"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.
revo we spent this entire page discussing this.
if you would bother to read the posts, you'd see that i know that identity politics exist and in fact dominate a campaign like this. what sucks is when Bill clinton eggs it on and encourages it. voting based on gender or religion or ethnicity is one of the dumbest actions a human being can take, and encouraging that as the theme of the campaign is malicious and anti-democratic. he is not behaving the way a democrat is supposed to behave.
"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)
Obama's win rate among white women is much higher than Clinton's win rate among blacks. To me, that implies that people vote for Obama because they like him, not because he's black. Of course, I'm not familiar with identity politics in the US, so I might be wrong.
On March 18 2008 12:45 ItchReliever wrote: 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 never said it was all hard work for obama, but i just think being black didn't get him any publicity in his favour until he had the DNC speech, and he would never have had the opportunity to get tapped for the DNC speech if he hadn't accomplished being a US senator.
hillary would of gotten her publicity for being bill's wife during the whole monica debacle no matter what she did in her past, so long as she married him.
so i'm not saying obama worked harder, but that he would not be where he is today if he hadn't worked hard.
hillary also worked hard, but she didn't have to, she could of relaxed on the couch her whole life and simply accepted bill's marriage proposal and she would of still become a famous democrat.
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.
fuck you for being a retard, retard. A woman president draws out the progressive vote just as well as a black president.
This is the man he considers a "mentor" of sorts? gotta be kidding me
the guys over 70 years old. are people actually judging candidates by what their senile pastors say? btw that video was cheap, the picture of obama in african garb, i mean comon why do you even watch that trash
ps. obama rejected those comments by his pastor and explained his stance here
This is the man he considers a "mentor" of sorts? gotta be kidding me
the guys over 70 years old. are people actually judging candidates by what their senile pastors say? btw that video was cheap, the picture of obama in african garb, i mean comon why do you even watch that trash
ps. obama rejected those comments by his pastor and explained his stance here
yeah right, like this is something his pastor just picked up... he has been spewing this for years and Obama has been a church member for years. you can't sing a different tune just because you're running for President
my grandpa was racist and bigoted as hell, but i'd still consider him a mentor and a close loved one, just somebody who i disagreed with politically at the same time.
i can fully understand the seeming contradictions in obama's stance, and the fact that you don't just means you haven't been in the position where a close person just happens to be completely senile (or not even senile, but primitive and stuck in the past)
edit: i mean what's next, people with racist grandparents can't run to be president? that'd disqualify every human being in the planet
On March 18 2008 16:23 a-game wrote: my grandpa was racist and bigoted as hell, but i'd still consider him a mentor and a close loved one, just somebody who i disagreed with politically at the same time.
i can fully understand the seeming contradictions in obama's stance, and the fact that you don't just means you haven't been in the position where a close person just happens to be completely senile (or not even senile, but primitive and stuck in the past)
edit: i mean what's next, people with racist grandparents can't run to be president? that'd disqualify every human being in the planet
and you don't always consider family to be mentors or close.
the point is it's possible to consider someone a mentor and be close to them while also acknowledging that they are a bigot and you completely disagree with them politically.
It's like I said before: his church is going to END him.
Just imagine that "GOD DAMN AMERICA!" alternated with the shot of Obama smiling with his arm around the guy who said it, over and over on TV for a few months.
They're already printing "President McCain" on the Whitehouse letterhead.
On March 18 2008 17:19 Funchucks wrote: It's like I said before: his church is going to END him.
Just imagine that "GOD DAMN AMERICA!" alternated with the shot of Obama smiling with his arm around the guy who said it, over and over on TV for a few months.
They're already printing "President McCain" on the Whitehouse letterhead.
Let's not get carried away.
Ross Douthat and Ezra Klein are arguing about whether Jeremiah Wright's statements are comparable to those of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and John Hagee's. To argue that they're not comparable, Douthat -- like most people commenting on this raging controversy -- conflates two entirely separate analytical issues:
(1) Given their close and long-standing personal relationship, does Wright merit more scrutiny vis-a-vis Obama than white, radical evangelical ministers merit vis-a-vis Republican politicians? and,
(2) Are the statements of white evangelical ministers subjected to the same standards of judgment as those being applied to Wright's statements?
Even if the answer to (1) is "yes," that doesn't change the fact that the answer to (2) is a resounding "no."
The statement of Wright's which seems to be causing the most upset -- and it's one of two singled out by Douthat -- is his suggestion that there is a causal link between (a) America's constant bombings of and other interference with Middle Eastern countries and (b) the willingness of some Middle Eastern fanatics to attack the U.S. Ever since the 9/11 attacks, we've been told that positing any such causal connection is a sign of vicious anti-Americanism and that all decent people find such questions despicable. This week we learned that no respectable person would subject his children to a pastor who espouses such hateful ideas.
But the idea that America deserves terrorist attacks and other horrendous disasters has long been a frequently expressed view among the faction of white evangelical ministers to whom the Republican Party is most inextricably linked. Neither Jerry Falwell nor Pat Robertson ever retracted or denounced their view that America provoked the 9/11 attacks by doing things to anger God. John Hagee continues to believe that the City of New Orleans got what it deserved when Katrina drowned its residents and devastated the lives of thousands of Americans. And James Inhofe -- who happens to still be a Republican U.S. Senator -- blamed America for the 9/11 attacks by arguing in a 2002 Senate floor speech that "the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America" because we pressured Israel to give away parts of the West Bank.
The phrases "anti-American" and "America-haters" are among the most barren and manipulative in our entire political lexicon, but whatever they happen to mean on any given day, they easily encompass people who believe that the U.S. deserved the 9/11 attacks, devastating hurricanes and the like. Yet when are people like Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Inhofe and other white Christian radicals ever described as anti-American or America-hating extremists? Never -- because white Christian evangelicals who tie themselves to the political Right are intrinsically patriotic. Does Douthat believe that those individuals are anti-American radicals and that people who allow their children to belong to their churches are exercising grave errors of judgment?
1) "GOD DAMN AMERICA!" 2) [picture of Obama with arm around same man] 3) [quotation of Obama describing this man as his personal mentor] + Show Spoiler +
Everything about the pastor comes off as viewing the middle class white majority as the enemy, as this great evil force making life miserable for everyone else, inside and outside of America.
That middle class white majority happens to be... um... a majority. And there's this vote coming up...
"Hi. This is my mentor and spiritual leader. He thinks you're a disease that needs to be eradicated from the planet. Now that he's embarassed me in public, I have to claim to disagree so I can get elected, but I still think he's a swell guy. Anyway, you people made him like this with your racism and discrimination, so I think we should all cut him some slack. We have to remember that the real enemies here we can all hate together are the Jews (oops)... I mean the bankers (no wait, that sounds like an obvious code-word)... the rich! The important thing is that we choose the right minority scapegoat to unite against, ideally one with a lot of property we can seize tax and distribute amongst ourselves invest in our future, in the proud tradition of national socialism... programs. Anywho... let's just take this as a reminder that I'm a little black, and a little white, a little immigrant, and a little native, a little bit Christian, and a little bit Muslim, so my heritage and genetic makeup make me the superior symbolic choice for president. Based on that, vote for me: Barack Hussein Obama!"
You can say whatever pretty thing you like. When people don't trust you anymore, they'll hear something else.
edit:
Ross Douthat and Ezra Klein are arguing about whether Jeremiah Wright's statements are comparable to those of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and John Hagee's. To argue that they're not comparable, Douthat -- like most people commenting on this raging controversy -- conflates two entirely separate analytical issues:
(1) Given their close and long-standing personal relationship, does Wright merit more scrutiny vis-a-vis Obama than white, radical evangelical ministers merit vis-a-vis Republican politicians? and,
(2) Are the statements of white evangelical ministers subjected to the same standards of judgment as those being applied to Wright's statements?
Even if the answer to (1) is "yes," that doesn't change the fact that the answer to (2) is a resounding "no."
...and, in turn, that doesn't change the fact that (1) being "yes" makes Wright about 1000 times more relevant to the election than Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson.
Anyway, people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson make nutty spiritual statements to the effect that God has chosen not to protect the USA from her wicked enemies, from plagues and natural disasters, because Americans have been insufficiently pious and virtuous. Wright was making nutty political statements to the effect that the terrorists were justified because America has been acting as an evil force in the world.
Well, Obama was beyond clear in his speech on race today that he did not believe what Wright said. He did a really good job of understanding the white middle class view point, better than I've seen those people do themselves.
If this silliness perpetuates we can just turn the tables on John McCain, and his wackos are worse, and they've made statements in the same event as McCain, and then maybe they'll start being a bit realistic about this guilt by association mindset.
Some additional quotes on McCain's wackos,
Nor have the views of televangelist Rod Parsley, one of McCain's self-proclaimed "spiritual advisers," received a fraction of the attention generated by Wright. As both David Corn and Alan Colmes, among others, have documented, Parsley espouses views at least as extreme and radical as Wright, including his proclamation that "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion [Islam] destroyed." Unlike Wright and Obama -- for whom the former's controversial views are found nowhere near the latter's public or private conduct -- both George Bush and John McCain's Middle Eastern militarism are perfectly consonant with the most maniacal and crazed views of Christian Rapture enthusiasts such as Hagee, Parsley, Inhofe, and Robertson. Yet the controversy created over their close ties is virtually non-existent.
(ibid)
This all is so laughable that Obama is getting non-stop attention and McCain, along with other Republicans, get free passes. Huckabee was a freaking minister and they wouldn't even play any of his controversial sermons in his 14 month run.
As someone else said,
Well, okay: conservatives looking to score cheap rhetorical points would pretend to take them seriously, but only to go on with that finger-wagging, "How dare you!" routine which we can only wish they could carry out with deliberate and poisonous irony.
On March 19 2008 07:34 Funchucks wrote: I will respond:
1) "GOD DAMN AMERICA!" 2) [picture of Obama with arm around same man] 3) [quotation of Obama describing this man as his personal mentor] + Show Spoiler +
Everything about the pastor comes off as viewing the middle class white majority as the enemy, as this great evil force making life miserable for everyone else, inside and outside of America.
That middle class white majority happens to be... um... a majority. And there's this vote coming up...
"Hi. This is my mentor and spiritual leader. He thinks you're a disease that needs to be eradicated from the planet. Now that he's embarassed me in public, I have to claim to disagree so I can get elected, but I still think he's a swell guy. Anyway, you people made him like this with your racism and discrimination, so I think we should all cut him some slack. We have to remember that the real enemies here we can all hate together are the Jews (oops)... I mean the bankers (no wait, that sounds like an obvious code-word)... the rich! The important thing is that we choose the right minority scapegoat to unite against, ideally one with a lot of property we can seize tax and distribute amongst ourselves invest in our future, in the proud tradition of national socialism... programs. Anywho... let's just take this as a reminder that I'm a little black, and a little white, a little immigrant, and a little native, a little bit Christian, and a little bit Muslim, so my heritage and genetic makeup make me the superior symbolic choice for president. Based on that, vote for me: Barack Hussein Obama!"
Ross Douthat and Ezra Klein are arguing about whether Jeremiah Wright's statements are comparable to those of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and John Hagee's. To argue that they're not comparable, Douthat -- like most people commenting on this raging controversy -- conflates two entirely separate analytical issues:
(1) Given their close and long-standing personal relationship, does Wright merit more scrutiny vis-a-vis Obama than white, radical evangelical ministers merit vis-a-vis Republican politicians? and,
(2) Are the statements of white evangelical ministers subjected to the same standards of judgment as those being applied to Wright's statements?
Even if the answer to (1) is "yes," that doesn't change the fact that the answer to (2) is a resounding "no."
...and, in turn, that doesn't change the fact that (1) being "yes" makes Wright about 1000 times more relevant to the election than Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson.
Anyway, people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson make nutty spiritual statements to the effect that God has chosen not to protect the USA from her wicked enemies, from plagues and natural disasters, because Americans have been insufficiently pious and virtuous. Wright was making nutty political statements to the effect that the terrorists were justified because America has been acting as an evil force in the world.
He didn't justify the terrorist attacks. He simply made the same point that Ron Paul made, though in a more inflammatory manner.
I'm not arguing the virtues of McCain or Obama. I think they're both politicians who will say anything they need to say to get into power, and then do whatever they can get away with once they're there. I'm only concerned with the effect this is going to have on the outcome of the election.
McCain's casual relationship with popular religious nuts is something familiar, which America has accepted before. It was already factored into his level of popular support. It's not news, and it's not going to change anyone's opinion.
Obama's intense personal relationship with a political radical posing in the role of a Christian minister, in a cultish little black supremacist sect, is something new and shocking. His political viabiity just took a nosedive.
EPT
