they're only reporting facts. and they're only reporting. the black vote is broken down every election with every candidate. in 2000, the latino vote was a huge issue because its the first time it really came into play in a national election, and everyone always assumed that latinos would vote democrat. just because you're reporting on statistics doesn't mean you're playing a card. and btw, I heard that 80% number several times and if they aren't the ones reporting it, where did you and i get it from. and who cares? what agenda are they promoting by either reporting those numbers or not? how else do you want them to break down the numbers. the report on age, gender, and race? what do you want, people who own homes vs renters? I mean seriously, you're making something out of nothing.
Batman, You can shout screw me as much as you want to. I didn't call you a sexist, and nor did I call all Obama supporters. I did say some of the Obama supporters are. Some of them are NOT Obama supporters but rather Woman opposers. I remember vividly, months ago, in a thread about candidates, I asked whether I was wrong to feel that some on the board just can't handle the fact to have a woman president. You agreed with me on that one. I assume I am not paranoid about the existence of sexists. I know you can be temperament full while debating. If you feel I am labeling all Obama supports of anything, you are wrong. I never do that generalization thing, except for my belief that all politicians are dirty. Now I set the record straight, you can continue with your shouting. One more thing to clarify, I don't like Hillary, and I don't like any one of them. I've seen enough big talkers in life, and I will never look for role model in ANY career politician.
He did not support Kerry or Edwards' vote. He simply refused to criticize his party's nominee no matter how Russert tried to trap him into doing so. His quote on that show is routinely taken out of context, usually by Bill Clinton, and turned into the opposite of itself. I get that you like Hillary so you are willing to swallow whatever spin they throw you. That doesn't make it true. Look at the full context of the quote. You are right. Obama was not in the Senate when he came out against the war. But he was running for office and taking an unpopular position out of principle. Compare that to Hillary repeatedly insisting that if she knew that voting for "AUTHORIZATION TO USE FORCE" would result in the USE OF FORCE, she wouldn't have done it. One side is telling the truth here and the other is lying. I have already addressed the "present" votes. You could try to hang that on any Illinois state rep or senator EVER. It is standard practice there and trying to turn it into a matter of failing to stand up for principles like choice is a lie. I agree that Obama should have showed up to vote against the Iran resolution and I agree that he should have been more present for more votes. I'm not above criticizing my candidate. I think he was wrong not to cast that vote and I wish he'd stood up more and more often against the Bush admin, particularly where Iraq is concerned. (Hilariously, on this issue, Hillary's position seems to be 'he's just as bad as I am.') This is a substantive issue and grounds for honest debate. Her stuff on his opposition to the war, the health care thing, the race card thing, the Reagan thing ARE NOT. Get the difference? Clinton DID belittle MLK and I can't imagine why you think this is a winning issue for you. In fact, she not only belittled MLK and his contribution to the civil rights movement, but she basically belittled the entire concept of inspiration by characterizing it as "hoping for change" right before she suggested Obama was lazy or something by saying that she, by comparison, would "work for change." What? Like he wouldn't? Like he would sit around wishing for it? He was incredibly gracious not to hit her hard for belittling MLK. But he didn't do it because he is truly committed to unity and truly committed to this not being about race. Show me the quotes so I can point out how stupid your point here is. Once again, I have cited several specific instances of disingenuousness from the Clinton camp and you have cited zero from Obama's. (Hint: it's not disingenuous if it's true.) I'm getting bored hearing the same things from you over and over with no supporting evidence.
Thanks, but I don't require permission to tell you to screw off when you make a suggestion like that. How bout if I suggest that I'm tired of Clinton supporters being racist? How do you like that? The difference between you and me is I wouldn't say that because I don't think it's true. (The difference between me and Clinton by the way is that she'd say anything, regardless of truth.) I'm sure I did agree that some people wouldn't vote for a woman. That has nothing to do with this. Are you suggesting that I said Obama voters wouldn't support her because she was a woman? I was talking about backwoods bigots who, incidentally, vote by and large for Republicans. You whine and whine about the race card represented by Hillary first belittling MLK and then being called on it and then you suggest that you're sick of the sexism that she's had to deal with in this race from Obama supporters even though the only place it's reared its head is in your imagination.
I want you to imagine for a minute that, in this discussion, a discussion of Obama vs. Hillary, I said this: "My biggest problem lies in some very obvious hatred towards blacks. Maybe because I am always a strong advocate of blacks pursuing own career and seeking for own place in the society; maybe because my black friend is independent and doing well in his career; maybe I am still old-fashioned feeling that whites should be more open-minded, I absolutely can't stand racism." How would that grab you, real_egal?
pgabriel, I am not on any mailing list. Obama getting votes from African Americans is a fact, and it's very understandable to me. They are minorities, and they are excited about. Of course, they are not going to vote for him if he's a bad guy. If, in the future, there is an Asian candidate, I could see that lots of Asian voting for him/her. Is it race related? Of course it is. You don't need anyone to inject that. It's there. Any effort to deny that is disingenuous. The media spin doesn't sit with me well, when Bill Clinton mentioned that fact, how he was injecting race into it. The question was only brought up THEN, why was it ok for Mrs. Obama to say that then? Clintons can't mention race? What if Clinton said the exact same thing "only we can understand you blah blah" to a white crowded? Do you think the media will let it go? You are right that CNN breakdowns are all FACTS. The problem is always how you spin with that fact. Isn't it obvious, that "Obama winning white votes" is a positive take on him, while the same fact, if you start your article with "Obama winning 80%+ black votes" is a negative spin? What's there to deny? But for the CA voting, it wasn't started as positive Obama spin that "Clinton winning cross race", white, latino, asian, isn't that true? No, but it was started "Latinos and Asians voted for Clinton". Media is not lying, they just spin the fact around with their own agenda. Same thing with that MLK thing. That's my opinion. You can continue to call me paranoid.
Batman, Racism is living and large, among whites, blacks, latinos, and asian, including ethnic Chinese. If that's what you are looking for. As minority myself, I experienced racism as well. I can't say I have no bias, but I never consider myself a racist. However, I do believe and can feel there are racists among Clinton supporters. So I won't shout at you to screw you in the face for you saying that. You can do a search of my short history on the board, whether I ever said one single thing racially offensive to any ethnic group. In fact, I always "whine" about racially offensive remarks.
what bill clinton did was compare obama to jesse jackson and there's a lot of history in jesse jackson to suggest he wasn't just making a factual statement. first, jesse was running on the fact that he was black. obama isn't. secondly, jesse jackson was never a serious contender because he was the black guy running for president. obama is a serious contender, because he's not the black candidate, and other than a speech by his wife to a group of black women about black issues, his campaign has never been about his race. that was the problem with clinton's statement, and it was patronizing.
Except that Obama winning white votes is NEWS; Obama winning black votes is NOT NEWS. How hard is that to grasp? Except that's the facts. The exit polls showed her winning latino and asian votes, and losing white & black votes. If they said she was winning across the races, they would have been lying. What exactly did you want them to say?
real_egal: I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not racism or sexism exists. Obviously it does. What's the point? I was offended because you acted like there was rampant sexism against Hillary, you didn't offer a single piece of evidence to support it and I couldn't think of a single instance of it existing. And yet you were so sick of a thing that didn't, to the best of my knowledge, seem to exist. If you were talking about people calling her a b**** or whatever, I agree that's horrible and I'm against it. But I think that's more because of her specific history and behavior as a dishonest person that will say or do anything to get elected than the fact that she's a woman, as unfortunate as the gender-specific nature of the word itself is. By the way, how long is it going to take for you to provide a single piece of supporting evidence for your bogus claim that Hillary and Obama are equally dishonest and dirty? I've given you several; you've given me none. You're starting to bore me.
Major, Winning 80%+ black votes everywhere is NEWS for a candidate beyond race. Obama won white MALE votes, not white votes. It's factual to say Clinton winning cross races, white, latino, asian, except for black. Like I said, it's about the spin after the fact. Nothing is hard to grasp for me, is it hard for you?
Batman, I don't know whether you are serious here. NO, I don't have evidence any public figure is saying I hate woman. Yes, that's my perception. You can call me paranoid at will. The way some of the "analysts" are talking about her, the way they downplay any of her success, the way they "judge" or "analyze" what bill or hillary say or do things, the questions they ask in debates to both candidates, the way bill schneider wrote every single piece of his blog, those are the things gave me that impression. NO, i don't have evidence.
No, it was completely and totally expected yesterday. It was news in South Carolina, and there, it was covered extensively. Yesterday, everyone knew it was coming. No, early exit polls suggested he won white voters in general. White male voters too. And white young voters, white rich voters, etc. But the original exit polls suggested he won white voters as a whole. There's no reason to pick any of these subsects when there's a larger demographic to use.
Cool. So it's a paranoid fantasy. Or at the very least you're unwilling to even cite a single innuendo that supports your point. From now on I will complain about imaginary racism from the Clinton camp and every single piece of media coverage. And if you take issue with that I will say I'm not talking about you; I'm talking about the rest of Clinton's supporters. And then I'll say, "I'm so sick of them! Why can't they be enlightened like me?! I guess I'm just old-fashioned..." (Huh?) I think that after three pages of posts back and forth between us it's about time you address my "judgment" and "analysis" (these words go in quotes when you, however irrationally and always without explanation, decide they are unfair to your candidate - fun!) of both Clinton's lies about Obama on health care, Iraq and Reagan. You've already proven yourself woefully inadequate combatting the bogus race card charges, which according to you are supported by talking heads announcing exit polls as they've done in every single election since exit polls existed.
Batman, Obama built his whole case on "change", which is not tangible. The actual facts he's basing on are: 1. "opposing war from the beginning" while criticizing Clinton's vote, but he did NOT have the right to vote under that circumstance - the whole country was misled by false intel. You are fine with it, I see it dishonest. 2. criticizing Clinton's vote on Iran, while he didn't even show up for the vote. You said he should have done better. I call that dirty politics. If A and B both work for me, A and B both are on-call for some production matter. A was there and made a mistake. The second day B came to me and tells me how wrong A was, how right he would be, how he deserves a raise and promotion. You might be fine with it, I would fire B on the spot! What else differences are there really in policies? Except for the whole old/new perception thing? The big talk of meeting leaders from Iran and Syria? Banning all Chinese imported toys? Is that responsible action and speeches in the president of US? I call that disingenuous.
Bingo. This really isn't complicated according to the media: Obama is (half) black. If he is not elected President, it just proves the USA is still racist. If you do not vote for him, you are a racist. It makes white people (the media?) feel good to vote for the black man. Simple.
Hillary is a woman. If she is not elected President, it just proves the USA is still sexist. If you do not vote for him, you are a sexist. If makes men feel good to vote for the woman. Simple, right? Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up your assertion? Or is it your personal fantasy like virtually everything else you post here?
