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

[Marx]

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.

I didn't mean to quote you Firebird. My response wasn't to you. I'm just speaking in larger picture. It makes me sick that people are trying to paint Ferraro as something that she isn't. I understand your jokes, but I fail to see how Clinton operates in the ways that your jokes imply.

 

[redfirebird2008]

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.

I never said that about you. Stop putting words into my mouth. Ferraro is the only one I was making fun of and I have already said that I do not think she's a racist. Again, stop putting words into my mouth please.

 

[souvlaki]

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

That's okay. I had respect for you up until a few weeks ago when you proved you would defend Clinton no matter how ridiculous the argument was. You rag on Obama supporters for blindly following a candidate despite what they say or do, yet you are ten times worse than any of the Obama supporters on here. You, my friend, have been the king of *****e bags on this board for quite a while now, so pot, kettle, black.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I didn't mean to quote you Firebird. My response wasn't to you. I'm just speaking in larger picture. It makes me sick that people are trying to paint Ferraro as something that she isn't. I understand your jokes, but I fail to see how Clinton operates in the ways that your jokes imply.

What, you haven't heard her and her campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson complain about how caucuses aren't representative of the electorate? They've been complaining about it since Iowa. They've been portraying those very activists as delusional as well. Remember the "skies will open" speech from Hillary?

 

[Marx]

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.

I have also said many many times, that I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. But there are aspects of Obama's support that votes for him because he is African-American. As there are for Clinton because she is a woman.

 

[Marx]

What, you haven't heard her and her campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson complain about how caucuses aren't representative of the electorate? They've been complaining about it since Iowa. They've been portraying those very activists as delusional as well. Remember the "skies will open" speech from Hillary?

Ok - Firebird you cannot honestly sit there and tell me that caucus truly represent the composition of an entire electorate. If you believe that then you're farther gone than I thought A 2-3 hour time frame for people to come and voice their support is not all encompassing. A primary where everyone can come throughtout the day to cast their votes - yes, that is truly representative of the entire electorate.

As for the "skies will open" speech, yes I remember that very clearly.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I have also said many many times, that I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. But there are aspects of Obama's support that votes for him because he is African-American. As there are for Clinton because she is a woman.

I agree with that. But I do not agree with JMan's generalization that his support is entirely from 1. the media, 2. speeches, and 3. race. I'm white and I've researched the candidates. I'm not the only one. And believe me, when there's a million people donating to your campaign, a pretty big amount of them know the issues and the candidates' positions. I wouldn't have donated to his campaign WITHOUT researching.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Ok - Firebird you cannot honestly sit there and tell me that caucus truly represent the composition of an entire electorate. If you believe that then you're farther gone than I thought A 2-3 hour time frame for people to come and voice their support is not all encompassing. A primary where everyone can come throughtout the day to cast their votes - yes, that is truly representative of the entire electorate.

As for the "skies will open" speech, yes I remember that very clearly.

As I said, it was a hyperbolic joke. I actually agree with her, but ya know, not much you can do about it. It's the way it goes. She has no one to blame but herself for not building a ground campaign with that $140 million she raised in 2007. She had just as much of a chance, if not a BETTER chance, to win Iowa than Obama if she had taken the time and effort to really campaign hard there.

 

[Marx]

I agree with that. But I do not agree with JMan's generalization that his support is entirely from 1. the media, 2. speeches, and 3. race. I'm white and I've researched the candidates. I'm not the only one. And believe me, when there's a million people donating to your campaign, a pretty big amount of them know the issues and the candidates' positions. I wouldn't have donated to his campaign WITHOUT researching.

But there are also a significant amount of voters that support him who will not/do not research and know the positions and still can contribute. Not everyone who contributes is knowledgable about their respective candidates.

 

[The Senator]

That's okay. I had respect for you up until a few weeks ago when you proved you would defend Clinton no matter how ridiculous the argument was. You rag on Obama supporters for blindly following a candidate despite what they say or do, yet you are ten times worse than any of the Obama supporters on here. You, my friend, have been the king of *****e bags on this board for quite a while now, so pot, kettle, black.

Oy vey.

First, I don't support Clinton under any circumstance. You obviously missed Super Tuesday, when I said that I thought she was done for. You also missed the several posts where I said that I would support Obama if he became the nominee.

I've openly questioned some of her tactics. I don't think running on experience is smart, nor is it necessary for someone like her. It's a stupid move. I think she raises valid questions and concerns, but she doesn't have the experience necessary to counter what little experience Obama has. I've said her resume is longer... and if we measure experience based on resume length alone... she trumps him.

I obviously don't agree with her on the war in Iraq, and tend to agree with him more. But I don't think he's demonstrated that he knows how to make a judgment call, when he speaks out against a war and then openly supports continued funding of it when in office. So I disagree with her initial stance on it, but she's demonstrated herself as being someone who sticks to her guns no matter what kind of pressure she's under. And she's changed her stance since the campaign began, and considering the two of them support getting us out of Iraq... I'm not losing anything.

I've denounced what Ferraro has said as being stupid. But I won't call her comments racist, because they aren't. They question his race. They mention race. But they aren't 'racist,' nor are they derogatory in the least bit. It raises a valid question about Obama's campaign, just as a photograph of him dressed in Muslim garb raises a question about his ethnicity. I've long denounced what the majority of Clinton's surrogates have said and done when it comes to Obama... I haven't stood by them.

I have questioned her organization; I have questioned her use of Bill on the campaign trail; I've questioned comments she's made; I've questioned issues she's stood on. I've openly criticized some of the things she's said on talk shows and at debates, and I've repeatedly said that Obama is in a good position to become President of the United States.

But I think standing by a candidate, if you truly support them, is very important. I will stand by her until she personally says something which outright offends me. I will stand by her until she does something which disgusts me. But she hasn't done anything which I find morally or personally offensive. I feel no need to revoke my support for her.


And, I'd like to mention, I'm only the king of doucebags because I support a candidate you don't agree with. How controversial of me.

 

[souvlaki]

Ok - Firebird you cannot honestly sit there and tell me that caucus truly represent the composition of an entire electorate. If you believe that then you're farther gone than I thought A 2-3 hour time frame for people to come and voice their support is not all encompassing. A primary where everyone can come throughtout the day to cast their votes - yes, that is truly representative of the entire electorate.

As for the "skies will open" speech, yes I remember that very clearly.

How is going to a 2 hour caucus less of an ordeal then spending 5 minutes at a voters booth. What that means is that Obama's support in those states are more enthusiastic than his opponents, which in my opinion means they are probably more likely to show up in November. It takes devotion to a candidate to take two hours out of your day to vote. Spending 5 minutes to vote is easy.

 

[redfirebird2008]

But there are also a significant amount of voters that support him who will not/do not research and know the positions and still can contribute. Not everyone who contributes is knowledgable about their respective candidates.

Of course there are. The same goes for Hillary and every other candidate that's in the mainstream. A nice example, speaking of the black vote, is the Latino vote in Texas. They don't like blacks, and even their leaders have made that known to the press. Obama got endorsements from Latino groups for being slightly better on important Latino issues than Clinton, yet the Latino vote was going 80-20 in some Texas counties and overall was in the 65-35 range in Texas. Like plenty of blacks for Obama don't research the issues, I'm sure plenty of Latinos weren't researching when they voted for Clinton.

 

[redfirebird2008]

How is going to a 2 hour caucus less of an ordeal then spending 5 minutes at a voters booth. What that means is that Obama's support in those states are more enthusiastic than his opponents, which in my opinion means they are probably more likely to show up in November. It takes devotion to a candidate to take two hours out of your day to vote. Spending 5 minutes to vote is easy.

WTF are you talking about? I don't think Marx ever argued what you're saying. He just said that the primary is a more accurate portrayal of the electorate, which is true.

 

[Marx]

How is going to a 2 hour caucus less of an ordeal then spending 5 minutes at a voters booth. What that means is that Obama's support in those states are more enthusiastic than his opponents, which in my opinion means they are probably more likely to show up in November. It takes devotion to a candidate to take two hours out of your day to vote. Spending 5 minutes to vote is easy.

Because a 2 hour caucus doesn't allow everyone to attend that might want to Souv. People do work. People do have committments that they can not get out of. It's only the die-hards that show up for caucus's and you and I both know it. A Primary where people can come throughout the day WHENEVER THEY CAN is more representative of the composition of the electorate.

I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Firebird - If you honestly believe that caucus's are more representative of an electorate than an all day primary - you are farther gone than I thought.

And besides, I NEVER SAID that it was less of an ordeal. You're missing my point.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Because a 2 hour caucus doesn't allow everyone to attend that might want to Souv. People do work. People do have committments that they can not get out of. It's only the die-hards that show up for caucus's and you and I both know it. A Primary where people can come throughout the day WHENEVER THEY CAN is more representative of the composition of the electorate.

I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Firebird - If you honestly believe that caucus's are more representative of an electorate than an all day primary - you are farther gone than I thought.

Read my other post. I've already said that I actually agree with Clinton on primaries and caucuses. I was just making fun of her complaints with my joke about her and Ferraro's *potential* responses to the question of why Obama won Iowa.

 

[souvlaki]

Oy vey.

First, I don't support Clinton under any circumstance. You obviously missed Super Tuesday, when I said that I thought she was done for. You also missed the several posts where I said that I would support Obama if he became the nominee.

I've openly questioned some of her tactics. I don't think running on experience is smart, nor is it necessary for someone like her. It's a stupid move. I think she raises valid questions and concerns, but she doesn't have the experience necessary to counter what little experience Obama has. I've said her resume is longer... and if we measure experience based on resume length alone... she trumps him.

I obviously don't agree with her on the war in Iraq, and tend to agree with him more. But I don't think he's demonstrated that he knows how to make a judgment call, when he speaks out against a war and then openly supports continued funding of it when in office. So I disagree with her initial stance on it, but she's demonstrated herself as being someone who sticks to her guns no matter what kind of pressure she's under. And she's changed her stance since the campaign began, and considering the two of them support getting us out of Iraq... I'm not losing anything.

I've denounced what Ferraro has said as being stupid. But I won't call her comments racist, because they aren't. They question his race. They mention race. But they aren't 'racist,' nor are they derogatory in the least bit. It raises a valid question about Obama's campaign, just as a photograph of him dressed in Muslim garb raises a question about his ethnicity. I've long denounced what the majority of Clinton's surrogates have said and done when it comes to Obama... I haven't stood by them.

I have questioned her organization; I have questioned her use of Bill on the campaign trail; I've questioned comments she's made; I've questioned issues she's stood on. I've openly criticized some of the things she's said on talk shows and at debates, and I've repeatedly said that Obama is in a good position to become President of the United States.

But I think standing by a candidate, if you truly support them, is very important. I will stand by her until she personally says something which outright offends me. I will stand by her until she does something which disgusts me. But she hasn't done anything which I find morally or personally offensive. I feel no need to revoke my support for her.


And, I'd like to mention, I'm only the king of doucebags because I support a candidate you don't agree with. How controversial of me.

Okay, let me rephrase that then. Your hatred of Obama has clouded your judgment to the point where even when someone says something that is obviously stupid, you still defend their statement because it was against Obama. And no, you are being a *****bag of late because you just rag on Obama even when he hasn't deserved the reaction you've given him. There was a point when your arguments were actually reasonable, and you attacked him for logical reasons. But now you are basically attacking him because it's become what you do. You are starting to have all of the depth of a cartoon caricature.

 

[The Senator]

I agree with that. But I do not agree with JMan's generalization that his support is entirely from 1. the media, 2. speeches, and 3. race. I'm white and I've researched the candidates. I'm not the only one. And believe me, when there's a million people donating to your campaign, a pretty big amount of them know the issues and the candidates' positions. I wouldn't have donated to his campaign WITHOUT researching.

There are people who researched the candidates. There are people who base who they are going to support based on the issues and the issues alone. But there are people-- a significant chunk of the electorate, anyway-- who support Obama because of superficial reasons, be it race, speeches or whatever else. Maybe it's difficult to boil that to three things specifically; maybe I went out on a limb by saying the bulk of his support comes from three things. A good chunk of his support, though, comes from people who do not read up on the issues.

 

[Marx]

Read my other post. I've already said that I actually agree with Clinton on primaries and caucuses. I was just making fun of her complaints with my joke about her and Ferraro's *potential* responses to the question of why Obama won Iowa.

I know. I just needed to reiterate the point that I was trying to make. Which I think Souv missed.

 

[redfirebird2008]

There are people who researched the candidates. There are people who base who they are going to support based on the issues and the issues alone. But there are people-- a significant chunk of the electorate, anyway-- who support Obama because of superficial reasons, be it race, speeches or whatever else. Maybe it's difficult to boil that to three things specifically; maybe I went out on a limb by saying the bulk of his support comes from three things. A good chunk of his support, though, comes from people who do not read up on the issues.

I can easily say the same thing about Latinos here in Texas because I witnessed it first hand. Latinos campaigning for Hillary outside the library telling people that Obama is a Muslim or that he's against Latino issues (when he's not). Total ignorance and it goes on for both candidates. Blacks would still vote for Hillary in a general election. I'm not so sure about Latinos. Big time racial tensions between blacks and Latinos, much worse than blacks and whites.

 

[souvlaki]

Because a 2 hour caucus doesn't allow everyone to attend that might want to Souv. People do work. People do have committments that they can not get out of. It's only the die-hards that show up for caucus's and you and I both know it. A Primary where people can come throughout the day WHENEVER THEY CAN is more representative of the composition of the electorate.

I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Firebird - If you honestly believe that caucus's are more representative of an electorate than an all day primary - you are farther gone than I thought.

And besides, I NEVER SAID that it was less of an ordeal. You're missing my point.

Then why is voter turnout higher in the caucuses this year then they've been any other year? I mean, if turnout was light, I'd completely agree with you. I still do to a certain extant. But what the caucus also says to me is that these people are diehard Obama supporters that will show up to vote in November for him regardless. That says to me his base is stronger, whereas, Hillary's voters are more on the fence.

 

[The Senator]

Okay, let me rephrase that then. Your hatred of Obama has clouded your judgment to the point where even when someone says something that is obviously stupid, you still defend their statement because it was against Obama. And no, you are being a *****bag of late because you just rag on Obama even when he hasn't deserved the reaction you've given him. There was a point when your arguments were actually reasonable, and you attacked him for logical reasons. But now you are basically attacking him because it's become what you do. You are starting to have all of the depth of a cartoon caricature.

Well, I apologize if it seems like I've been attacking him because I hate him-- which isn't true. I hate the sense that people have to support him because he's 'new.' Because he represents 'hope' and 'change' and all that jazz.

I'm trying to debate this... discuss this... I think it's important to discuss what implications his heritage may have on the race, whether his ethnicity has anything to do with who supports him for which reasons... it's important to discuss these issues and not simply brush them aside as racist or derogatory-- regardless of why they were said or done in the first place. I think that, without that conversation, we are forced into thinking in extremes... forced to question everything we say or do... at the risk of offending someone. These conversations are important. Ferraro raised an important, valid point, however stupid her comments were. Just as the photo of Obama dressed in muslim garb raised a valid point, just as his middle name raises a valid point. These are simply issues to discuss. I've denounced each act, but feel that each act merits a discussion. Some times I play devil's advocate and don't mention it... actually it's a lot of the time. I apologize for that.

 

[Marx]

Then why is voter turnout higher in the caucuses this year then they've been any other year? I mean, if turnout was light, I'd completely agree with you. I still do to a certain extant. But what the caucus also says to me is that these people are diehard Obama supporters that will show up to vote in November for him regardless. That says to me his base is stronger, whereas, Hillary's voters are more on the fence.

Voter turnout is larger all across the board, not just in caucuses. (So I fail to see your point.) I'm not convinced that Obama die-hards will show up in a GE. We'll have to wait and see. I'm trying not to pass judgment, but I can't help it. The truth is, the majority of Obama's support is African-American, independent, and younger voters. Younger voters don't have the best track record of showing up when it counts the most.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Voter turnout is larger all across the board, not just in caucuses. (So I fail to see your point.) I'm not convinced that Obama die-hards will show up in a GE. We'll have to wait and see. I'm trying not to pass judgment, but I can't help it. The truth is, the majority of Obama's support is African-American, independent, and younger voters. Younger voters don't have the best track record of showing up when it counts the most.

For candidates like John Kerry that are out of touch with the youth of America, why should they? Obama, or any young candidate with energy, can keep the youth vote from staying home in November. Obama's biggest problem is that he can't win the Democratic base except for college voters and the far left. He's losing the moderate Democrats big time.

 

[Marx]

For candidates like John Kerry that are out of touch with the youth of America, why should they? Obama, or any young candidate with energy, can keep the youth vote from staying home in November. Obama's biggest problem is that he can't win the Democratic base except for college voters and the far left. He's losing the moderate Democrats big time.

And that is why there's such a division among the party right now. That's why there are two equally strong candidates. Obama pulls in what Clinton cannot, and vice versa.

 

[redfirebird2008]

And that is why there's such a division among the party right now. That's why there are two equally strong candidates. Obama pulls in what Clinton cannot, and vice versa.

Yes. But you realize why they can't work together right? Obama has run his campaign as a "different kind of politics" (load of BS rhetoric for the most part) and that bringing the same old people back to D.C. is a bad thing. And Clinton has run her campaign on the idea that Obama hasn't passed the commander-in-chief threshold, so they have basically both denounced each other. It will make them both look like hypocrites if they turn around and hook up in the end.