Is it Racist?

[Charade]

Unfortunately no matter how much we hope the mindset of the citizens of this great nation have changed, I feel they have not. There are a large amount of Americans who are afraid to have a BLACK MAN as their leader no matter how intellegient, eloquent speaking or American he may be. On the flip side, there a large number of Americans who will vote for those who look like them and this is mainly due to racism. This is the world we live in; yes it is sad but true.

According to recent polls, that's not true. Unless you consider 6 percent (4 percent not-sure) a "large amount". Personally, I don't.

 

[wvrevy]

The problem is that Obama is winning the Democratic primaries in the states that will vote red in November, Hillary is winning the Democratic primaries in the borderline states, and it really does not matter who wins the primaries in the blue states as those will go Democratic no matter who the candidate is.

Racism or not, I don't think Obama can win a national election this year.

Actually, the problem is that people are buying into that lie instead of actually looking at the situation with some knowledge and objectivity. Hillary wins the swing states? What is Wisconsin? What about Virginia, Nevada, and even Colorado...states that could go blue in the fall if - and only if - Barack Obama is the nominee?

The only swing state that I think Hillary probably stands a better chance of winning than Barack is Florida, mostly because she does so well with older, uneducated voters and Hispanics. But if he wins a couple of those states I mentioned above, it won't matter, because he won't need Florida anyway.

As for some of the others...Michigan isn't going red for John McCain, and I can't wait to see McCain trying to sell Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania on his adamant support for not only NAFTA, but all free trade. They're liable to boo him off the stage!

Barack's involvement in this process has already basically won the Democratic Party two long-time Republican House seats, proving that he is much better at helping out the down-ticket races than she is.

And one final nail in the coffin of this "Hillary wins the states that matter" argument. In every "swing" state, there are areas that are traditionally red, and areas that are traditionally blue, the latter normally being the major cities and their immediate surroundings. So...if Hillary is so much better equipped to beat the Republicans in those states come November, why is it that in ever one of those states, she's winning in the Republican areas of the state? Indiana? He blew her out around Indianapolis and Gary, winning enough of the vote to just about offset what she was able to win in the rural parts of the state. Pennsylvania? He destroyed her in Philly, and she managed to eek out a win in Pittsburgh, which will go Democrat in the fall regardless. Ohio? The only major city she won was Toledo, by about 5,000 votes...meanwhile he was winning Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland by an average of around 30,000.

So I'm sorry, but the argument that Hillary somehow "wins the important states" is not just a little bit silly - considering she's won half the states he has - but it's also just wrong. She may win those states, but it's not through support that Democrats can depend on in November.

 

[wvrevy]

According to recent polls, that's not true. Unless you consider 6 percent (4 percent not-sure) a "large amount". Personally, I don't.

Umm...John, 6% - if that's accurate - would mean that there are somewhere around 21,000,000 "Americans" (and I use the term loosely) that would not vote for a person of color for president. I not only see that as a significant figure...I find it a bit horrifying that there could still be that many ignorant people out there in this day and age.

 

[DISUNC]

Anyone is preferable to a man who will readily throw his own granny underneath the bus.

And I stand by my opinion that he does not have the stuff to go head to head with the toughest of world leaders. He acts like a crybaby when a little political mud gets slung at him and if that's all it takes to make him indignant, heaven help us. I can just see his cabinet sitting cross-legged, singing some folk songs with some freakin' puka shell beaded curtains hanging from the doorway. It's hope for change and change for hope, yada, yada. The only Democratic candidate I believed had less chance of being able to stand his/her ground with world leaders was Kucinich. Hillary Clinton (or even Michelle Obama) has more cohones than Barack any day of the week. I concede that he talks a good game, but every time he has been under fire, he has run instead of fighting back. It's ANNOUNCE, RENOUNCE, DENOUNCE! That's his forte. That's his big gun.

Well, that's just not really impressive or intimidating. For a lot of voters, it hasn't been effective either. And we're fellow Americans....Let him try that on a country we're in conflict with. They'll laugh him out of the negotiations.

He wants me to believe he went to that church for all those years and never once heard that excuse for a minister go off on one of his shady tangents, but I don't because it's beyond belief. So that tells me he sat through it willingly and did not have the courage or moral outrage (which he so conveniently has now) to stand up and walk out. Well, I've walked out of a church before when the minister said something I would not tolerate, because sitting through it would have been tacit approval. There's no way I'm doing that in a church. I've known others to do it too, because they believed in standing up (and walking out) for their convictions. I would hope a president would have the strength of character to take such a stand at a minimum, but obviously he did not. I want a president with MORE courage than I have, thank you very much. I don't think that's too much to ask. With Obama, that objective will not be met.

 

[Charade]

Umm...John, 6% - if that's accurate - would mean that there are somewhere around 21,000,000 "Americans" (and I use the term loosely) that would not vote for a person of color for president. I not only see that as a significant figure...I find it a bit horrifying that there could still be that many ignorant people out there in this day and age.

21,000,000 seems like a number based on total population, not eligible voters.

A quick search shows the US pop at 304 million (and change). 6 percent of that would be 18.2 million. In 2004, there were 204 million eligible voters. 6 percent of that is 12.4 million. A little dated but still almost half of 21 million.

Rather than focusing on just that snapshot number, it would be interesting to see a trend. I'm sure it's a declining one at that.

 

[NYBlue1]

I'm not Dawn and won't be answering for her but I thought I'd respond.

1) Conservatives don't want to "shove Democracy down the throats of other countries". We believe in helping to remove the barriers that prevent them from getting it on their own. And not necessarily by force alone. Who wouldn't want that?

2) It's not about preventing a woman from choosing what to do with her body, it's about protecting the unborn life inside. Who wouldn't want that?

3) This is a personal opinion (which I believe is also held by many conservatives) but I believe that same sex couples should have all the rights that same sex married couples have. Who wouldn't want that?

While I believe in civil unions, I don't believe (and I know it's just a matter of semantics) those unions should be called a marriage. I firmly believe that a marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. I don't believe in (in the sense that the state shouldn't legally recognize them) plural marriages or unions.

4) In regards to Iraq. I won't go there because that's been hashed about more than enough times. Each side should pretty much know how the other side feels.

Well said ! I concur For whatever thats worth!

 

[chobie]

I'm not Dawn and won't be answering for her but I thought I'd respond.


2) It's not about preventing a woman from choosing what to do with her body, it's about protecting the unborn life inside. Who wouldn't want that?

Who wouldn't want to protect the unborn lives once they are born by providing for their needs if their parents cannot? Oh, the cons wouldn't that's who.

 

[Charade]

Who wouldn't want to protect the unborn lives once they are born by providing for their needs if their parents cannot? Oh, the cons wouldn't that's who.

Really? I don't recall ever hearing a single "con" say that. Prehaps you can back that up with valid data.

But hey, at least we're willing to give them a chance outside the womb. You are not.

 

[chobie]

Really? I don't recall ever hearing a single "con" say that. Prehaps you can back that up with valid data.

Against welfare, against universal health care etc.

 

[Galahad]

Against welfare, against universal health care etc.

No correlation between these issues and conservatives presumed position on them and conservatives presumed unwillingness to support children that parents would not. An illogical leap at best.

 

[DawnCt1]

I'm not Dawn and won't be answering for her but I thought I'd respond.

1) Conservatives don't want to "shove Democracy down the throats of other countries". We believe in helping to remove the barriers that prevent them from getting it on their own. And not necessarily by force alone. Who wouldn't want that?

2) It's not about preventing a woman from choosing what to do with her body, it's about protecting the unborn life inside. Who wouldn't want that?

3) This is a personal opinion (which I believe is also held by many conservatives) but I believe that same sex couples should have all the rights that same sex married couples have. Who wouldn't want that?

While I believe in civil unions, I don't believe (and I know it's just a matter of semantics) those unions should be called a marriage. I firmly believe that a marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. I don't believe in (in the sense that the state shouldn't legally recognize them) plural marriages or unions.

4) In regards to Iraq. I won't go there because that's been hashed about more than enough times. Each side should pretty much know how the other side feels.

Thanks Charade; that just about covers it all!

 

[Charade]

Against welfare, against universal health care etc.

That's a mighty broad brush...

I'm not against welfare. I'm for LIMITED welfare and it be tightly monitored to prevent fraud.

I'm not totally against UHC. I need to know how it's going to impact my wallet and medical coverage/access I have now before I can begin to think about supporting it.

the etc... ??

I have no idea what that means.

 

[NYBlue1]

Against welfare, against universal health care etc.

One thing I have learned about charade, hes not a cookie cutter sterotype of a con. He has a level head and makes sensible opinions and thoughts. This is not a person that is going through life blindly supporting every talking point of his party.

 

[transparant]

I'm not Dawn and won't be answering for her but I thought I'd respond.

1) Conservatives don't want to "shove Democracy down the throats of other countries". We believe in helping to remove the barriers that prevent them from getting it on their own. And not necessarily by force alone. Who wouldn't want that?

2) It's not about preventing a woman from choosing what to do with her body, it's about protecting the unborn life inside. Who wouldn't want that?

3) This is a personal opinion (which I believe is also held by many conservatives) but I believe that same sex couples should have all the rights that same sex married couples have. Who wouldn't want that?

While I believe in civil unions, I don't believe (and I know it's just a matter of semantics) those unions should be called a marriage. I firmly believe that a marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. I don't believe in (in the sense that the state shouldn't legally recognize them) plural marriages or unions.

4) In regards to Iraq. I won't go there because that's been hashed about more than enough times. Each side should pretty much know how the other side feels.

AMEN to that!! I couldn't agree more!

 

[Charade]

One thing I have learned about charade, hes not a cookie cutter stereotype of a con. He has a level head and makes sensible opinions and thoughts. This is not a person that is going through life blindly supporting every talking point of his party.

They removed me from the talking-point email DL citing lack of conformity.

 

[chobie]

One thing I have learned about charade, hes not a cookie cutter sterotype of a con. He has a level head and makes sensible opinions and thoughts. This is not a person that is going through life blindly supporting every talking point of his party.

 

[Charade]

typical...

 

[lovetomow]

Whoa, big surprise with that response!

 

[chobie]

No correlation between these issues and conservatives presumed position on them and conservatives presumed unwillingness to support children that parents would not. An illogical leap at best.

Cons are for the most part, by and large, against welfare and universal health care. Two things that are needed to help the unborn once they are born. And actually the unborn while they are still unborn.

We know that the you're all for adoption but for the most part, against helping the parents to keep their children through aid. It's not just about parents who "would not" support their kids but parents who cannot, at least temporarily, without the help of the government.

Perhaps, like a parent who wants to support their child while working at Wallmart but cannot make the ends meet. This is not a parent who "would not" support their child, but who cannot.

I don't see cons calling to help these people by filling in the gaps where they minimum wage jobs fail to provide the means to shelter, feed, cloth, and provide health care.

 

[NYBlue1]

I call it like I see it, im not exactly Ms Conservative myself, im sure there are a few people around here that would vouch for that