"Once African-Americans understood that they had a candidate with a serious chance to win the nomination and perhaps the presidency, then it was going to be a question of somewhere between 80 percent and 90 percent were going to support him except in areas where she had particularly strong profile," - Bill Clinton
bill clinton is such an asshat. we don't want people voting for someone because they share our gender or ethnicity, he should be discouraging that kind of identity politics, but instead he's encouraging it consistently.
i don't even know why this guy thinks he's a democrat. gtfo.
he's right, 90 % of blacks voted for obama in MS. it doesn't take credit away from obama's campaign but still.
he was doing the same thing he did when he said jesse jackson won south carolina. it's not that he's lying, but he's choosing a very questionable direction in which to take the dialogue. by emphasizing obama's identity support, he is trying to encourage those who share hillary's demographic to return the favour. he's trying to turn the dialogue of the campaign into one where voters look in the mirror and vote for whoever looks similar to them, rather than encouraging a dialogue about the issues.
it's a very deliberate and shallow way to package the candidates.
PS. many semi-racist white voters will only vote for a black person if he behaves like a white man. obama tries to downplay his blackness, and bill clinton is trying to douse him in black paint. the more you remind those semi-racist white voters that obamas "very black" and hes getting "all the black votes" the more white voters will recoil from his candidacy
For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.
A sudden change of heart? Hardly.
Since Senator John McCain effectively sewed up the GOP nomination last month, Republicans have begun participating in Democratic primaries specifically to vote for Clinton, a tactic that some voters and local Republican activists think will help their party in November. With every delegate important in the tight Democratic race, this trend could help shape the outcome if it continues in the remaining Democratic primaries open to all voters.
Spurred by conservative talk radio, GOP voters who say they would never back Clinton in a general election are voting for her now for strategic reasons: Some want to prolong her bitter nomination battle with Barack Obama, others believe she would be easier to beat than Obama in the fall, or they simply want to register objections to Obama.
"It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office."
Britt, who works in financial services, said he is certain he will vote for McCain in November.
About 1,100 miles north, in Granville, Ohio, Ben Rader, a 66-year-old retired entrepreneur, said he voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary to further confuse the Democratic race. "I'm pretty much tired of the Clintons, and to see her squirm for three or four months with Obama beating her up, it's great, it's wonderful," he said. "It broke my heart, but I had to."
Local Republican activists say stories like these abound in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi, the three states where the recent surge in Republicans voting for Clinton was evident.
Until Texas and Ohio voted on March 4, Obama was receiving far more support than Clinton from GOP voters, many of whom have said in interviews that they were willing to buck their party because they like the Illinois senator. In eight Democratic contests in January and February where detailed exit polling data were available on Republicans, Obama received, on average, about 57 percent of voters who identified themselves as Republicans. Clinton received, on average, a quarter of the Republican votes cast in those races.
But as February gave way to March, the dynamics shifted in both parties' contests: McCain ran away with the Republican race, and Obama, after posting 10 straight victories following Super Tuesday, was poised to run away with the Democratic race. That is when Republicans swung into action.
Conservative radio giant Rush Limbaugh said on Fox News on Feb. 29 that he was urging conservatives to cross over and vote for Clinton, their bête noire nonpareil, "if they can stomach it."
"I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose," Limbaugh said. "They're in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It is fascinating to watch. And it's all going to stop if Hillary loses."
He added, "I know it's a difficult thing to do to vote for a Clinton, but it will sustain this soap opera, and it's something I think we need."
Limbaugh's exhortations seemed to work. In Ohio and Texas on March 4, Republicans comprised 9 percent of the Democratic primary electorate, more than twice the average GOP share of the turnout in the earlier contests where exit polling was conducted. Clinton ran about even with Obama among Republicans in both states, a far more favorable showing among GOP voters than in the early races.
Walter Wilkerson, who has chaired the Republican Party in Montgomery County, Texas, since 1964, said many local conservatives chose to vote for Clinton for strategic reasons.
"These people felt that Clinton would be maybe the easier opponent in the fall," he said. "That remains to be seen."
Wilkerson added, "We have not experienced any crossover of this magnitude since I can remember."
In the Mississippi primary last Tuesday, Republicans made up 12 percent of voters who took a Democratic ballot - their biggest proportion in any state yet - and they went for Clinton over Obama by a 3-to-1 margin.
John Taylor, the GOP chairman in Madison County, said he toured various precincts and witnessed Republican voters taking Democratic ballots to vote for Clinton.
"Some people there that I recognized voting said, 'Hey, I'm going to vote in this primary this year, right now. But don't worry, in November I'll be back,' " Taylor said. "They were going to do some damage if they could."
Another popular conservative radio host, Laura Ingraham, who had also encouraged voters to cast ballots for Clinton, crowed about her apparent success the day after Ohio and Texas voted.
"Without a doubt, Rush, and to a lesser extent me, had some effect on the Republican turnout," Ingraham told Fox News. "When you look at those exit polls, it is really quite striking."
Some political blogs have suggested that the influx of Clinton-voting Republicans prevented Obama from winning delegates he otherwise would have, by inflating Clinton's totals both statewide and in certain congressional districts. A writer for the liberal blog Daily Kos estimated that Obama could have netted an additional five delegates from Mississippi.
It is also possible, though perhaps unlikely, that enough strategically minded Republicans voted for Clinton in Texas to give her a crucial primary victory there: Clinton received roughly 119,000 GOP votes in Texas, according to exit polls, and she beat Obama by about 101,000 votes.
Not everyone casting ballots for Clinton did so primarily to sink her, however. Brent Henslee, 33, a Republican who works at a radio station in Waco, Texas, wanted to keep Clinton in the race to expose more about Obama, whom he sees as more "fluff than substance."
"I'm not buying into all the Obama-mania, is the main reason I did it," he said. "A lot of these people don't know a thing about this guy and they're crazy about him. And I thought that maybe keeping Hillary alive will just shed some more light on the guy."
Of the nine remaining major contests, four - Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Oregon, and South Dakota - have "closed" primaries, which means only Democrats can participate.
If Republicans and conservative independents continue their tactical voting, it may be more likely in Indiana, Montana, and Puerto Rico, which allow anyone to vote, and possibly in North Carolina and West Virginia, which open their primaries to Democrats and independent voters.
"If you are a Republican you could pull a Democrat ballot and vote for the Democrat presidential candidate you think will stand the least chance of beating McCain in the fall general election," the assistant editor of the Greene County Daily World, in southwestern Indiana, wrote in a blog post earlier this month.
Meanwhile, Clinton, despite trailing Obama in delegates, is projecting confidence about her chances as the nomination race careens toward the April 22 Pennsylvania primary. The morning after her big wins in Ohio and Texas, she was asked on Fox News whether she had a message for Limbaugh.
"Be careful what you wish for, Rush," she said with a grin.
It's only fair since McCain didn't start winning among Republican voters until the race was already decided. It was Democrats and Independents who won the nomination for McCain by giving him disproportionate support in a 10 way clusterfuck.
it's not the same thing, those democrats and independents actually like mccain and voted for him sincerely.
the GOP ended up with a candidate that was their best general election shot because of that.
clinton on the other hand has no sincere appeal for republicans, they just want to prolong the fight and, in their greatest dreams, propel her to the nomination and a general election matchup that would be much more favourable to them.
ad: in short, the dems crossing over was sincere and helped the GOP's fall chances. this latest republicans crossing over is insincere and will not help the dem's fall chances, so it's not the same or "fair"
On March 14 2008 00:06 Flaccid wrote: He may be preachy and opinionated, but rarely will you hear the nastiness of the Clinton campaign laid out more eloquently:
oh man this guy makes me fucking barf. what ferraro said was only the most obvious truth. Here's her quote "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. 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."
Of course Obama was lucky in that he has gotten the "let's change things around" feel. When people see Obama, they see a black man and think this is the road to racial equality, freedom, and all that good stuff. Obama being black has had a huge impact on his campaign and it has benefited him immensely. He came from being a nobody to being this well known politician in an incredibly short amount of time. And a lot of his shortcomings like his lack of experience are mostly ignored by the masses because they are only too awed by Obama being black.
Hilary was supposed to get those votes. Because she's a woman and that's just as big a change and just as a good of a step in the right direction. She was supposed to be riding on this 'push for freedom, equality, change, etc'. Now Obama took all those things away from Hilary. And why? because he's black. I'm not saying being black day by day is an advantage because it obviously is not, but him being black did help him immensely in this campaign. The media is apparently too politically correct to talk about race reasonably.
And it also shows how it is still more acceptable to have a black man in a position of authority than it is to have a woman in a position of authority. A lot of people, especially men, don't see how talented, brilliant, and great Hillary is. It's hard for many people to see beyond how her gender and it's only too easy to just brush her off as a "bitch". We don't really have that problem with Obama though.
"Once African-Americans understood that they had a candidate with a serious chance to win the nomination and perhaps the presidency, then it was going to be a question of somewhere between 80 percent and 90 percent were going to support him except in areas where she had particularly strong profile," - Bill Clinton
bill clinton is such an asshat. we don't want people voting for someone because they share our gender or ethnicity, he should be discouraging that kind of identity politics, but instead he's encouraging it consistently.
i don't even know why this guy thinks he's a democrat. gtfo.
If Bill Clinton were right, how come the Latinos are voting for Clinton when she's not one? How come white women cast votes for Obama? That's such ridiculous logic.
I don't think Ferraro's comments are fair. It's been said many times before: Obama and Clinton are different because one's black and the other's a woman. I don't see how either one has an advantage in the novelty department. If Obama were a woman and he campaigned the way he has been, we'd still be supporting him/her. If Clinton were a black man campaigning the way she has been, she/he'd still be a bitch.
It would be kind of mean to just call you retarded, but...
I mean obviously barrack being black is the reason hes leading... I mean
fuck the issues right?
I dont see ferraro as doing anything other than espousing racism and trying to paint him as the black candidate who is only successful because of sympathy votes. And couched in your post is the same thing.
She said the same thing about jesse jackson, and we all know how he became president right?
Every major station has called those statements, at the very least, racially charged.
Clinton isnt losing because her opponent is black
and she sure as fuck isnt losing because shes a fucking woman.
two thirds of democratic primary voters are, get this, women. White women are the majority in the democratic primaries and she has the benefit of many feminist organizations supporting her purely because of gender. Its a stupid, horrible argument and I wish it would die.
The media wont go after him because they are too in awe of his blackness?
The majority of people disagree with you and there is a reason for that.
"Once African-Americans understood that they had a candidate with a serious chance to win the nomination and perhaps the presidency, then it was going to be a question of somewhere between 80 percent and 90 percent were going to support him except in areas where she had particularly strong profile," - Bill Clinton
bill clinton is such an asshat. we don't want people voting for someone because they share our gender or ethnicity, he should be discouraging that kind of identity politics, but instead he's encouraging it consistently.
i don't even know why this guy thinks he's a democrat. gtfo.
If Bill Clinton were right, how come the Latinos are voting for Clinton when she's not one? How come white women cast votes for Obama? That's such ridiculous logic.
latinos don't have anyone who they could vote for based on category left in the race. the closest thing would be the 'latinos dislike blacks' stereotype that apparently exists in the states. so they are free agents/clinton leaning.
as far as white women, clinton wins white women in every contest.
edit: it's not that clintons wrong about identity politics, because they certainly do exist among the retarded echeleons of our species. the point is that he's encouraging those identity politics to continue and giving those identity tensions air time instead of talking about the issues. he's trying to egg it on and sustain it and i think it's a bullshit way to campaign if your a democrat (aka the rainbow party)
On March 18 2008 11:35 fusionsdf wrote: To Itchreliever: wow
I dont even know how to address that
It would be kind of mean to just call you retarded, but...
I mean obviously barrack being black is the reason hes leading... I mean
fuck the issues right?
I dont see ferraro as doing anything other than espousing racism and trying to paint him as the black candidate who is only successful because of sympathy votes. And couched in your post is the same thing.
She said the same thing about jesse jackson, and we all know how he became president right?
Every major station has called those statements, at the very least, racially charged.
Clinton isnt losing because her opponent is black
and she sure as fuck isnt losing because shes a fucking woman.
two thirds of democratic primary voters are, get this, women. White women are the majority in the democratic primaries and she has the benefit of many feminist organizations supporting her purely because of gender. Its a stupid, horrible argument and I wish it would die.
The media wont go after him because they are too in awe of his blackness?
The majority of people disagree with you and there is a reason for that.
I see so many people that don't know the fuck on any of the issues yet support Obama so strongly. That includes women. But it's NOT sympathy votes like you say it is. They're not voting for him because they think the black people need help or they feel sorry for him or anything like that. But he IS gaining the progressive votes and THAT has A LOT to do with him being black. That's all she's saying. Fuck you for not understanding me, retard.
And as for the 2/3 of the Dem. voters being women, women too are biased in terms of sex. It's a societal problem and women aren't free from it, just like how black people aren't not free from bias about black people either.
On March 18 2008 11:51 a-game wrote: edit: it's not that clintons wrong about identity politics, because they certainly do exist among the retarded echeleons of our species. the point is that he's encouraging those identity politics to continue and giving those identity tensions air time instead of talking about the issues. he's trying to egg it on and sustain it and i think it's a bullshit way to campaign if your a democrat (aka the rainbow party)
I really think Clinton being a woman and Obama being black means more to A LOT of people than any of their stances on issues. People feel like one of them getting elected will be a symbolic victory, or bring about change, or whatever. And it can also be argued to be more significant. I mean it's a fucking black/ woman president! It's a big deal.
I don't agree that the candidates should be actively trying to support identity politics though. Not only because it would be divisive and unsuccessful, but also because it's their job to at least pretend it's about the issues (for good reason).
On March 18 2008 11:35 fusionsdf wrote: To Itchreliever: wow
I dont even know how to address that
It would be kind of mean to just call you retarded, but...
I mean obviously barrack being black is the reason hes leading... I mean
fuck the issues right?
I dont see ferraro as doing anything other than espousing racism and trying to paint him as the black candidate who is only successful because of sympathy votes. And couched in your post is the same thing.
She said the same thing about jesse jackson, and we all know how he became president right?
Every major station has called those statements, at the very least, racially charged.
Clinton isnt losing because her opponent is black
and she sure as fuck isnt losing because shes a fucking woman.
two thirds of democratic primary voters are, get this, women. White women are the majority in the democratic primaries and she has the benefit of many feminist organizations supporting her purely because of gender. Its a stupid, horrible argument and I wish it would die.
The media wont go after him because they are too in awe of his blackness?
The majority of people disagree with you and there is a reason for that.
I see so many people that don't know the fuck on any of the issues yet support Obama so strongly. That includes women. But it's NOT sympathy votes like you say it is. They're not voting for him because they think the black people need help or they feel sorry for him or anything like that. But he IS gaining the progressive votes and THAT has A LOT to do with him being black. That's all she's saying. Fuck you for not understanding me, retard.
And as for the 2/3 of the Dem. voters being women, women too are biased in terms of sex. It's a societal problem and women aren't free from it, just like how black people aren't not free from bias about black people either.
i agree to some extent that a lot of obama's appeal comes from his multi-ethnicity and exotic background. those traits intuitively exude an aura of zestiness and freshness.
but the problem is that for any clinton supporter to bring this up is quite hypocritical, seeing as the only reason she was the democratic front runner for so long is because bill got a blowjob from lewinsky and 2/3 of democrats are women.
so yeah, both of these guys got huge boosts to their career by factors that were completely outside of their control. we can thank the average IQ of the american voter for this.
edit: just read your most recent post. yeah exactly, i agree with you %100. i know that identity politics exist and in fact probably dominate any campaign like this, but i still think it's very malicious for either campaign to endorse that kind of voting like bill clinton has done.
edit2: also being black and multi-ethnic only helps you once you've already established a national podium. in the early stages of any career, and in obama's case, being black was a huge obstacle.
hillary has had a much easier ride in fact, all she had to do to get national recognition was to marry bill and enjoy the show he put on. obama had to actually fight through to becoming a senator (no easy task for a black man) before he got the lucky tap on the shoulder for the DNC speech.
On March 18 2008 12:07 a-game wrote: edit2: also being black and multi-ethnic only helps you once you've already established a national podium. in the early stages of any career, and in obama's case, being black was a huge obstacle.
hillary has had a much easier ride in fact, all she had to do to get national recognition was to marry bill and enjoy the show he put on. obama had to actually fight through to becoming a senator (no easy task for a black man) before he got the lucky tap on the shoulder for the DNC speech.
I agree that being black was a disadvantage for Obama before this campaign, when he was first getting started and all that. But I think his disadvantages can be exaggerated when you take into account that he was born in a rich family, and blacks (minorities) in rich families don't really feel any racist pressures or even really identify themselves as really black in a negative sense like many other poor and some middle class minorities do. But ya, I'm sure it was a challenge to win the voters over at first when he was just an unknown black guy.
And I think you also underestimate how much work Hilary has done. She has been a hardcore democrat since her college years til this very moment having done countless things. To say that all she had to do was to marry Bill and let him cause a scandal by cheating on her is kind of weird considering how humiliating it must have been for her. It got her publicity, but what else?
On March 18 2008 12:07 a-game wrote: edit2: also being black and multi-ethnic only helps you once you've already established a national podium. in the early stages of any career, and in obama's case, being black was a huge obstacle.
hillary has had a much easier ride in fact, all she had to do to get national recognition was to marry bill and enjoy the show he put on. obama had to actually fight through to becoming a senator (no easy task for a black man) before he got the lucky tap on the shoulder for the DNC speech.
I agree that being black was a disadvantage for Obama before this campaign, when he was first getting started and all that. But I think his disadvantages can be exaggerated when you take into account that he was born in a rich family, and blacks (minorities) in rich families don't really feel any racist pressures or even really identify themselves as really black in a negative sense like many other poor and some middle class minorities do. But ya, I'm sure it was a challenge to win the voters over at first when he was just an unknown black guy.
And I think you also underestimate how much work Hilary has done. She has been a hardcore democrat since her college years til this very moment having done countless things. To say that all she had to do was to marry Bill and let him cause a scandal by cheating on her is kind of weird considering how humiliating it must have been for her. It got her publicity, but what else?
no i'm not saying she never worked hard, i'm just saying that work was irrelevant to her becoming the democratic frontrunner.
there are tons of qualified people who work hard but you will never be popular until you get publicity.
basically their timelines went like this: obama worked hard to overcome the obstacle of being black and become a US senator, he gets tapped to do the DNC speech, and thus began his rise to fame.
hillary married bill, bill got his dick sucked, thus began her rise to fame.
you have to work to become a us senator, you don't have to work to get hitched.
"Once African-Americans understood that they had a candidate with a serious chance to win the nomination and perhaps the presidency, then it was going to be a question of somewhere between 80 percent and 90 percent were going to support him except in areas where she had particularly strong profile," - Bill Clinton
bill clinton is such an asshat. we don't want people voting for someone because they share our gender or ethnicity, he should be discouraging that kind of identity politics, but instead he's encouraging it consistently.
i don't even know why this guy thinks he's a democrat. gtfo.
he's right, 90 % of blacks voted for obama in MS. it doesn't take credit away from obama's campaign but still.
you missed my point entirely
you said "we don't want people oting for someone because they share our gender or ethnictiy"
edit: we've had this whole big discussion stemming from that exchange and you've ignored all of it, if you can't keep up then please don't get involved.
"Once African-Americans understood that they had a candidate with a serious chance to win the nomination and perhaps the presidency, then it was going to be a question of somewhere between 80 percent and 90 percent were going to support him except in areas where she had particularly strong profile," - Bill Clinton
bill clinton is such an asshat. we don't want people voting for someone because they share our gender or ethnicity, he should be discouraging that kind of identity politics, but instead he's encouraging it consistently.
i don't even know why this guy thinks he's a democrat. gtfo.
If Bill Clinton were right, how come the Latinos are voting for Clinton when she's not one? How come white women cast votes for Obama? That's such ridiculous logic.
latinos don't have anyone who they could vote for based on category left in the race. the closest thing would be the 'latinos dislike blacks' stereotype that apparently exists in the states. so they are free agents/clinton leaning.
as far as white women, clinton wins white women in every contest.
edit: it's not that clintons wrong about identity politics, because they certainly do exist among the retarded echeleons of our species. the point is that he's encouraging those identity politics to continue and giving those identity tensions air time instead of talking about the issues. he's trying to egg it on and sustain it and i think it's a bullshit way to campaign if your a democrat (aka the rainbow party)
what the are you talking about? siding with people of our own color and culture is human fucking nature, and identity politics works subconsciously whether you think its PC or not.
a-game, ah ok, understood although one could say Obama being black got some publicity in his favor also, so it's not all hard work for Obama either. but whatever i think we're good for now. now let me share with yall what made me see Hilary in a different light.
I honestly think she should push a more human side of her and show herself as more of a human being instead of trying to be all hard and presidential. I mean I understand what she has to go through because otherwise people would call her "too soft" because she's a woman, but she should show she can do both. and damn just look how cute she is! Especially in the last one, with her chin sticking out in a proud way only a mother would know haha
On March 18 2008 10:24 oneofthem wrote: clinton was making a descriptive statement. not really supporting identity politics.
agree, and its the entire point i'm trying to make. bill knows that blacks will go in numbers for obama, its a given fact!
I also said that it doesn't take away from obama's campaign that african americans want to rally up behind him either. It's just how it is.
and IMO being black for obama is like a double-edged sword. Yes, he probably went through a lot of shit for being black,yet once he comes into the limelight ( being kind of unique since not many black males are senators ) he becomes this idol for all minorities and his color makes him sort of an uniter.
who else is more qualified to unite a racially divided country than someone who happens to be a minority.