn't been black.

Forgive me if I'm not going to put much stock into what you think makes someone qualified to be President. ;)

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2008, 10:44 PM
For the Record:

A Ferraro flashback


"If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," she said.

Really. The cite is an April 15, 1988 Washington Post story (byline: Howard Kurtz), available only on Nexis.

Here's the full context:

Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, "Millions of Americans have a point of view different from" Ferraro's.

Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, "We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I'm making history."

patteeu
03-11-2008, 10:46 PM
I know you don't have a Bachelors in Logic, but one statement doesn't make true or add any validity to the other.

You're going to have to help me out with this one. Start off by identifying which two statements we are talking about and then tell me what logical point you are trying to make.



Forgive me if I'm not going to put much stock into what you think makes someone qualified to be President. ;)

You're forgiven. I'll chalk it up to the inexperience of youth. :p

HolmeZz
03-11-2008, 10:51 PM
You're going to have to help me out with this one. Start off by identifying which two statements we are talking about and then tell me what logical point you are trying to make.

I assumed you were only bringing up her comment about being picked because she was a woman to add some truth to her other statement.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 10:57 PM
I assumed you were only bringing up her comment about being picked because she was a woman to add some truth to her other statement.

Not to add truth, but to add weight to the argument that she can say such a thing without saying it because she's a racist.

HolmeZz
03-11-2008, 11:06 PM
Not to add truth, but to add weight to the argument that she can say such a thing without saying it because she's a racist.

The statement alone doesn't make her racist, but the fact that she had a similar sentiment about Jesse Jackson running seems to suggest her 'problem' is racial.

Ultra Peanut
03-11-2008, 11:13 PM
http://i27.tinypic.com/2vsohu0.jpg

meme and vailpass shitting in a tree
sloppy sloppy num num
****ing ****ing ****ing

beer bacon
03-11-2008, 11:14 PM
The statement alone doesn't make her racist, but the fact that she had a similar sentiment about Jesse Jackson running seems to suggest her 'problem' is racial.

It is not her fault. She just grew up in a different time.

ClevelandBronco
03-12-2008, 03:25 AM
It is not her fault. She just grew up in a different time.

You're trying to tell us that she's a racist because she came to age as one member of the relatively recent generations that did their best to destroy racism? She grew up "in a different time?" **** you.

You have a misguided understanding of history that may have been warped by your own unfortunate circumstances.

If you want to blame your parents for your unfortunate upbringing, you are free to do that, but don't misunderstand their individual shortcomings for anyone else's. The pitiful losers who apparently raised you aren't indicative of any generation.

I tried several times to contrive a response that would sound gracious, but I failed every time. You are intolerant.

You, sir, are the racist. You will not tolerate reasonable people speaking about ethnic background and its role in politics.

It's never been more apparently clear than it is now.

ClevelandBronco
03-12-2008, 03:38 AM
I've entered a bizarre level of hell. I'm defending Sen. Clinton.

ClevelandBronco
03-12-2008, 04:00 AM
And Geraldine Ferraro.

dirk digler
03-12-2008, 06:58 AM
It's not racist to discuss race. You're reading a lot of your own personal biases into the generic English language today.

I wouldn't have such a problem with it if it was just one incident now she has stated it 3 times and one of them was when the other black person, Jesse Jackson, was running for the nomination. There is now a clear pattern here and it clearly shows she is a closet racist. There is no other explanation IMO.

memyselfI
03-12-2008, 07:04 AM
I wouldn't have such a problem with it if it was just one incident now she has stated it 3 times and one of them was when the other black person, Jesse Jackson, was running for the nomination. There is now a clear pattern here and it clearly shows she is a closet racist. There is no other explanation IMO.

It's no different than saying some people receive advantages because they are rich elitists. If she was saying she felt he was unqualified because of his race THAT would be racist. But to say he's gotten certain advantages as well as disadvantages because of his race would be a TRUE STATEMENT.

The same could be said of ALL OF US.

keg in kc
03-12-2008, 07:10 AM
Associating approval of Obama and dislike of Hillary with racism and sexism is just the kind of mouth-breather approach I'd expect from her campaign and/or supporters at this point. And I can only imagine the kind of response they'd generate if anyone accused them of supporting Hillary only because she's a woman and/or because she's white. Dangerous (and nonsensical) move in that sense.

But I guess it's all they can do. No point in sticking to relevant issues now.

dirk digler
03-12-2008, 07:38 AM
It's no different than saying some people receive advantages because they are rich elitists. If she was saying she felt he was unqualified because of his race THAT would be racist. But to say he's gotten certain advantages as well as disadvantages because of his race would be a TRUE STATEMENT.

The same could be said of ALL OF US.

IMO it is different when you inject race or gender into the statement.

You don't find this statement racist? "that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

patteeu
03-12-2008, 07:55 AM
The statement alone doesn't make her racist, but the fact that she had a similar sentiment about Jesse Jackson running seems to suggest her 'problem' is racial.

I think it looks more like her 'problem' is that she's analytical and willing to speak about some things that might not be completely PC. Again, she said the same thing about herself and the '84 ticket.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 07:59 AM
I wouldn't have such a problem with it if it was just one incident now she has stated it 3 times and one of them was when the other black person, Jesse Jackson, was running for the nomination. There is now a clear pattern here and it clearly shows she is a closet racist. There is no other explanation IMO.

Your argument makes no sense. If you can say it once and not be racist, why does saying it three times make you a racist?

patteeu
03-12-2008, 08:02 AM
IMO it is different when you inject race or gender into the statement.

You don't find this statement racist? "that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

I can't imagine what possible distinction you're drawing to conclude that it's different when you inject race of gender into the statement.

dirk digler
03-12-2008, 08:12 AM
Your argument makes no sense. If you can say it once and not be racist, why does saying it three times make you a racist?

Because she now has a history of making racist statements. One statement you could say she misspoke or what ever excuse you want to make but you can't say that after 3 freakin times.

I can't imagine what possible distinction you're drawing to conclude that it's different when you inject race of gender into the statement.

Could you imagine the outcry if a Republican said this? It is no different IMO. It is clearly a racist statement to suggest that the only reason a person is still in the race because he was black.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 08:42 AM
Because she now has a history of making racist statements. One statement you could say she misspoke or what ever excuse you want to make but you can't say that after 3 freakin times.

OK, I see where you were coming from. We can agree that it's not a case of her having misspoke. I think that's clear. What's not at all clear is that this is a racist statement. You're locked in on that, but I think it's pretty clear that you're wrong. Effectively what she's doing is accusing Obama supporters of being racist in that they are more prone to vote for Obama the black man than they'd be to vote for Obama the white guy. I think she's right. You might disagree and take offense at her accusation, but it makes no sense to call her a racist.

Could you imagine the outcry if a Republican said this? It is no different IMO. It is clearly a racist statement to suggest that the only reason a person is still in the race because he was black.

Absolutely, I can imagine the outcry. Republicans are frequently accused of being racists when it's not true. It's one of the democrats' favorite sleazy weapons.

vailpass
03-12-2008, 08:45 AM
http://i27.tinypic.com/2vsohu0.jpg

meme and vailpass shitting in a tree
sloppy sloppy num num
****ing ****ing ****ing

You are such a strange person. I pity your parents. Please tell me you have siblings that turned out o.k., at least your folks would have some children to be happy with and not be embarrassed to talk about.

dirk digler
03-12-2008, 08:50 AM
OK, I see where you were coming from. We can agree that it's not a case of her having misspoke. I think that's clear. What's not at all clear is that this is a racist statement. You're locked in on that, but I think it's pretty clear that you're wrong. Effectively what she's doing is accusing Obama supporters of being racist in that they are more prone to vote for Obama the black man than they'd be to vote for Obama the white guy. I think she's right. You might disagree and take offense at her accusation, but it makes no sense to call her a racist.


If you are not white, you are not eligible to run for office. That if Ferraro's argument in a nutshell.

I do take offense to her or anyone calling me a racist for voting for Obama. I could actually care less about his skin color and I would support him regardless. I am not supporting him because he is black I am supporting him because I like some of his policies, I like his judgment, and I find him somewhat inspiring.


Also if she is accusing people who support Obama racist why isn't she making the same argument that sexism is the only reason people support Clinton?

vailpass
03-12-2008, 08:51 AM
And here we have yet another example of how Obama's presence has pulled this election down to the level of a race issue.

At a time when the US faces so many issues that are vital to her future we have a candidate that makes the discussion center on skin color.

"I'm a votin fo Obama, he a brotha'!" is not the focus America needs her voters to have this time.

The thought that this empty suit could get into the White House based on such a platform should worry people.
Fortunately I do not believe that is going to happen.

DaKCMan AP
03-12-2008, 08:56 AM
And here we have yet another example of how Obama's presence has pulled this election down to the level of a race issue.

At a time when the US faces so many issues that are vital to her future we have a candidate that makes the discussion center on skin color.

"I'm a votin fo Obama, he a brotha'!" is not the focus America needs her voters to have this time.

The thought that this empty suit could get into the White House based on such a platform should worry people.
Fortunately I do not believe that is going to happen.

Is that you, Geraldine?

dirk digler
03-12-2008, 08:58 AM
And here we have yet another example of how Obama's presence has pulled this election down to the level of a race issue.

At a time when the US faces so many issues that are vital to her future we have a candidate that makes the discussion center on skin color.

"I'm a votin fo Obama, he a brotha'!" is not the focus America needs her voters to have this time.

The thought that this empty suit could get into the White House based on such a platform should worry people.
Fortunately I do not believe that is going to happen.

vali the problem isn't Obama the problem is the Clinton campaign constantly trying to inject race into this and divide people. It is too bad you are being fooled again by the Clintons.

Obama has never mentioned race at all unless it was brought up by external people.

jettio
03-12-2008, 09:02 AM
I know you don't have a Bachelors in Logic, but one statement doesn't make true or add any validity to the other.

Furthermore, she wasn't elected to be Vice President. She was selected to be. She didn't have to work to get where she got. Obama has. She wouldn't know what that's like. It's why she ran for the Senate twice and got shutout.



Forgive me if I'm not going to put much stock into what you think makes someone qualified to be President. ;)

You have to remember that patteeu's extraordinarily ability to spell and use proper grammar masks that when it comes down to it, he ain't so bright.

He thinks B*sh has done a good job as president and he thinks the Weekly Standard is the definitive authority on the Middle East.

patteeu is like Hayes and Kristol of the Weekly Standard. Very few grammar and spelling errors, but wrong most of the time.

patteeu and Ferraro ought to know that Obama is where he is because he has run a great campaign. He has run a better campaign than Hillary. Hillary has run a good campaign and would defeat any other combination of campaign and candidate. She has just been outdone by a better executed combination of candidate and campaign.

patteeu and Ferraro are just whining and chewing on sour grapes because their hopes are being dashed fair and square.

The best news for both of them is that they will end up with a president that is about a 1000x better than the perfect idiot B*sh that patteeu has been so impressed with.

vailpass
03-12-2008, 09:07 AM
vali the problem isn't Obama the problem is the Clinton campaign constantly trying to inject race into this and divide people. It is too bad you are being fooled again by the Clintons.

Obama has never mentioned race at all unless it was brought up by external people.

Please believe me when I tell you I have NEVER been fooled by the Clintons. Not slick Willy and not his hag.

Obama doesn't have to mention race, his presence makes the topic inevitable.
Are you and I discussing issues right now? No, we are discussing race.

What is the headline in today's Time article?
Obama Win Defined By Race
Wednesday, Mar. 12, 2008 By MICHAEL DUFFY
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1721494,00.html?xid=rss-politics-cnn

We have almost 100% of the blacks voting for Obama. The majority are doing so not because they believe in, or are even aware of, his platform. They are doing so because Obama is black. That sounds like a 3rd world country to me and is definetely NOT what this country needs right now.

vailpass
03-12-2008, 09:09 AM
Is that you, Geraldine?

Hi DaKC,
Question for you: is the Jewish vote leaning in any particular direction this year that you are aware of? Is there any one candidate that you think speaks more to the Jew both here and in Israel?

alanm
03-12-2008, 09:09 AM
Iowa, Utah, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Idaho, Washington, Virginia, Connecticut, Maine, Hawaii, Wyoming, Delaware, Vermont, Nebraska, and Colorado.

Let's hear it.
You realize of course that Nebraska and Wyoming are overwhelmingly Republican states. Obama and or Hillary will get stomped come the general election. I can't speak for the other states.

DaKCMan AP
03-12-2008, 09:14 AM
Hi DaKC,
Question for you: is the Jewish vote leaning in any particular direction this year that you are aware of? Is there any one candidate that you think speaks more to the Jew both here and in Israel?

I think I saw somewhere that Jewish voters (collectively) are voting more for Hillary. Not in all cases, however. I don't think there is a single candidate that speaks more to any particular religion. I don't think Obama or Clinton speak to a particular religion and I don't think McCain (believably) speaks to conservative Christians.

jettio
03-12-2008, 09:17 AM
vali the problem isn't Obama the problem is the Clinton campaign constantly trying to inject race into this and divide people. It is too bad you are being fooled again by the Clintons.

Obama has never mentioned race at all unless it was brought up by external people.


You make a mistake if you think vailpass is someone to reason with, especially if the issue is race.

Use the chiefsplanet search feature to do a search with vailpass as the username and the keyword(s) race, racist, racism, and/or any well-known black person you ever heard of and you will see that vailpass is "inconvenienced" by the existence of non-white people.

Contemporary America has left that poor boy's mind completely f*cked.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 09:18 AM
If you are not white, you are not eligible to run for office. That if Ferraro's argument in a nutshell.

No it isn't.

I do take offense to her or anyone calling me a racist for voting for Obama. I could actually care less about his skin color and I would support him regardless. I am not supporting him because he is black I am supporting him because I like some of his policies, I like his judgment, and I find him somewhat inspiring.

She's not saying that every Obama supporter is influenced by his race, but it's your prerogative to be offended anyway.

Also if she is accusing people who support Obama racist why isn't she making the same argument that sexism is the only reason people support Clinton?

I think an even better analogous argument against Hillary would be that she's only in this race because her husband was President. Ferraro doesn't make this point or the one you suggest because she's a Hillary supporter, of course.

vailpass
03-12-2008, 09:20 AM
I think I saw somewhere that Jewish voters (collectively) are voting more for Hillary. Not in all cases, however. I don't think there is a single candidate that speaks more to any particular religion. I don't think Obama or Clinton speak to a particular religion and I don't think McCain (believably) speaks to conservative Christians.

I agree that nobody seems to have locked down the Christian vote.
I'm more interested in whether there is any perception that one candidate will handle the middle east situation in general, and the Israeli situation in particular, better than another.
I'm not appointing you the Representative for Jewish Vote Prediction, just curious if you have any insight.

vailpass
03-12-2008, 09:22 AM
You make a mistake if you think vailpass is someone to reason with, especially if the issue is race.

Use the chiefsplanet search feature to do a search with vailpass as the username and the keyword(s) race, racist, racism, and/or any well-known black person you ever heard of and you will see that vailpass is "inconvenienced" by the existence of non-white people.

Contemporary America has left that poor boy's mind completely f*cked.

When overwhelmed by the issues seek cover in empty banter.
Is that you Obama?

patteeu
03-12-2008, 09:22 AM
vali the problem isn't Obama the problem is the Clinton campaign constantly trying to inject race into this and divide people. It is too bad you are being fooled again by the Clintons.

Obama has never mentioned race at all unless it was brought up by external people.

That's true up to the point where Obama and/or his supporters start calling Ferraro a racist. If you guys took the high road, then the entire responsibility for injecting race into the discussion would fall on the Clintons. As it is, you guys deserve your share of the blame for playing the race game.

Sully
03-12-2008, 09:23 AM
Regardless of whether Obama is dominating the African American vote or not. And regardless of whether or not there is a portion of that bloc voting on him on the basis of his skin tone...

Can someone explain to me who'd be best to have a beer with so I can vote for that person?

dirk digler
03-12-2008, 09:25 AM
Please believe me when I tell you I have NEVER been fooled by the Clintons. Not slick Willy and not his hag.

Obama doesn't have to mention race, his presence makes the topic inevitable.
Are you and I discussing issues right now? No, we are discussing race.

What is the headline in today's Time article?
Obama Win Defined By Race
Wednesday, Mar. 12, 2008 By MICHAEL DUFFY
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1721494,00.html?xid=rss-politics-cnn

We have almost 100% of the blacks voting for Obama. The majority are doing so not because they believe in, or are even aware of, his platform. They are doing so because Obama is black. That sounds like a 3rd world country to me and is definetely NOT what this country needs right now.

Right now the Clintons are making you look like a fool.

They only reason we are bringing up race is because the Clinton campaign and more specifically Ferraro brought it up. Obama certainly didn't.

You have to admit Mississppi is a fairly unique state where the majority of peope there are black and sure they are going to vote for a legitimate black candidate. I think it is funny that people early in the campaign were complaining that Obama wasn't black enough and that he wasn't even going to win the black vote now people are saying he is too black.

DaKCMan AP
03-12-2008, 09:28 AM
I agree that nobody seems to have locked down the Christian vote.
I'm more interested in whether there is any perception that one candidate will handle the middle east situation in general, and the Israeli situation in particular, better than another.
I'm not appointing you the Representative for Jewish Vote Prediction, just curious if you have any insight.

I don't know, it hasn't really been much of a campaign focus. I don't think McCain and his hot-temper would do any good, though.

vailpass
03-12-2008, 09:28 AM
Right now the Clintons are making you look like a fool.

They only reason we are bringing up race is because the Clinton campaign and more specifically Ferraro brought it up. Obama certainly didn't.

You have to admit Mississppi is a fairly unique state where the majority of peope there are black and sure they are going to vote for a legitimate black candidate. I think it is funny that people early in the campaign were complaining that Obama wasn't black enough and that he wasn't even going to win the black vote now people are saying he is too black.

How would the Clintons be making me look like a fool?
If you are seriously saying that race is not an issue in this campaign outside of what the bitch Clinton's camp says then the fool title belongs with you.

dirk digler
03-12-2008, 09:40 AM
She's not saying that every Obama supporter is influenced by his race, but it's your prerogative to be offended anyway.



I think an even better analogous argument against Hillary would be that she's only in this race because her husband was President. Ferraro doesn't make this point or the one you suggest because she's a Hillary supporter, of course.

I am actually not offended because I don't believe that is what she is saying. If what you stated was true then I would be and that is what I was referring to.

I agree with your last paragraph.

That's true up to the point where Obama and/or his supporters start calling Ferraro a racist. If you guys took the high road, then the entire responsibility for injecting race into the discussion would fall on the Clintons. As it is, you guys deserve your share of the blame for playing the race game.

What is supposed to do sit there and take it? I think his statement was appropriate and measured.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 09:40 AM
I agree that nobody seems to have locked down the Christian vote.
I'm more interested in whether there is any perception that one candidate will handle the middle east situation in general, and the Israeli situation in particular, better than another.
I'm not appointing you the Representative for Jewish Vote Prediction, just curious if you have any insight.

Obama seems to surround himself with anti-Israel foreign policy advisors, although he let one of them go a week ago for calling Hillary a monster.

vailpass
03-12-2008, 09:43 AM
Obama seems to surround himself with anti-Israel foreign policy advisors, although he let one of them go a week ago for calling Hillary a monster.

Thanks. I'm hoping that if Obama gets the nomination all voters will drill down to the issues once the General starts.

dirk digler
03-12-2008, 09:44 AM
How would the Clintons be making me look like a fool?
If you are seriously saying that race is not an issue in this campaign outside of what the bitch Clinton's camp says then the fool title belongs with you.

Because you are buying into what they are selling. They are trying to divide this primary into a black and white issue when it is not.

Why is race\gender an issue? Do you think that a black person can't be POTUS?

vailpass
03-12-2008, 09:48 AM
Because you are buying into what they are selling. They are trying to divide this primary into a black and white issue when it is not.

Why is race\gender an issue? Do you think that a black person can't be POTUS?

ROFL Dude.

dirk digler
03-12-2008, 09:50 AM
Obama seems to surround himself with anti-Israel foreign policy advisors, although he let one of them go a week ago for calling Hillary a monster.

He has been endorsed by several top Jewish leaders. One was Amb. Dan Kurtzer, who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel from 2001 to 2005.

dirk digler
03-12-2008, 09:50 AM
ROFL Dude.

I see you didn't answer the question.

jettio
03-12-2008, 09:51 AM
Thanks. I'm hoping that if Obama gets the nomination all voters will drill down to the issues once the General starts.


Have you used the search feature to figure out who you are yet?

Obama will get the nomination and he will win the general real easy.

After that, I think you will find yourself spending less time here at chiefs planet, revealing your problems with race, and more time at websites whose focus is people like you with your same problem.

HolmeZz
03-12-2008, 09:51 AM
You realize of course that Nebraska and Wyoming are overwhelmingly Republican states.

Uh, we were talking about the size of the black population in those states. Not whether they'll vote Democratic of Republican.

HolmeZz
03-12-2008, 09:54 AM
And here we have yet another example of how Obama's presence has pulled this election down to the level of a race issue.

At a time when the US faces so many issues that are vital to her future we have a candidate that makes the discussion center on skin color.

Nobody can possibly be this big of a douchebag.

vailpass
03-12-2008, 09:59 AM
Have you used the search feature to figure out who you are yet?

Obama will get the nomination and he will win the general real easy.

After that, I think you will find yourself spending less time here at chiefs planet, revealing your problems with race, and more time at websites whose focus is people like you with your same problem.

The old "if you aint for Obama you must be a racist" schtick. Keep pushing that crap if you think it will help.

Got all your eggs in the Obama basket huh? Wonder what you will do if babydaddy doesn't win?

Don't worry about old-school guys like me. We've been here a LONG time and are well situated to ride out any blips on the radar that may occur.

Should obama win I'll merely manage until he is gone. Then I'll enjoy the long conservative reign a failed administration such as his will bring, although I suspect his victory may not be nearly as foregone a conclusion as you think.

HolmeZz
03-12-2008, 10:01 AM
No it isn't.

Her argument seems to be that no black candidate is legitimate if they're pulling down a lopsided share of the black vote.

Maybe she thinks we should do something to combat that. Maybe make their vote count 3/5ths as much as everyone else's.

vailpass
03-12-2008, 10:05 AM
Nobody can possibly be this big of a douchebag.

Come on reverend Sharpton, at least give me some of those rhyming insults for which you are so well known.
Or was that Don King?
Well, maybe you could invoke the Wookie defense; I always enjoy that one.

jettio
03-12-2008, 10:10 AM
The old "if you aint for Obama you must be a racist" schtick. Keep pushing that crap if you think it will help.

Got all your eggs in the Obama basket huh? Wonder what you will do if babydaddy doesn't win?

Don't worry about old-school guys like me. We've been here a LONG time and are well situated to ride out any blips on the radar that may occur.

Should obama win I'll merely manage until he is gone. Then I'll enjoy the long conservative reign a failed administration such as his will bring, although I suspect his victory may not be nearly as foregone a conclusion as you think.

I know about you based on everything you have posted here since you have been here. A lot of it well before Obama decided to run for President.

Use the chiefs planet search feature, you might learn what a lot of people here already know about you.

I am not sure why you think that kind of posting is welcome here, but I know I do the membership a favor when I invite you to post your nonsense somewhere else.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 10:11 AM
Her argument seems to be that no black candidate is legitimate if they're pulling down a lopsided share of the black vote.

She's not even saying that Obama's not legitimate. She's just saying that he owes his current slim lead over Clinton to the fact that he's black. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me. If some white noob Senator had a gift for giving inspiring speeches, he might be seen as a potential future candidate or a possible VP pick, but he wouldn't have had the messiah-like impact that Obama has had and he wouldn't be beating Hillary in this election.

jettio
03-12-2008, 10:21 AM
She's not even saying that Obama's not legitimate. She's just saying that he owes his current slim lead over Clinton to the fact that he's black. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me. If some white noob Senator had a gift for giving inspiring speeches, he might be seen as a potential future candidate or a possible VP pick, but he wouldn't have had the messiah-like impact that Obama has had and he wouldn't be beating Hillary in this election.


You are always wrong. You are just projecting some kind of argument behind what she plainly stated. I could do that. How's this?

Her remarks are entirely based on the idea that she supported her home state female senator who she perceived to be such a strong front-runner that there would be a coronation for her after she quickly dispatched Edwards and the other candidates.

She did not expect Obama to be such an outstanding candidate with such a well run campaign and now that her hopes that Hillary would be the automatic queen are being dashed by reality and she is pissing and moaning about it and fishing for excuses.

That is all that is going on, not everybody that wants to vote for the democtratic nominee for President thinks Hillary deserves a coronation, and that is why she did not get a coronation.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 10:25 AM
He has been endorsed by several top Jewish leaders. One was Amb. Dan Kurtzer, who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel from 2001 to 2005.

He's been endorsed by Louis Farrakhan too. (maybe not technically an endorsement, whatever that means, but a de facto endorsement nonetheless)

Robert Malley, one of his foreign policy advisors, blamed Israel for the failure of President Clinton's efforts to bring peace to the region and he also thinks we should be engaging Hamas and opening up the flow of aid to the Hamas government. I think it's fair to say that he and Samantha Power have a more European view of the middle east situation and that they would be to the left of the Clinton administration on middle east policy.

I think that when it's all said and done, Hillary will end up with considerably more Jewish support than Obama.

HolmeZz
03-12-2008, 10:26 AM
She's not even saying that Obama's not legitimate.

"And the country is caught up in the concept."

Clearly if they weren't caught in the fact that he was black, they'd realize he wasn't much of a candidate or worthy of the nomination. But that's not de-legitimizing anybody.

She's just saying that he owes his current slim lead over Clinton to the fact that he's black. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me. If some white noob Senator had a gift for giving inspiring speeches, he might be seen as a potential future candidate or a possible VP pick, but he wouldn't have had the messiah-like impact that Obama has had and he wouldn't be beating Hillary in this election.

You're not looking at it big picture. There are plenty of states Obama has won that have no substantial black populations to speak of. Furthermore, if Obama was white he likely would've been winning the white vote by a decent margin against Hillary all across the country(which makes up just a tad more of the electorate than black people). He would be doing much much better with older people and he would've fared better with hispanics in Texas. There are benefits and detriments to having a race and gender and it'd be absolutely impossible to accurately assume how this election would've turned out otherwise. Two things have helped him that have nothing to do with race: people have Clinton fatigue, and he opposed the war from the beginning. His 2002 speech on the war is more important to his candidacy than his 2004 DNC speech.

memyselfI
03-12-2008, 10:30 AM
IMO it is different when you inject race or gender into the statement.

You don't find this statement racist? "that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

I don't agree with your first statement.

And stating that Jackson's 'radical' views were enabling him to be in the race because he's black is not a racist remark. It acknowledges that his race had embraced a more progressive agenda enabling him to run and be considered SERIOUSLY than would be possible if he were a white man. Look at his views relevant to that time. He was very progressive for the time. He was taken quite seriously before he was marginalized and thereby considered a special interest fringe factor.

vailpass
03-12-2008, 10:34 AM
I know about you based on everything you have posted here since you have been here. A lot of it well before Obama decided to run for President.

Use the chiefs planet search feature, you might learn what a lot of people here already know about you.

I am not sure why you think that kind of posting is welcome here, but I know I do the membership a favor when I invite you to post your nonsense somewhere else.

I'm just a guest here and don't consider myself any more than that. Your attempt at painting me as something I am not is both juvenille and misguided. Do you place yourself above the moderators and owners of this board in deciding who stays and who goes?

I find it interesting that instead of addressing the issues at hand you resort to veiled innuendo and some junior-high level grasp at "go away I don't like what you say".
Is this typical of your group?

memyselfI
03-12-2008, 10:34 AM
That's true up to the point where Obama and/or his supporters start calling Ferraro a racist. If you guys took the high road, then the entire responsibility for injecting race into the discussion would fall on the Clintons. As it is, you guys deserve your share of the blame for playing the race game.

Actually, it's not true. Michelle Obama was lamenting the lack of support from blacks before they 'woke up' and forgot about their 'fears' and 'inferiority' I posted a link to the video. The Baaarack campaign has had this card on the table for over a year. But only THEY can play it. If anyone else does they are racist.

:rolleyes:

vailpass
03-12-2008, 10:35 AM
Wonder what Holmes and Jettio will do if George and Weezy don't make it to the Big House?

dirk digler
03-12-2008, 10:45 AM
He's been endorsed by Louis Farrakhan too. (maybe not technically an endorsement, whatever that means, but a de facto endorsement nonetheless)

Robert Malley, one of his foreign policy advisors, blamed Israel for the failure of President Clinton's efforts to bring peace to the region and he also thinks we should be engaging Hamas and opening up the flow of aid to the Hamas government. I think it's fair to say that he and Samantha Power have a more European view of the middle east situation and that they would be to the left of the Clinton administration on middle east policy.

I think that when it's all said and done, Hillary will end up with considerably more Jewish support than Obama.

I would post the contents but here is the transcript of his meeting with Jewish leaders in Ohio. Interesting read.

http://elections.jta.org/2008/02/25/obama-reaches-out-to-jewish-leaders/

dirk digler
03-12-2008, 10:45 AM
Wonder what Holmes and Jettio will do if George and Weezy don't make it to the Big House?

Funny that you still haven't answered my question.

Do black or females deserve to be POTUS?

bkkcoh
03-12-2008, 10:54 AM
Funny that you still haven't answered my question.

Do black or females deserve to be POTUS?



Better question, is one of the qualifications for POTUS that you have to be a woman or black?

I wouldn't vote for either Hillary or Obama, not because of gender or race, but because of policies.

vailpass
03-12-2008, 10:54 AM
Funny that you still haven't answered my question.

Do black or females deserve to be POTUS?

You're killing me dude. What's next: when did you quit beating your wife?
Your insinuation that my desire to see a POTUS elected on the issues and not on his/her race/gender makes me a racist/mysogynist verges on an insult.

dirk digler
03-12-2008, 11:02 AM
Better question, is one of the qualifications for POTUS that you have to be a woman or black?



Obviously not since we have never had one.

You're killing me dude. What's next: when did you quit beating your wife?
Your insinuation that my desire to see a POTUS elected on the issues and not on his/her race/gender makes me a racist/mysogynist verges on an insult.

I am not calling you a racist vali it is a simple question.

Ok let's say that a candidate that was running for POTUS you agreed with 99% on the issues but they were black or a woman would you vote for that person?

patteeu
03-12-2008, 11:14 AM
You're not looking at it big picture. There are plenty of states Obama has won that have no substantial black populations to speak of. Furthermore, if Obama was white he likely would've been winning the white vote by a decent margin against Hillary all across the country(which makes up just a tad more of the electorate than black people). He would be doing much much better with older people and he would've fared better with hispanics in Texas. There are benefits and detriments to having a race and gender and it'd be absolutely impossible to accurately assume how this election would've turned out otherwise. Two things have helped him that have nothing to do with race: people have Clinton fatigue, and he opposed the war from the beginning. His 2002 speech on the war is more important to his candidacy than his 2004 DNC speech.

I certainly haven't tried to say that it is only black people who are voting for Obama on the basis of his race. In fact, this point was made early in the campaign by David Ehrenstein, a black man, when he called Obama a "magic negro (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center)". He talks about how many whites have a desire for this "noble, healing negro" His column is truly prophetic looking back on it now. Here's how he wraps it up:

The senator's famously stem-winding stump speeches have been drawing huge crowds to hear him talk of uniting rather than dividing. A praiseworthy goal. Consequently, even the mild criticisms thrown his way have been waved away, "magically." He used to smoke, but now he doesn't; he racked up a bunch of delinquent parking tickets, but he paid them all back with an apology. And hey, is looking good in a bathing suit a bad thing?

The only mud that momentarily stuck was criticism (white and black alike) concerning Obama's alleged "inauthenticty," as compared to such sterling examples of "genuine" blackness as Al Sharpton and Snoop Dogg. Speaking as an African American whose last name has led to his racial "credentials" being challenged often several times a day I know how pesky this sort of thing can be.

Obama's fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he's written in his two (count 'em) books, or even what he's actually said in those stem-winders. It's the way he's said it that counts the most. It's his manner, which, as presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden ham-fistedly reminded us, is "articulate." His tone is always genial, his voice warm and unthreatening, and he hasn't called his opponents names (despite being baited by the media).

Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him.

vailpass
03-12-2008, 11:15 AM
Obviously not since we have never had one.



I am not calling you a racist vali it is a simple question.

Ok let's say that a candidate that was running for POTUS you agreed with 99% on the issues but they were black or a woman would you vote for that person?

Dirk if you are implying that I would withhold my vote for a qualified candidate on the basis of their color ( a racist action) you are implying that I am a racist.

Issues and how a POTUS aligns with my beliefs on what is best for me, my children and my country are the sole deciding factors on how I cast my vote.

My entire point in this thread was and continues to be that I do NOT want race to be a factor in the presidential election as it is an extremely poor method to select the leader of this powerful nation. Yet race is undeniably a major factor due to Obama, thus my disagreement with the current situation.

dirk digler
03-12-2008, 11:20 AM
Dirk if you are implying that I would withhold my vote for a qualified candidate on the basis of their color ( a racist action) you are implying that I am a racist.

Issues and how a POTUS aligns with my beliefs on what is best for me, my children and my country are the sole deciding factors on how I cast my vote.

My entire point in this thread was and continues to be that I do NOT want race to be a factor in the presidential election as it is an extremely poor method to select the leader of this powerful nation. Yet race is undeniably a major factor due to Obama, thus my disagreement with the current situation.

LMAO

You still can't answer a simple simple question. One more time vali:

let's say that a candidate that was running for POTUS you agreed with 99% on the issues but they were black or a woman would you vote for that person?

Yes or no?


Also race isn't a major factor with Obama if you don't let it be. I am white and I am not supporting him because he is black I am supporting him because of his message. I could care less if he was black, green, yellow whatever.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 11:20 AM
Actually, it's not true. Michelle Obama was lamenting the lack of support from blacks before they 'woke up' and forgot about their 'fears' and 'inferiority' I posted a link to the video. The Baaarack campaign has had this card on the table for over a year. But only THEY can play it. If anyone else does they are racist.

:rolleyes:

I didn't see your video or hear that about Michelle Obama. I guess we didn't have all the outrage from the Obama people to bring my attention to it. I was narrowly focused on the Ferraro incident, but you make a good, more general point.

dirk digler
03-12-2008, 11:21 AM
I found this pretty funny

Here's the evidence: Black voters DO provide unfair advantages in key states


(http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/profile/PJ)
By - March 11, 2008, 9:13PM
Yes, Geraldine Ferraro may be right. I've looked into some key states Obama won in the primary and the numbers don't lie. Just look at the unfair advantage he held in those states based on the demographics:



Percent of state population that is African-American:
Wisconsin: 6% (Obama won +17%)
Minnesota: 4.5% (Obama won +34%)
Washington: 3.6% (Obama won +36%)
Iowa: 2.5% (Obama won +9%)
Wyoming: 0.9% (Obama won +24%)
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ and
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/demmap/There's more though. It's clear that many white voters across America are excited by the prospect of supporting historic black elected officials. This is patently unfairly to other qualified candiates.

For evidence look no further than the United States Senate. Long a bastion of the elite, times have changed because of the demand for more black officials from America's voters. Between 1881 - 1967 there were no African-Americans in the U.S. Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_United_States_Congress#United_States_Senate). But since 1967 there have been 3 black Senators - and Barack Obama is one of them!

While this does mean African-Americans make up only 1% of the U.S. Senate, they've also seen a tripling of their number in that body since 1967. This clearly demonstrates that black politicians have an easy road to success in modern American elections.

It's a fact: Voters across America just want to elect black people - regardless of their positions or the issues they stand for. You can argue with me about my opinion, but you can't argue with the math!

patteeu
03-12-2008, 11:22 AM
LMAO

You still can't answer a simple simple question. One more time vali:

let's say that a candidate that was running for POTUS you agreed with 99% on the issues but they were black or a woman would you vote for that person?

Yes or no?


Also race isn't a major factor with Obama if you don't let it be. I am white and I am not supporting him because he is black I am supporting him because of his message. I could care less if he was black, green, yellow whatever.

He answered your question when he said he decides these things without regard to race or gender.

vailpass
03-12-2008, 11:25 AM
LMAO

You still can't answer a simple simple question. One more time vali:

let's say that a candidate that was running for POTUS you agreed with 99% on the issues but they were black or a woman would you vote for that person?

Yes or no?


Also race isn't a major factor with Obama if you don't let it be. I am white and I am not supporting him because he is black I am supporting him because of his message. I could care less if he was black, green, yellow whatever.

You weren't able to see my answer in my last post? I'll say it again: I vote the issues. Whoever best represents my views, whatever their color or gender, gets my vote.

Your view that race isn't an issue if you don't allow it to be is nice but completely unrealistic. I gave you the headline of today's Times story which read "race is an issue" (paraphrased). There are many numbers which show race to be a major issue. You choose not to believe/accept any of this. If burying your head in the sand works for you then great; that is a skill I do not have.

memyselfI
03-12-2008, 11:25 AM
I didn't see your video or hear that about Michelle Obama. I guess we didn't have all the outrage from the Obama people to bring my attention to it. I was narrowly focused on the Ferraro incident, but you make a good, more general point.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OHzYl8Rg8C0&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OHzYl8Rg8C0&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHzYl8Rg8C0

dirk digler
03-12-2008, 11:32 AM
You weren't able to see my answer in my last post? I'll say it again: I vote the issues. Whoever best represents my views, whatever their color or gender, gets my vote.

Your view that race isn't an issue if you don't allow it to be is nice but completely unrealistic. I gave you the headline of today's Times story which read "race is an issue" (paraphrased). There are many numbers which show race to be a major issue. You choose not to believe/accept any of this. If burying your head in the sand works for you then great; that is a skill I do not have.

Got it thanks. :thumb:

Race\sex isn't an issue for ME personally but I do realize it is an issue nationally and I do realize that there will be people who will not vote for a black guy or a woman.

As far as last night goes just remember it was just over 40 short years ago that three college students were murdered in Mississippi for attempting to register blacks to vote. Also remember that half the state is made up of black people so yeah they are going to support a legitimate black candidate. That is not surprising at all.

vailpass
03-12-2008, 11:47 AM
Got it thanks. :thumb:

Race\sex isn't an issue for ME personally but I do realize it is an issue nationally and I do realize that there will be people who will not vote for a black guy or a woman.

As far as last night goes just remember it was just over 40 short years ago that three college students were murdered in Mississippi for attempting to register blacks to vote. Also remember that half the state is made up of black people so yeah they are going to support a legitimate black candidate. That is not surprising at all.

Whatever else may be going on this is one interesting race. The eyes of the world are definetely on this one.

Carlota69
03-12-2008, 11:53 AM
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OHzYl8Rg8C0&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OHzYl8Rg8C0&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHzYl8Rg8C0


I'm not black, so I can't comment directly on what Michelle is saying. I have no real frame of reference.

However, historically, it is ok for black people, gay people, women and any other minority to call each other names with affection, but, if a white man, straight person etc, uses the same language towards them, it is seen as racist, bigoted or sexist.

So, while Ferraro's comments may not be coming from a racists standpoint, it will be seen as one because she is white.

In reality, only Obamas camp can say anything related to his race.

beer bacon
03-12-2008, 12:37 PM
Wonder what Holmes and Jettio will do if George and Weezy don't make it to the Big House?

Yeah, you clearly aren't bigoted at all. Way to make your case.

vailpass
03-12-2008, 12:39 PM
Yeah, you clearly aren't bigoted at all. Way to make your case.

Hook, line, and sinker.

beer bacon
03-12-2008, 12:43 PM
And here we have yet another example of how Obama's presence has pulled this election down to the level of a race issue.

At a time when the US faces so many issues that are vital to her future we have a candidate that makes the discussion center on skin color.

"I'm a votin fo Obama, he a brotha'!" is not the focus America needs her voters to have this time.

The thought that this empty suit could get into the White House based on such a platform should worry people.
Fortunately I do not believe that is going to happen.

Minorities need to stop running for public office. They are ruining our elections by involving race!

beer bacon
03-12-2008, 01:06 PM
Have you used the search feature to figure out who you are yet?

Obama will get the nomination and he will win the general real easy.

After that, I think you will find yourself spending less time here at chiefs planet, revealing your problems with race, and more time at websites whose focus is people like you with your same problem.

vailpass in "Right on, Andy Rooney!" here: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=120826&highlight=race
was hilarious.

I take it back. vailpass is definitely not bigoted. He just enjoys throwing around racial slurs. I mean, really enjoys.

Also, vailpass never shies away from the tough questions:



Do you agree or disagree that aborting all black babies would result in a lowered crime rate?

memyselfI
03-12-2008, 01:12 PM
I'm not black, so I can't comment directly on what Michelle is saying. I have no real frame of reference.

However, historically, it is ok for black people, gay people, women and any other minority to call each other names with affection, but, if a white man, straight person etc, uses the same language towards them, it is seen as racist, bigoted or sexist.

So, while Ferraro's comments may not be coming from a racists standpoint, it will be seen as one because she is white.

In reality, only Obamas camp can say anything related to his race.

I'm Hispanic and I can understand the whole 'we can call each other names but no one else better' mentality. But, she's doing more than perpetuating her own race's controversial stereotypes.

She's actually stating that if her race doesn't WAKE UP and support her husband (the Savior) then they basically have chosen to remain afraid, inferior, and second class. She's laid out the argument that if you are of this race and don't vote race it's because you continue to believe 'the Man' is better than you...

Can you imagine the outrage if Ferraro had actually stated anything remotely close to the remarks that Mrs. Obamessiah said?

Carlota69
03-12-2008, 01:28 PM
I'm Hispanic and I can understand the whole 'we can call each other names but no one else better' mentality. But, she's doing more than perpetuating her own race's controversial stereotypes.

She's actually stating that if her race doesn't WAKE UP and support her husband (the Savior) then they basically have chosen to remain afraid, inferior, and second class. She's laid out the argument that if you are of this race and don't this race it's because you continue to believe 'the Man' is better than you...

Can you imagine the outrage if Ferraro had actually stated anything remotely close to the remarks that Mrs. Obamessiah said?

Oh yeah. Shit, Bill said "Well Jesse Jackson won SC" and all hell brooke loose. All of the sudden the Clintons, who were well known as friends of the black community, were complete racists. They brought race into the election? It was already there, thanks to the reality of it as well as statements made by Michelle Obama.

But they can say it, bring it out, but no one else better--or else you will be deemed a racists.

it's so ****ing retarded.

|Zach|
03-12-2008, 02:16 PM
ROFL @ tags

jettio
03-12-2008, 02:58 PM
Oh yeah. Shit, Bill said "Well Jesse Jackson won SC" and all hell brooke loose. All of the sudden the Clintons, who were well known as friends of the black community, were complete racists. They brought race into the election? It was already there, thanks to the reality of it as well as statements made by Michelle Obama.

But they can say it, bring it out, but no one else better--or else you will be deemed a racists.

it's so ****ing retarded.


Do you care to explain what you object to in regards to Michelle Obama's accurate prediction that the poll numbers regarding black support vis a vis her husband and Hillary would change once Barack is perceived as viable.

The interviewer asked her what she thought of Hillary polling better and she explained that she expected that to change once black voters believed he could win.

My mother emigrated from Ireland and the 1960 election was the first one after her naturalization. She voted for JFK. She does not have to apologize for that and she does not have to do any sophisitcated policy analysis in order to justify her vote. I expect that if you could look it up you would find that JFK had 90%+ support among Irish-Americans.

Democrats have been counting on 85-95% support from African-Americans, even though many have argued that they have been too loyal to the Democratic party.

Go ahead and explain what exactly is wrong with her answer to the question, seems to me that she predicted it right and nobody changed their vote because of her saying that. They changed their vote because Barack won Iowa, and 20+ states since, and the Clintons, who have experience with black folks enough to understand what Michelle Obama was saying, went out of their way to say stuff that they knew to be racial.

Carlota69
03-12-2008, 03:33 PM
Do you care to explain what you object to in regards to Michelle Obama's accurate prediction that the poll numbers regarding black support vis a vis her husband and Hillary would change once Barack is perceived as viable.

The interviewer asked her what she thought of Hillary polling better and she explained that she expected that to change once black voters believed he could win.

My mother emigrated from Ireland and the 1960 election was the first one after her naturalization. She voted for JFK. She does not have to apologize for that and she does not have to do any sophisitcated policy analysis in order to justify her vote. I expect that if you could look it up you would find that JFK had 90%+ support among Irish-Americans.

Democrats have been counting on 85-95% support from African-Americans, even though many have argued that they have been too loyal to the Democratic party.

Go ahead and explain what exactly is wrong with her answer to the question, seems to me that she predicted it right and nobody changed their vote because of her saying that. They changed their vote because Barack won Iowa, and 20+ states since, and the Clintons, who have experience with black folks enough to understand what Michelle Obama was saying, went out of their way to say stuff that they knew to be racial.

I already stated that I dont have a frame of reference to what Michelle said. I am white/latin and I can't possibly understand the plight of black americans. Period.

My point is that white people, straight people etc...cannot say the same things as those in the monirity groups. If a white woman would of said anything even remotely close to what Michelle said, it would deemed as racists, and I think that's retarded, but it is reality.

Cave Johnson
03-12-2008, 04:11 PM
This "Magic Negro" stuff is really powerful juju. Just as Harold Ford.

HonestChieffan
03-12-2008, 04:18 PM
Political Correctness has now driven what is allowable to a new low.

jettio
03-12-2008, 05:27 PM
Political Correctness has now driven what is allowable to a new low.


Correctness is the issue. Not political correctness.

It was a plainly stupid thing to say.

And it was said by a bat-sh*t crazy old lady that thought her lady was a shoo-in, and since her poorly managed campaign is getting eclipsed by a better combination of candidate and campaign.

Sour grapes by someone searching for a false reason to explain her sides failure.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 05:39 PM
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OHzYl8Rg8C0&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OHzYl8Rg8C0&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHzYl8Rg8C0

Wow. Barack ought to lock her in the closet and duct tape her mouth. She can't be a net positive for his campaign can she? If the Obama campaign thinks she is, they must be *trying* to exploit racially conscious emotions.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-12-2008, 05:40 PM
vailpass in "Right on, Andy Rooney!" here: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=120826&highlight=race
was hilarious.

I take it back. vailpass is definitely not bigoted. He just enjoys throwing around racial slurs. I mean, really enjoys.

Also, vailpass never shies away from the tough questions:

If not for the site's filter of the word "n*gger", he probably would have been banned for three separate instances just a week ago.

Cochise
03-12-2008, 06:26 PM
The idea that being black is beneficial in running for high public office is absurd

except in this case when it very clearly is beneficial

HolmeZz
03-12-2008, 06:32 PM
except in this case when it very clearly is beneficial

Helps with some demographics and hurts with others. If it was clearly and purely beneficial, we'd have had many more black presidential candidates and we'd have many more elected black officials. Why do you think we don't?

a1na2
03-12-2008, 07:32 PM
There is not supposed to be any color problems (we all know there are, but..) in the U.S. Those that continue to call out racism are just wrong.

I do not believe in African-Americans if the person never lived in Africa, they are Americans.

In my opinion there is only one classification of person in the U.S. that anyone has any right to be prejudiced against, they are the people in this country illegally. I think that the U.S. needs to do exactly what Eisenhower did during his administration. They shipped 12,000,000 illegals back to Mexico. We need to do the same thing today and at the same time secure the borders.

I am all for immigration, but it has to be done lawfully. If I break the law I get hammered as would most citizens. Non-citizens should not have the same rights as citizens and the citizens should not be held accountable for the expenses of those illegals. I don't see this as a case of racism but a case of law and order.

banyon
03-12-2008, 07:36 PM
except in this case when it very clearly is beneficial

Like how Alan Keyes and Al Sharpton always manage such crushing margins of victory?

Cochise
03-12-2008, 07:52 PM
Like how Alan Keyes and Al Sharpton always manage such crushing margins of victory?

Beneficial, not a total advantage. I think it helps tremendously with some demos, hurts with some, but helps a lot more in total than it hurts. I think there are a lot more people in the country in total who count his race as a positive than a negative.

I don't expect people on the left to feel that way, I think that Clinton may get support from people who aren't racist themselves but truly believe that the mainstream of the country is deeply racist and wouldn't choose him because of it. It's natural to lend more credibility to people you agree with, and liberals agree with liberal politicians who are always making race a huge issue in everything, so they think it's bigger than it is among the general public.

Race isn't going to singlehandedly carry elections for people like Keyes or Sharpton who don't have broad appeal but it can certainly boost someone who is already seemingly agreeable to numbers of people.

banyon
03-12-2008, 08:09 PM
Beneficial, not a total advantage. I think it helps tremendously with some demos, hurts with some, but helps a lot more in total than it hurts. I think there are a lot more people in the country in total who count his race as a positive than a negative.

I don't expect people on the left to feel that way, I think that Clinton may get support from people who aren't racist themselves but truly believe that the mainstream of the country is deeply racist and wouldn't choose him because of it. It's natural to lend more credibility to people you agree with, and liberals agree with liberal politicians who are always making race a huge issue in everything, so they think it's bigger than it is among the general public.

Race isn't going to singlehandedly carry elections for people like Keyes or Sharpton who don't have broad appeal but it can certainly boost someone who is already seemingly agreeable to numbers of people.

Putting it that way seems like a reasonable position. I guess if pressed, I'd have to admit that I think having a black president might be positive for its historical significance (giving black kids something additional to aspire to and believe in, perhaps healing a small part of the racial divide). But I wouldn't support him if I didn't think he was a candidate I could trust. I'd probably feel the same type of historical import for the first woman president, except that it's Hillary and i can't trust her for anything.

HolmeZz
03-12-2008, 08:49 PM
I do not believe in African-Americans if the person never lived in Africa, they are Americans.

In my opinion there is only one classification of person in the U.S. that anyone has any right to be prejudiced against, they are the people in this country illegally.

You ever met someone here illegally? Or have you just heard about them on TV?

a1na2
03-12-2008, 09:12 PM
You ever met someone here illegally? Or have you just heard about them on TV?

I have worked with illegals. They are all over just in case you are not aware. In Oklahoma there was a mass exodus after the new state law was signed. Now there are 25,000 fewer illegals in the general area that I work. In Houston there is a rather large number of illegals working. There are times you can tell that a guy is possibly illegal by the methods he uses to perform tasks. I find that you let the authorities handle the situations when they arise.

You seem to be leading to the question of whether I hate the illegals. I don't, but they are breaking the law of the U.S. That is the bottom line.

We had one individual working that complained that too much of his check was being withheld. We found out that his SSN was that of a dead man and that dead man had a judgment against him by the IRS. They were garnishing his wages to pay the dead guys debt. The contracting company that placed him with us has been fired and turned in to the authorities. Granted I did not meet this individual, but that incident went through our company rather quickly.

Have you ever worked with the illegals or have you just heard about it on TV?

HolmeZz
03-12-2008, 10:03 PM
Have you ever worked with the illegals or have you just heard about it on TV?

No, I haven't worked with one. I've known a few quite well. Good people and not worthy of anyone's prejudices.

a1na2
03-12-2008, 10:07 PM
No, I haven't worked with one. I've known a few quite well. Good people and not worthy of anyone's prejudices.

Is it prejudice if they are breaking the law? Are you not held accountable for breaking the laws of the nation, state, county, or city in which you live?

You seem to have a very large problem understanding the words:

ILLEGAL ALIEN.

It isn't about whether they are good people, the fact that they are breaking the law is the point being made across the land.

HolmeZz
03-12-2008, 10:10 PM
Is it prejudice if they are breaking the law? Are you not held accountable for breaking the laws of the nation, state, county, or city in which you live?

You seem to have a very large problem understanding the words:

ILLEGAL ALIEN.

It isn't about whether they are good people, the fact that they are breaking the law is the point being made across the land.


You seem to have a hard time understanding that that doesn't warrant your prejudices. The 'law' isn't a justifiable compass. Being an adulterer is just a little worse than running a red light.

a1na2
03-13-2008, 05:17 AM
You seem to have a hard time understanding that that doesn't warrant your prejudices. The 'law' isn't a justifiable compass. Being an adulterer is just a little worse than running a red light.

Just how dense are you? I don't treat anyone differently, but that doesn't mean that I have to accept them with open arms into MY country. You seem to be more prejudiced against any American that feels that illegal alien is a bad thing.

Where does adultery come into play regarding traffic laws or being an illegal alien, you are making illogical associations here, that seems to be your biggest problem.

Is it OK if Jack comes to your house everyday while you are at work and eat his meals and use your home? Maybe that's what we need.

Call the INS and sponsor your favorite illegal alien and then you can be responsible for one (or a family). Get all of your friends that feel the same and setup a sponsorship program that will allow all of the illegals to be here legally.

You have the opportunity to be #1 on your block to turn an illegal alien into a productive citizen at your direct expense. You will have to cover their medical expenses, you know the whole gambit. Thanks for your willingness to volunteer your home to "Jack".

Baby Lee
03-13-2008, 05:31 AM
Beneficial, not a total advantage. I think it helps tremendously with some demos, hurts with some, but helps a lot more in total than it hurts. I think there are a lot more people in the country in total who count his race as a positive than a negative.
It might be helping NOW, but he still had to win people over.
If anything, he started in a hole, with blacks thinking 'aint' no black man gonna be elected in this country.'

patteeu
03-13-2008, 10:06 AM
Helps with some demographics and hurts with others. If it was clearly and purely beneficial, we'd have had many more black presidential candidates and we'd have many more elected black officials. Why do you think we don't?

Because "black" alone is not sufficient. Other factors must also be present to invoke the magic negro effect described by David Ehrenstein.

Edit: And as Baby Lee points out, he also had to do something other than simply be black to overcome the "inauthentic" hurdle that he faced at the beginning of this contest. Of course, the "inauthentic" charge grew out of those very attributes that enabled him benefit from the magic negro effect. He deserves a lot of credit for being about to do both.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 10:13 AM
Putting it that way seems like a reasonable position. I guess if pressed, I'd have to admit that I think having a black president might be positive for its historical significance (giving black kids something additional to aspire to and believe in, perhaps healing a small part of the racial divide). But I wouldn't support him if I didn't think he was a candidate I could trust. I'd probably feel the same type of historical import for the first woman president, except that it's Hillary and i can't trust her for anything.

I think there'd be a better chance of this sort of "healing" if the black president were a centrist like Colin Powell or Harold Ford Jr. and if he was paired up with a Congress that had at least one house controlled by the opposite party. Obama has the right demeanor for this kind of healing, but he's clearly a pretty dedicated liberal and, if elected, he's likely to be working with a Congress heavily dominated by democrats. That's a recipe for the opposite of healing, IMO, because the liberal agenda that is bound to follow will be fought tooth and nail by the minority and they will inevitably be smeared as racists by a significant portion of the left even though I don't think Obama will be the one doing it.

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 10:15 AM
Because "black" alone is not sufficient. Other factors must also be present to invoke the magic negro effect described by David Ehrenstein.

Yes, just because another black guy came up with the idea doesn't make it any less racist or mean you need to keep alluding to it. It's as offensive as referring to the blacks voting for Hillary as 'good slaves'.

vailpass
03-13-2008, 10:17 AM
Yes, just because another black guy came up with the idea doesn't make it any less racist or mean you need to keep alluding to it. It's as offensive as referring to the blacks voting for Hillary as 'good slaves'.

Do you ever get tired of playing this role?

patteeu
03-13-2008, 10:21 AM
Yes, just because another black guy came up with the idea doesn't make it any less racist or mean you need to keep alluding to it. It's as offensive as referring to the blacks voting for Hillary as 'good slaves'.

It's not racist, it's an assessment of the racism of others, i.e. those who would be influenced to vote for Obama because of the combination of his race and his other attributes that make him "safe".

When you say "yes" does that mean you agree with me?

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 10:26 AM
It's not racist, it's an assessment of the racism of others, i.e.

No, it's the perception that people must be subscribing to your reasoning or otherwise they wouldn't be doing what they're doing. Just using that retarded logic, it'd pretty much be impossible for any black candidate to ever make a run at the White House without having to deal with that stuff.

When you say "yes" does that mean you agree with me?

No.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 10:27 AM
Do you ever get tired of playing this role?

Do you ever get tired of playing the "role" of racial slur slinging bigot?

vailpass
03-13-2008, 10:28 AM
Do you ever get tired of playing the "role" of racial slur slinging bigot?

Oh great a PC Pussy has attached itself to my leg.
Why don't you and Hamas get together and figure out how to earn a paycheck with a comma in it?

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 10:30 AM
Oh great a PC Pussy has attached itself to my leg.
Why don't you and Hamas get together and figure out how to earn a paycheck with a comma in it?

You could have just said, "No."

vailpass
03-13-2008, 10:32 AM
You could have just said, "No."

Your mom never does why should I?

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 10:34 AM
Your mom never does why should I?

welp.

vailpass
03-13-2008, 10:35 AM
welp.

Come on that was a good one. Maybe not quite redrum-esque but you have to admit the timing was there.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 10:38 AM
Come on that was a good one. Maybe not quite redrum-esque but you have to admit the timing was there.

I did chuckle, but it was because it was so unexpected.

vailpass
03-13-2008, 10:43 AM
I did chuckle, but it was because it was so unexpected.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

patteeu
03-13-2008, 12:07 PM
No, it's the perception that people must be subscribing to your reasoning or otherwise they wouldn't be doing what they're doing. Just using that retarded logic, it'd pretty much be impossible for any black candidate to ever make a run at the White House without having to deal with that stuff.

As opposed to the perception you have of other people's voting rationales? Obviously, neither of us can know for sure that our theories are correct. That isn't really a groundbreaking observation.

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 12:11 PM
As opposed to the perception you have of other people's voting rationales? Obviously, neither of us can know for sure that our theories are correct. That isn't really a groundbreaking observation.

No, but you're using it to support Ferraro's belief. Do you believe there are more white people voting for him solely because he's black or white people who won't vote for him solely because he's black?

DaKCMan AP
03-14-2008, 09:41 AM
Hi DaKC,
Question for you: is the Jewish vote leaning in any particular direction this year that you are aware of? Is there any one candidate that you think speaks more to the Jew both here and in Israel?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080314/ap_on_el_pr/obama_jewish_voters;_ylt=AqIRLJdWK_fD2DSVvmcGbXis0NUE

vailpass
03-14-2008, 09:57 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080314/ap_on_el_pr/obama_jewish_voters;_ylt=AqIRLJdWK_fD2DSVvmcGbXis0NUE

Thanks KCMan, very interesting read. Seems like Yahoo is backing Obama? I wonder if this issue will come to light if Obama makes it to the General election.
I'm curious to see how McCain plays with the Jewish vote as well.
I feel like Israel is a key ally in the ME and any POTUS that failed to support them would be a negative IMO.

patteeu
03-14-2008, 10:43 AM
No, but you're using it to support Ferraro's belief. Do you believe there are more white people voting for him solely because he's black or white people who won't vote for him solely because he's black?

I think there are more who would vote against him soley because he is black. For a large group of non-racist whites though, being black is a benefit to Obama because people want to be able to vote for a black man to prove (maybe just to themselves) that they are beyond race.

HolmeZz
03-14-2008, 10:47 AM
I think there are more who would vote against him soley because he is black.

?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solely

irishjayhawk
03-14-2008, 10:49 AM
Thanks KCMan, very interesting read. Seems like Yahoo is backing Obama? I wonder if this issue will come to light if Obama makes it to the General election.
I'm curious to see how McCain plays with the Jewish vote as well.
I feel like Israel is a key ally in the ME and any POTUS that failed to support them would be a negative IMO.

I would guess most tech sites (Yahoo, is most definitely, a tech site) will support Obama because of his openness.

Also, can you explain to me why we need to back Israel? It seems that a lot of our trouble stem from that exact backing.

patteeu
03-14-2008, 10:52 AM
Thanks KCMan, very interesting read. Seems like Yahoo is backing Obama? I wonder if this issue will come to light if Obama makes it to the General election.
I'm curious to see how McCain plays with the Jewish vote as well.
I feel like Israel is a key ally in the ME and any POTUS that failed to support them would be a negative IMO.

I have no confidence that McCain will very aggressively try to draw distinctions between himself and Obama on this or just about any other issue.

It's worth paying attention to the advisors that Obama chooses to surround himself with though.

Robert Malley, for example. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/barack_obamas_middle_east_expe.html)

Barack Obama's real thinking about Israel and the Middle East continues to be an enigma. The words he chose in an address to AIPAC create a different impression than the composition of his foreign policy advisory team. Several advisors have evidenced a history of suspicion and worse toward Israel. One of his advisors in particular, Robert Malley, clearly warrants attention, as does the reasoning that led him to being chosen by Barack Obama.

...

Malley has seemingly followed in his father's footsteps: he represents the next generation of anti-Israel activism. Through his writings he has served as a willing propagandist, bending the truth (and more) to serve an agenda that is marked by anti-Israel bias; he heads a group of Middle East policy advisers for a think-tank funded (in part) by anti-Israel billionaire activist George Soros; and now is on the foreign policy staff of a leading Presidential contender. Each step up the ladder seems to be a step closer towards his goal of empowering radicals and weakening the ties between American and our ally Israel.

Robert Malley's writings strike me as being akin to propaganda. One notable example is an op-ed that was published in the New York Times (Fictions About the Failure at Camp David). The column indicted Israel for not being generous enough at Camp David and blamed the failure of the talks on the Israelis.

Malley has repeated this line of attack in numerous op-eds over the years, often co-writing with Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Yasser Arafat (see, for example, Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors ). He was also believed to be the chief source for an article by Deborah Sontag that whitewashed Arafat's role in the collapse of the peace process, an article that has been widely criticized as riddled with errors and bias.

Malley is a revisionist and his views are sharply at odds with the views of others who participated at Camp David, including Ambassador Dennis Ross and President Bill Clinton. Malley's myth-making has been peddled in the notably anti-Israel magazine, Counterpunch and by Norman Finkelstein, the failed academic recently denied tenure at DePaul University . Malley's Camp David propaganda has also become fodder for Palestinians, Arab rejectionists, and anti-Israel activists across the world.

more... (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/barack_obamas_middle_east_expe.html)

And Samantha "Hillary is a monster" Power, a recently departed senior advisor, for another. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/samantha_power_and_obamas_fore_1.html)

It is not at all hard to imagine her having a senior foreign policy role in an Obama administration, perhaps as US Ambassador to the United Nations, an organization she views warmly. The problem for those who favor a strong US-Israel relationship is that Power seems obsessed with Israel, and in a negative way. Much like the authors of the Baker-Hamilton report, she believes resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to solving other problems in the Middle East. And it is clear that her approach to addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be for the US to behave in a more "even handed" fashion, which of course means withdrawing US support for Israel, and instead applying more pressure on Israel for concessions.

more... (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/samantha_power_and_obamas_fore_1.html)

DaKCMan AP
03-14-2008, 10:53 AM
I would guess most tech sites (Yahoo, is most definitely, a tech site) will support Obama because of his openness.

Also, can you explain to me why we need to back Israel? It seems that a lot of our trouble stem from that exact backing.

Sure, lets drop our one ally in the most volatile region of the world. :spock:

patteeu
03-14-2008, 10:54 AM
?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solely

My bad. I misspelled it.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 11:01 AM
Ah pat, Obama also has a NeoCon fp advisor according to what I've read. They all do.
McCain just has the worst of the bunch imo.

patteeu
03-14-2008, 11:06 AM
Ah pat, Obama also has a NeoCon fp advisor according to what I've read. They all do.
McCain just has the worst of the bunch imo.

Who is this neocon advisor that you keep saying Obama has? Frankly, your definition of neocon is so broad that your claim means very little without any specifics.

HolmeZz
03-14-2008, 11:07 AM
My bad. I misspelled it.

Nah, I'm not a grammar nazi. I thought you bolded it to point out I misspelled it. :-[

patteeu
03-14-2008, 11:15 AM
Nah, I'm not a grammar nazi. I thought you bolded it to point out I misspelled it. :-[

LOL, no I didn't even notice. But since you did, now I'm going to use that as my excuse. :D

I just bolded it to emphasize that that is a critical adjective. There are more white people who are racists who will vote against him on the basis of race alone than people who want to vote for him on the basis of race alone, IMO.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 11:23 AM
Who is this neocon advisor that you keep saying Obama has? Frankly, your definition of neocon is so broad that your claim means very little without any specifics.

No it's not as broad as you think. They're liberals.
Obama does believe, because I posted his own quotes, how we must spread our values around the world. I even posted a quote of Kagan liking him because he felt he was interventionist. It was from Cato. Google it.

I don't think Obama is one but I do think he is the soft Wilsonian-version more. Meaning he believes in using the UN more and is more left-wing. But I was talking about advisors.

As for his advisors I had a list of all of the leading candidates who FP advisors which they will rely on as none of them have any FP experience. I don't have it to hand right now but I'll get it later.

In fact it was due to this where I have some doubt on Obama, changing once in office. Not certain though.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 11:29 AM
It was article by Phillip Giraldi, former CIA, who writes for American Conservative and antiwar
( libertarian). Gasp! Power was released recently I think.

Barack Obama is somewhat more enigmatic, but his recent ill-advised pledge to attack Pakistan if Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf does not do something about the Taliban and al-Qaeda shows that he is working hard to catch up. Obama's key advisers who speak for him on foreign policy include Gregory Craig, Anthony Lake, and Samantha Power. Craig is a leading Washington lawyer who was a White House special counsel under Bill Clinton and defended the president in his impeachment trial. Lake was also a Bill Clinton adviser who was involved in the Bosnian conflict. Power is an Irish-born Harvard professor from the Kennedy School who is regarded as an expert on Third World issues. None of the three is considered to be particularly partisan on any foreign policy issues but genocide, which Power has written a book about, but Obama is also accelerating his efforts to woo Jewish donors and to improve his standing with AIPAC, which has been suspicious of him because of youthful indiscretions that included expressions of sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians. He recently appointed Eric Lynn to develop an aggressive program of outreach to the Jewish community on his record of support for Israel, which he claims is unwavering. Obama fully endorsed Israel's invasion of Lebanon last year, and he has also cited his more recent sponsorship of the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of May 2007, another irresponsible piece of legislation by Congress that will increase the suffering of the Iranian people while doing nothing to change the country's leadership. He has pledged that Iran will not be allowed to threaten Israel through its nuclear program, but he is vague on exactly what he would do to stop it.

NeoLibs and NeoCons, United and Interchangeable (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=11438)

I think he'll take us into Dafur.

vailpass
03-14-2008, 11:37 AM
I would guess most tech sites (Yahoo, is most definitely, a tech site) will support Obama because of his openness.

Also, can you explain to me why we need to back Israel? It seems that a lot of our trouble stem from that exact backing.

Are you serious?

patteeu
03-14-2008, 11:38 AM
It was article by Phillip Giraldi, former CIA, who writes for American Conservative and antiwar
( libertarian). Gasp! Power was released recently I think.



NeoLibs and NeoCons, United and Interchangeable (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=11438)

I think he'll take us into Dafur.

Like I said, your definition is incredibly broad. Everyone who isn't an isolationist is a neocon I suppose. :rolleyes: Some of the people you lump together would be bitter political enemies if they were paired together. There's not a lot of similarity between, say, Bill Kristol and Samantha Power.

irishjayhawk
03-14-2008, 12:52 PM
Sure, lets drop our one ally in the most volatile region of the world. :spock:

Ally? You mean a US Front country. A country that is so heavily backed by the US that it really isn't an ally but rather an extension. Am I wrong?

Are you serious?

Yes, I'm serious. I don't see how meddling in the ME can make our situation better. Just like I can see how if the ME was a united nation and was meddling with things here, we wouldn't like it.

As much as Ron Paul was off on many other things, his concept of blow back is 100% correct. All it does is require people to regain empathy and employ it in a global scale.

pikesome
03-14-2008, 01:01 PM
Ally? You mean a US Front country. A country that is so heavily backed by the US that it really isn't an ally but rather an extension. Am I wrong?

Very. My biggest problem with Israel is that they are always out for number one. And that ain't us. I don't blame them but "ally" seems a bit strong of a word. They would gladly use us for their own purposes.

And yes, I know we would most of the time too. It is my side though.

irishjayhawk
03-14-2008, 01:02 PM
Very. My biggest problem with Israel is that they are always out for number one. And that ain't us. I don't blame them but "ally" seems a bit strong of a word. They would gladly use us for their own purposes.

And yes, I know we would most of the time too. It is my side though.

Fair enough, but don't they get most of the military backing (tanks, weaponry, etc) from the US over time? I mean we could have easily picked Palestine back in the day.

pikesome
03-14-2008, 01:10 PM
Fair enough, but don't they get most of the military backing (tanks, weaponry, etc) from the US over time? I mean we could have easily picked Palestine back in the day.

The US needs Israel more than they need us. And they know it. Too many influential pro-Iraeli supporters, too much reliance on free-flowing oil, we can not kick them to the curb. They do it to us all the time.
"Please don't assassinate people".
"Please don't mortar Beirut."
"Please don't bomb Jordan/Syria/Egypt/Iraq/Iran/whoever."
They've got good reasons, most of the time, but they are fully aware that in the end they've got our balls.

Chiefmanwillcatch
03-14-2008, 01:39 PM
Alot of the young people vote for Obama because they think he's a hiphop guy.

They loved how he shaked his ass and looked like dancing jigaboo on 'ellen'.

stupidass kids.

HolmeZz
03-14-2008, 01:49 PM
Alot of the young people vote for Obama because they think he's a hiphop guy.

They loved how he shaked his ass and looked like dancing jigaboo on 'ellen'.

stupidass kids.

Because nothing says hip-hop cred like appearing on Ellen.

You will be missed, Marlboro_Chief.

vailpass
03-14-2008, 04:21 PM
Alot of the young people vote for Obama because they think he's a hiphop guy.

They loved how he shaked his ass and looked like dancing jigaboo on 'ellen'.

stupidass kids.

Damn dude:eek: You're gonna' make Hamas cry so hard he'll start pretending he's a teacher instead of an unaccredited TA again.

Logical
03-14-2008, 07:04 PM
Alot of the young people vote for Obama because they think he's a hiphop guy.

They loved how he shaked his ass and looked like dancing jigaboo on 'ellen'.

stupidass kids.Fraid I have to report this post to the moderators, goodbye.

go bowe
03-15-2008, 12:34 PM
You seem to have a hard time understanding that that doesn't warrant your prejudices. The 'law' isn't a justifiable compass. Being an adulterer is just a little worse than running a red light.bullshit, i say...

pure bullshit...

i got nailed by one of those damned cameras at an intersection...

cost me $85... :banghead:

adultery is legal afaik...

and a lot more fun... :D :D :D

jAZ
05-09-2008, 05:29 PM
My dad had a good point the other day when he said there are millions upon millions of Americans just like him that would never vote for Obama even if he was the best candidate. I am a die hard so I will vote for who ever wins but I don't believe Obama's bullsh*t I see right through it.

What changed?