"They're Attacking Me Because I'm White!"

[The Senator]

she said the Obama campaign was calling her racist, which is incorrect.

No, she said his supporters were pegging her as racist... which is absolutely true, considering today alone I've watched several pundits debate whether her comments were racist... and naturally the pundit with the severe Obama bias said they were... even on the forum, there are posters who consider her comments racist, so she has every right to feel as though she's being pegged as a racist by most of his supporters...

 

[redfirebird2008]

No, she said his supporters were pegging her as racist... which is absolutely true, considering today alone I've watched several pundits debate whether her comments were racist... and naturally the pundit with the severe Obama bias said they were... even on the forum, there are posters who consider her comments racist, so she has every right to feel as though she's being pegged as a racist by most of his supporters...

You can make racist comments without being racist. That was the case here in my opinion.

 

[souvlaki]

If you think Geraldine Ferraro's comments were racist by the way, you're an idiot.

Says the idiot that actually supports someone that says that the only reason why Obama is doing as well as he's dong because he's black, and then to turn around and say that people are picking on Hillary because she's a woman. The same person that later said the only reason why she was being attacked for her comments was because she was white. For the last time, Obama is doing well because there was not a single candidate in this race that had charisma or a ground campaign even close to comparable to Obama's. He is doing well despite the fact that he is black, not because of. If you sincerely think that a black man has it easier in life than a white man, or is more likely to end up as president than a white man is just stupid, and I just can't get over the lengths you will go to support Clinton, even if it is supporting a stupid Clinton supporter that decided to make a stupid racist comment. Even if she didn't mean anything by it, what she said was stupid and she deserves all the criticism she's receiving from it.

 

[The Senator]

The reason why Obama has gotten a "free pass", and the white men in the race didn't is because for the most part every last one of them have less charisma than Ben Stein. That is why Obama has done well in his career. That doesn't change the fact that I think that there is substance underneath all that superficial charisma, but when a guy like Obama, a brilliant speaker that has an amazing ability to organize an unstoppable ground campaign does well, it's more likely because of those aspects then because he's a black guy. The problem was the most charismatic white guy in the race was John Edwards, and that's pretty sad. Of course Obama stood out.

Obama barely had any charisma himself during the debates, though. Half the time he sounded like William Shatner. "Well, the... pointisHillary... I... dothinkwehavesomeproblems... we should address..." It was so bad sometimes I had to change the channel because I was embarrassed that he was the number two guy (at that time).

It wasn't until after he started winning primaries that his charisma magically returned. Therefore, any other candidate could have, and should have, overtaken him. The only problem was, none of the candidates outside of Hillary and Obama were given enough debate time, and when they were given time, it was so condensed that they had to throw out all of their ideas at once or risk not being called on again in regards to one issue or another. That's why Biden and Richardson failed, because they weren't given the same amount of time Obama had.

And if you want to know something... Edwards wasn't the most charismatic white guy on that stage... Chris Dodd was. I saw him give a speech last October and it was simply stunning. But like Biden and Richardson, he was considered a long shot, and therefore ignored by the media.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Obama barely had any charisma himself during the debates, though. Half the time he sounded like William Shatner. "Well, the... pointisHillary... I... dothinkwehavesomeproblems... we should address..." It was so bad sometimes I had to change the channel because I was embarrassed that he was the number two guy (at that time).

It wasn't until after he started winning primaries that his charisma magically returned. Therefore, any other candidate could have, and should have, overtaken him. The only problem was, none of the candidates outside of Hillary and Obama were given enough debate time, and when they were given time, it was so condensed that they had to throw out all of their ideas at once or risk not being called on again in regards to one issue or another. That's why Biden and Richardson failed, because they weren't given the same amount of time Obama had.

And if you want to know something... Edwards wasn't the most charismatic white guy on that stage... Chris Dodd was. I saw him give a speech last October and it was simply stunning. But like Biden and Richardson, he was considered a long shot, and therefore ignored by the media.

No, the biggest reason Biden and Richardson failed is $, namely their inability to raise enough to compete with Clinton and Obama.

 

[Zen]

No, she said his supporters were pegging her as racist... which is absolutely true, considering today alone I've watched several pundits debate whether her comments were racist... and naturally the pundit with the severe Obama bias said they were... even on the forum, there are posters who consider her comments racist, so she has every right to feel as though she's being pegged as a racist by most of his supporters...

i said campaign. pundits with a bias are pundits with a bias... now it may be entirely true that i missed something, but i havn't seen anyone directly from Obama's campaign saying shes racist.

and if they were she should be calling them out by name specifically... because then they would be playing the race card like she says they are, because i dont beleive the comments were racist.


But saying that someones obvious orator skills, great campaign organization, good judgement on Iraq, someone who makes himself more available to the press... and an uncommonly positive campaign... pale in comparison to his skin... walks the razors edge. and is absolutely careless.

 

[The Senator]

Says the idiot that actually supports someone that says that the only reason why Obama is doing as well as he's dong because he's black, and then to turn around and say that people are picking on Hillary because she's a woman. The same person that later said the only reason why she was being attacked for her comments was because she was white. For the last time, Obama is doing well because there was not a single candidate in this race that had charisma or a ground campaign even close to comparable to Obama's. He is doing well despite the fact that he is black, not because of. If you sincerely think that a black man has it easier in life than a white man, or is more likely to end up as president than a white man is just stupid, and I just can't get over the lengths you will go to support Clinton, even if it is supporting a stupid Clinton supporter that decided to make a stupid racist comment. Even if she didn't mean anything by it, what she said was stupid and she deserves all the criticism she's receiving from it.

This isn't about who has it easier in life. It's about who the media considers inspiring. The media told us to be inspired by Obama, because he gave a riveting speech in 2004. That's what they based his campaign on when he announced, because he didn't have anything to run on! They said he was a charismatic fresh face... ran with that... and everyone else lined up in a row behind him because they didn't like Hillary. That's pretty much what happened.

And don't question my support for Hillary Clinton because you disagree with something one of her supporters said, or because you can't fathom that someone has a different opinion than you do. Fact of the matter is, I feel she's better qualified for the job, and may actually do a good job if she's elected, whereas I feel Obama is a complete hack who runs on ideas and has no real knowledge of how Washington actually works. I'm not going to bash her because of something a surrogate said, and I certainly won't take my support away from her because she refuses to denounce those comments as racist. That's what everyone wants to hear Hillary say: They want her to denounce Ferraro's comments as racist, despite the fact Hillary has already said she didn't agree with her comments and was disappointed by them. I don't think Ferraro's comments were racist. However, I've said it repeatedly that I don't think Ferraro should have said what she said, because it was stupid, miscalculated and unnecessary.

And finally, I have not once said that people are picking on Hillary because she's a woman... unless it's obvious... because there are obvious times when posters on this forum actually make fun of her because she's a woman... that's putting words in my mouth, and I'm really not a fan of that.

 

[souvlaki]

Obama barely had any charisma himself during the debates, though. Half the time he sounded like William Shatner. "Well, the... pointisHillary... I... dothinkwehavesomeproblems... we should address..." It was so bad sometimes I had to change the channel because I was embarrassed that he was the number two guy (at that time).

It wasn't until after he started winning primaries that his charisma magically returned. Therefore, any other candidate could have, and should have, overtaken him. The only problem was, none of the candidates outside of Hillary and Obama were given enough debate time, and when they were given time, it was so condensed that they had to throw out all of their ideas at once or risk not being called on again in regards to one issue or another. That's why Biden and Richardson failed, because they weren't given the same amount of time Obama had.

And if you want to know something... Edwards wasn't the most charismatic white guy on that stage... Chris Dodd was. I saw him give a speech last October and it was simply stunning. But like Biden and Richardson, he was considered a long shot, and therefore ignored by the media.

Charisma and ground campaign, dude. The guy knows how to organize. And I think his stump speeches and campaigning in Iowa were far more responsible for the outcome of that state as the debates. Even then he gave an amazing stump speech. He also had a best selling book that was critically acclaimed. His charisma was obvious despite his performances at those debates. Then he won Iowa, and everyone witnessed his charisma first hand. You Clinton supporters cant even get your stories straight. First his support is because he gives pretty speeches, and now you guys say that has nothing to do with it, it's because he's a black guy. I'm actually giving this one to you, and acknowledging a lot of his initial support came because he is a good speaker. I know it. Hell, most Obama supporters know it. He gives a damn good speech. He also runs a grassroots campaign that makes Howard Dean's look like a joke. That is what made me pay attention to him, and I'd wager that is what made a lot of people pay attention to him.

 

[The Senator]

No, the biggest reason Biden and Richardson failed is $, namely their inability to raise enough to compete with Clinton and Obama.

Just because you raise the most money, doesn't make you any more qualified or capable to be President. The media shafted the other six candidates in favor of Obama and Clinton. Because they did that, the two were able to raise more money than anyone else and had more resources at hand to compete for the nomination. Without the media blowing their campaigns out of the water, neither one of them would be where they are today.

 

[souvlaki]

And finally, I have not once said that people are picking on Hillary because she's a woman... unless it's obvious... because there are obvious times when posters on this forum actually make fun of her because she's a woman... that's putting words in my mouth, and I'm really not a fan of that.

I never said you did. I said you supported the statement of someone that said this... it wasn't like she made these comments weeks after her initial comment. It was a part of her original interview.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Just because you raise the most money, doesn't make you any more qualified or capable to be President. The media shafted the other six candidates in favor of Obama and Clinton. Because they did that, the two were able to raise more money than anyone else and had more resources at hand to compete for the nomination. Without the media blowing their campaigns out of the water, neither one of them would be where they are today.

Captain Obvious, welcome to the party.

 

[The Senator]

Charisma and ground campaign, dude. The guy knows how to organize. And I think his stump speeches and campaigning in Iowa were far more responsible for the outcome of that state as the debates. Even then he gave an amazing stump speech. He also had a best selling book that was critically acclaimed. His charisma was obvious despite his performances at those debates. Then he won Iowa, and everyone witnessed his charisma first hand. You Clinton supporters cant even get your stories straight. First his support is because he gives pretty speeches, and now you guys say that has nothing to do with it, it's because he's a black guy. I'm actually giving this one to you, and acknowledging a lot of his initial support came because he is a good speaker. I know it. Hell, most Obama supporters know it. He gives a damn good speech. He also runs a grassroots campaign that makes Howard Dean's look like a joke. That is what made me pay attention to him, and I'd wager that is what made a lot of people pay attention to him.

So, when is it irrational for someone to have multiple opinions?

My opinion is that the bulk of his support comes from three things: Media, speeches, and race. The current topic is race, hence why I've mentioned race in this thread.

 

[redfirebird2008]

So, when is it irrational for someone to have multiple opinions?

My opinion is that the bulk of his support comes from three things: Media, speeches, and race. The current topic is race, hence why I've mentioned race in this thread.

Your opinion would be pretty damn ignorant then. Nice generalizations there.

 

[The Senator]

Captain Obvious, welcome to the party.

When you come on these forums and say that someone who spent eight years in the state senate is far more experienced than someone who was Governor of a state for eleven, you don't have a right to insult someone for re-stating the obvious, when you yourself can't admit what's obvious in the first place.

 

[souvlaki]

Just because you raise the most money, doesn't make you any more qualified or capable to be President. The media shafted the other six candidates in favor of Obama and Clinton. Because they did that, the two were able to raise more money than anyone else and had more resources at hand to compete for the nomination. Without the media blowing their campaigns out of the water, neither one of them would be where they are today.

Of course raising money doesn't make you more qualified, but it does get you more noticed. Obama ran a grassroots campaign that is not comparable to any other major presidential candidate, with a possible exception to Howard Dean. That has a lot to do with why he was getting noticed. And before that he was getting noticed because of his key note address at the 2004 convention. If he were a white guy with the same amount of charisma, and campaigning skills we'd still be talking about Obama as a presidential campaign. Being black, and having the name Barack Hussein Obama would have been the equivelent of political career suicide even ten years ago. Obama is doing well because he has found a way, despite being a black man, to stand out through his ideas, charisma, and his ability to get people excited about his campaign and politics in general.

 

[redfirebird2008]

When you come on these forums and say that someone who spent eight years in the state senate is far more experienced than someone who was Governor of a state for eleven, you don't have a right to insult someone for re-stating the obvious.

For someone who doesn't like having people put words in his mouth, you're awfully good at doing it to others. I never said Obama was far more experienced than Bill Clinton. Not once. I said they were both inexperienced when they ran. So please, if you're gonna whine about people putting words in your mouth, perhaps you should practice what you preach. By the way, I wasn't insulting you. You're wound up way too tight right now, seriously. Can't even take a joke about Spitzer or the Captain Obvious, neither of which were meant as insults.

 

[souvlaki]

Edit- double post

 

[souvlaki]

So, when is it irrational for someone to have multiple opinions?

My opinion is that the bulk of his support comes from three things: Media, speeches, and race. The current topic is race, hence why I've mentioned race in this thread.

Because the first statement contradicts the second. He either gets noticed, or gets more attention because he is charismatic, or because he's black. You just said he didn't have charisma in any of the debates before Iowa... so why were people voting for him in Iowa? Because he's black? Have you been to Iowa before? If you had, you'd realize how ******ed what you are saying sounds.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Because the first statement contradicts the second. He either gets noticed, or gets more attention because he is charismatic, or because he's black. You just said he didn't have charisma in any of the debates before Iowa... so why were people voting for him in Iowa? Because he's black? Have you been to Iowa before? If you had, you'd realize how ******ed what you are saying sounds.

Don't you know the answer to this? LOL. [Clinton campaign logic]: It's because it was a caucus and Obama brainwashed all the innocent little activists into voting for him. Or wait, no that's not it. [Ferraro logic]: It's because there's political affirmative action going on.

 

[souvlaki]

Don't you know the answer to this? LOL. [Clinton campaign logic]: It's because it was a caucus and Obama brainwashed all the innocent little activists into voting for him. Or wait, no that's not it. [Ferraro logic]: It's because there's political affirmative action going on.

Since you are probably right, and that is probably what jmanspice will say, I'll just answer now so I don't have to waste my time later. He wins in caucus states because he runs a good ground campaign. How that has anything to do with him being black, I'm failing to see it right now.

 

[Marx]

Don't you know the answer to this? LOL. [Clinton campaign logic]: It's because it was a caucus and Obama brainwashed all the innocent little activists into voting for him. Or wait, no that's not it. [Ferraro logic]: It's because there's political affirmative action going on.

Clinton has said that she doesn't approve of the comments and that she was disappointed by them. Ferraro's comment were careless, not racist. She has also resigned from the Clinton campaign. What more are you expecting to be done?

To say that Geraldine Ferraro, who has been a proponent of both human and civil rights for the past few decades, is a racist - is ignorant.

 

[The Senator]

Because the first statement contradicts the second. He either gets noticed, or gets more attention because he is charismatic, or because he's black. You just said he didn't have charisma in any of the debates before Iowa... so why were people voting for him in Iowa? Because he's black? Have you been to Iowa before? If you had, you'd realize how ******ed what you are saying sounds.

I said he wasn't charismatic at the debates. I don't know what he said on the stump, but in the post I replied to, you implied that Obama was more charismatic than Edwards or Hillary or any of the other candidates he was up against... which clearly wasn't the case at that forum. It was Obama's responsibility to convince the people of Iowa to support him, and what he did in that state to convince them must have worked. Chances are, it ties into the three things I mentioned above: The ability to give good speeches; the extensive media coverage he received; and his race, which serves as a symbol of something different. That's what I feel makes up 2/3 of his support, or at least contributes to it in one way or another.

You're also implying that white people can't vote for a candidate because of that candidate's race... which is untrue, to say the least... and I bet there were a few white folks who voted for Obama simply because he was black... as there were people who voted for him because he gave good speeches... as there were those who voted for him because the local news outlet told them to vote for him...

 

[The Senator]

Since you are probably right, and that is probably what jmanspice will say, I'll just answer now so I don't have to waste my time later. He wins in caucus states because he runs a good ground campaign. How that has anything to do with him being black, I'm failing to see it right now.

Thank you for proving that you are just as big a *****ebag as I've had you pegged to be

 

[redfirebird2008]

Clinton has said that she doesn't approve of the comments and that she was disappointed by them. Ferraro's comment were careless, not racist. She has also resigned from the Clinton campaign. What more are you expecting to be done?

To say that Geraldine Ferraro, who has been a proponent of both human and civil rights for the past few decades, is a racist - is ignorant.

Where did I say she was racist? You Clinton people, for all your whining about putting words into people's mouths, constantly put words into OTHER people's mouths! For crying out loud, it was a joke first and foremost. And second of all, you seem to be completely off-topic from what I was even talking about. The dude asked why Obama won Iowa, so I jokingly provided the Clinton campaign's logic and then provided Ferraro's logic. They are two separate things, which is why I noted it in brackets for each strain of logic. And both were hyperbolic jokes, get it? And I clarified what I think of Ferraro's comments. She's not a racist, but there were racist things in what she said.

 

[The Senator]

Where did I say she was ignorant? Damn, you Clinton people, for all your whining about putting words into people's mouths, constantly put words into OTHER people's mouths! For crying out loud, it was a joke first and foremost. And second of all, you seem to be completely off-topic from what I was even talking about. The dude asked why Obama won Iowa, so I jokingly provided the Clinton campaign's logic and then provided Ferraro's logic. They are two separate things, which is why I noted it in brackets for each strain of logic. And both were hyperbolic jokes, get it?

No, see, you're not putting words into people's mouths. You're acting like a child. Instead of debating this, you're acting like a complete tard over the matter, by acting as if Clinton supporters are big fat racists and don't give him any credit. I've given him credit. He's run a marvelous campaign. But to say that all of his support comes from people who go out there and read up on the issues alone is incredibly naive.

And I've repeatedly-- in this thread and others-- said that Ferraro shouldn't have said what she said. Her comments make us think... but she shouldn't have said them in the first place.