<p>The stoopid part is saying you support Clinton because of her stand on the issues, and then voting for McCain, whose stand on almost all the issues differs from hers, while Obama’s are virtually the same as hers. Now, if you supported Clinton because she was a woman, or because you think she’s tough, or for some other non-issues-related reason, it might be rational to prefer McCain, I suppose. I also think it would be pretty dumb, and, as I said, unpatriotic, to vote for McCain just because some people said mean things about your candidate. Maybe you’ll switch back when you hear some of the mean things that will be said about Obama in the next few months.</p>
<p>I don’t know, I think that a “patriotic” and “rational” person can dispute their opponents positions and even their feelings without getting the drop on them with “stooped,” “lying” “irrational” and “unpatriotic”. In short, wretched schmucks. Though proper praise is due for not including “racist” amongst your personality traits.
But that is just my opinion. </p>
<p>Most especially if you are hoping that these lying idiots will come over to see the rightness of your view and adopt your faith and path for the future. Even if you just want to win, for god’s sakes.</p>
<p>Regrettably, I do not expect this to happen here.</p>
<p>In fairness, I never used the word “schmuck.” I’m saving that for the general election. You need to get a grip if you think “one half” of the Democratic party has painted the other half as ignorant and racist. I would also like a bit more explanation of how a person who is voting for McCain out of spite is doing his or her patriotic duty, and how it can be rational for a person who supported Hillary primarily on the issues to vote for McCain.</p>
<p>I know many people including myself who would vote for Hillary over Obama and who would choose McCain over Obama. Sadly, it seems that this is going to be attributed to racism (or being stupid or a liar), when in fact it has much more to do with her perceived practical grounding in international affairs (including the war) as opposed to Obama’s Let’s Hold Hands and Sing Kumbaya and Change the World strategy. She has been highly respected as a Senator, sits on the Armed Services Committee. If she had dropped Bill years ago she would probably have won the nomination. Her fatal flaw–Bill.</p>
<p>To be honest, I think everything is more complicated than anyone ever wants to pretend. </p>
<p>Too often, to my mind, the political, like the religious, is just too literal and in that too demanding in a dead-end fundamentalist sort of way. Political fundamentalists use phrases like “patriotic duty” with real authority. Though not anyone on this forum.</p>
<p>Believe it or not, there are many people that are not members of a political party, a union or a church; even though they might have a particular political persuasion or philosophy, care for workers rights and deeply believe in god as best they can. </p>
<p>They tend to be less doctrinaire and ideological then those that, on the surface, seem to share their particular views and beliefs in general. </p>
<p>In the end, the president is not a prophet or even the head of a school of thought, like say a Bishop or a philosopher. He or she is an administrator with a view. The current administration, to my mind, failed on both counts, particularly the former but both in large helpings.</p>
<p>In the real world, I have often disagreed with the positions of those that I knew could still get this or that particular job done well. And here, in America, I believe that all the candidates want to “get the job done well” in their own specific way. Good intentions all around. </p>
<p>Having decided if I agree with their way, I will then consider whether their way is achievable in general and if so whether achievable by them specifically and what their ahievement will amount to in the long run.</p>
<p>Obviously, many will vote “the party” no matter what and always will; nothing wrong with that. Some may vote their candidate no matter what; same. Others will not vote or vote against the party or candidate because they believe their party needs a good blood-letting or, as they say, an administrative enema; even knowing that the short term results may be less than desired and come with some pain, because, to coin a phrase, they want change.</p>
<p>Many conservatives, I suppose, will not vote for McCain in this election (I know of some that were going to vote for Hillary—for, shall we say, domestic reasons amongst others), for this very reason. Others will not vote for Obama. Same…and rational.</p>
<p>I think that’s a reasonable argument, but I think it downplays the importance of issues, and the long-term impact they can have on the country. I’ll use as an example a couple of issues that I think McCain and Obama essentially agree on. One is torture and the treatment of detainees. As a result of their approach to this issue, the current administration has, in my opinion, done inestimable damage to our country. It really matters what the next President will do about it. Another issue is global warming–again, what happens in the next four or eight years could have tremendous long-term impacts. For both of these issues, as I said, McCain and Obama are at about the same place. But for lots of other important issues with long-term implications, their views are at odds. While I agree that we need a president who can “get the job done,” we may not be talking about the same job.</p>
<p>Ilsa Belter, if you think Hillary’s approach to foreign policy was better than Obama’s, and you think that McCain’s is also better than Obama’s, and that issue is of paramount importance to you, then I wouldn’t accuse you of being a racist for voting for McCain. Of couse, your mischaracterization of Obama’s strategy shows that you’re wrong about it, but that’s a different issue.</p>
<p>ilsa belter, I don’t know why you’re adamant about voting against Obama - and it seems clear that that is your position, rather than voting “for” anyone. I’ve seen you post various different anti-Obama talking points - sort of throwing stuff at the wall to see what will stick. I’m inclined to think you’re just a Republican getting a head start on sowing FUD.</p>
<p>Woodwork, one of the slimiest anti-Obama tactics I’ve seen this election cycle is the pre-emptive “You’re calling me a racist! Boo-hoo! You meany - you’re the racist - I’m a victim!” schtick. It’s undeniably true that some anti-Obama voters are racist, just as some anti-Obama voters are ignorant fools who believe he’s a Muslim. Does acknowledging that fact constitute a “smear” of all Clinton voters? (See slimiest tactics, above.)</p>
<p>…you seem very angry. </p>
<p>Though I am sure that some political preferences may amount to, as you say, “the slimiest anti-Obama tactics” you have seen (amongst I suppose a cornucopia of slimy tactics) and that there may be some “racist” Democrats that voted their hatred by voting for Hillary Clinton, I could direct you to more than a few threads and a great many posts that as a matter of habit see voters that “refuse” (?) to vote for Obama as simple racists, or simple and racist. </p>
<p>In fact, as I recall, the majority of the critique directed at Clinton voters on this forum is that they are racist either consciously or unconsciously. Moreover, it seems that the only legitimate reason to vote for Hillary was that she was a woman and that this would be a respectable reason to “refuse" to vote for Obama…sort of…after that, the gloves come off.</p>
<p>Which leaves one wondering if there were any legitimate reasons to not vote for Obama and perhaps vote for someone else. </p>
<p>Perhaps not.
In any case, it would not take a forensic scientist to figure out that the short hand for the voter that “refuses” to vote for Obama was “uneducated” and “racist” voter. And I am not at all suggesting that this was a slimy tactic to fire away into the crowd of those that for nefarious reasons (except a woman in office) refused to vote for Obama. </p>
<p>It was just easier than the more long winded alternatives, I imagine.</p>
<p>It may be that your opinion of the Clinton voter is accurate, “slimey ignorant fools with a real yen for that racism shtick,” but it seems evident to me that you are perhaps too angry to have a reasonable dialogue about it in your current frame of mind.</p>
<p>(I apologize in advance if that came off as another bit of that infamous ignorant slimey racism shtick that seems to trouble you)</p>
<p>It sounds reasonable to think that the older working class white voters without higher education (the ‘Archie Bunker’ group) would prefer Hillary over Obama in the primary. </p>
<p>I would also expect these voters to prefer McCain over Obama in the general.</p>
<p>I don’t think there are too many of these people on this forum. I expect there are quite a lot of feminist Hillary-supporters here. I would expect these voters to prefer Obama over McCain in the general.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with everything posted.</p>
<p>I agree with Woodwork also.</p>
<p>“In fact, as I recall, the majority of the critique directed at Clinton voters on this forum is that they are racist either consciously or unconsciously.”</p>
<p>I call baloney on this claim. While some Clinton supporters (and what I think are McCain supporters pretending to be Clinton supporters) have played the race card in these forums, pointing that out hardly translates into “the majority of the critique directed at Clinton voters.” There are plenty of people, including Democrats, who disliked Hillary before there was a black man running against her, and plenty of others who didn’t like the way she ran her campaign. Furthermore, most of us continue to think that the majority of Hillary’s supporters will vote for Obama, anyway.</p>
<p>"…and it is clear that that is your position, rather than voting “for anyone.”
Yep. Absolutely correct. I am not technically “for” anyone. Even at the very beginning of the process I was not “for” anyone. I think all of our “choices” and I mean all, are a crying shame. Why can’t we do better than this? The best I can do for my civic duty is to choose the lesser of all evils, which by necessity includes voting against someone. I would choose Hillary or McCain over Obama, as would many people I suspect. The reason I’ve posted “various talking points” is because I really, really would prefer not to have a President Obama, and I resent the insinuations people “throw up” about this to see what sticks. Nasty stuff, imo (see above posts). In addition, I am neither working class, uneducated, a feminist or–it depends what you mean by old. :)</p>
<p>Woodwork, your last post does, in fact, qualify as slimy - and on more than one level.
That is a classic example of the first slimy tactic I described. You accuse Clinton-critics of accusing her supporters of being racist (thereby making yourself a victim.) Except the premise - that the “majority of the critique” directed at Clinton supporters is that they’re all racists - is baloney. Show me the posts.</p>
<p>Do you think that Xiggi hates HRC and oozes contempt for her supporters because of anything to do with racism one way or the other? 1Sokkermom? Zoosermom? Gimme a break. It is true that HRC injected race into the discussion with her unfortunate “hard working, white Americans” comment, but nobody (that I’ve seen) here on CC has ever suggested that all of Clinton’s supporters are racist. On the other hand, it’s an undeniable fact that some are. Should that be ignored, like the crazy uncle in the attic? One of the arguments being made for Clinton is that her supporters who are racist would never vote for Obama. How do we discuss that claim? By pretending it wasn’t being made? That’s irrational. But addressing the race question that HRC has herself acknowledged doesn’t make you a victim of race baiting. </p>
<p>Woodwork - you are the one who is making accusation. You are the one who is accusing people who are ready to move on from the now-dead Clinton campaign of using “short hand.” You are the one who is accusing other people of race baiting, and casting a wide net with your accusation. </p>
<p>The icing on the cake - a true tour de force of intellectual dishonesty and slimy debate tactics - is your parting “shot”:
You take a false statement, ascribe it to me, and mock it, then accuse me of emotion-based irrationality (anger) and suggest that in my “current frame of mind” there’s no point talking to me. </p>
<p>Your latest post exemplifies the slimy tactic I described above. My description of the phony “poor me, the big meanies are calling me a racist” trick in my last post must have hit a nerve.</p>
<p>It may not have been clear in my post, but I did not vote for Senator Clinton making me, I suppose, ineligible for victim status. Most of the things I have written here have been, I think, pretty even handed when addressing any of the three candidates. </p>
<p>Moreover, I favored Obama in the primary but didn’t vote out of a strange and debilitating brew of my own uncertainty and a concern for household unity (my wife, as I said, supports Clinton and my daughter supports McCain). For that, I guess I don’t get to be a victim. I am easily pleased, politically, and will abide, as usual, no matter who wins this election provided I do not end up in the dog-house at home. I am too timid and indecisive to bet on any of these horses; I have yet to look them in the mouth, really.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, I am not at all clear on how many of Clinton’s voters needed to be racist for her to win the primaries she won, which is the issue I was trying to address; but it is clear from a few threads and numerous posts that it was front and center in the minds of many here that saw the “racist vote” as THE reason Hillary was able to beat Obama in the primaries in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky (Puerto Rico?). </p>
<p>It certainly was front and center in the discussion amongst those that felt she should not have won…that and, as you say, her general “sliminess” which can otherwise be read as “Witch” and of course the ubiquitous “Monster”: I suppose her supporters come by their sliminess naturally as such things are known to flow down hill. </p>
<p>Regrettably, the debate here, as else where, was rarely if ever about political difference. Even now, at this late date, Obama supporters argue that a Clinton supporter would have to be a stooped liar to not see that on the issues there is not a dime’s worth of difference between Clinton and Obama. Under the circumstances, I see a new paradigm of generosity coming from the Obama end of the Democratic party. The rhetoric has, to say the least, chilled, as everyone knows which side of the bread needs buttering. </p>
<p>This dull-witted attack is understandable in many respects as the “race” issue was sexier and easy to take sides on; man the ramparts, etc. The same was true of the “gender” issue: Much ado about nothing. </p>
<p>Both, from my narrow vantage point were invented, or jimmy-rigged from disparate incidence and meaningless biology. Neither, to my mind, was worthy of discussion. I would be happy to see Obama as President. He is, by any estimation, a remarkable man.</p>
<p>So, that out of the way, am I slimy because I believe the racial/gender arguments are specious, or simply because you mistakenly thought I supported Hillary over Barack? As for your umbrage with some hidden premise you assume I had, I can only applauded you for not hiding your premise:
…refreshingly clear –I suppose: Nonetheless, no offense taken.
This is just politics.</p>
<p>
As to your question, if you’re interested (it was likely a rhetorical question, but I will take you at your word) I would think that the following threads might contain relevant comments, for starters. I’d prefer not to single out individual posts for the obvious reasons that it will make me no friends here. </p>
<p>Hillary Plays the Race Card
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/507193-hillary-plays-race-card.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/507193-hillary-plays-race-card.html</a></p>
<p>Could Obama win the general election by shaming Whites
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/512255-could-obama-win-general-election.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/512255-could-obama-win-general-election.html</a></p>
<p>25% of WV Voters said Race was factor
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/509747-25-wv-voters-said-race-factor.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/509747-25-wv-voters-said-race-factor.html</a></p>
<p>Woodwork - those threads are in fact good examples of pretty good discussions of the “crazy uncle in the attic” - for example, the 25% of West Virginians who told pollsters that they would never vote for a black man - and also some of the more unfortunate episodes in the campaign - including Clinton’s statement that “hard working, white Americans” would prefer her candidacy. But I didn’t see any “Obama supporters” calling all of Clinton’s supporter’s racists. I did see Hanna rather exasperatedly have to post:
and I can’t blame her. The mantle of victimhood is so tempting. But it’s unearned.</p>
<p>
Kluge (by the way note my quote!), I’ve read this post and the one to which it responds several times and I can honestly say that I have no idea what either of you are saying. There may be double negatives or some circular thing, but since I am (ahem) not a fan of Senator Clinton and have also never called any Obama supporters racist (I’d actually call myself an Obama supporter in the context of wanting her to be gone), I’m just going to smile and nod knowingly.</p>
<p>Nice quotes, Zoos. Sparknotes version: I was reacting to Woodwork’s claim that:
I was saying that the half of the Democrats who voted for Obama never accused the half that voted for Clinton of all being “racists, voting as racists; as ignorant, and voting with ignorance; as stupid” but that undeniably some Clinton supporters were acting from racism (25% of West Virginia said so) and that that was a valid subject of discussion. I did take exception with the accusation that “one half of the Democrats have painted the other half as ignorant and racist” because I don’t think that ever happened. I thought it was a passive-aggressive attack on non-Clinton supporters.
Woodwork responded with the accusation that “the majority of the critique directed at Clinton voters on this forum is that they are racist either consciously or unconsciously.” And accused me personally of believing that Clinton voters were slimey ignorant fools with a real yen for that racism shtick which, as you know (being no Clinton fan yourself) I have never suggested. He also accused me of being “too angry to have a reasonable dialogue about it in your current frame of mind.”</p>
<p>I really dislike Woodwork’s (or perhaps it’s Woodwork’s wife’s) type of passive aggressive attack: accuse the other side of unfairly accusing you, and by doing so attack them in such a way that the accuser poses as victim. A prominent right wing media type did the same thing a while back in another context - 12 - 24 months ago - O’Reilly maybe? I’ll admit this - that type of dishonest argument irritates me, but hardly to the point of irrational rage.</p>
<p>Did any of the pollsters polled blacks to find out if they were voting on race. If not, why not? </p>
<p>I don’t trust the media to be objective on anything, so I have to doubt any statistic they put out there.</p>
<p>Whatever could have made me think “it may be that your opinion of the Clinton voter is accurate, [–removed agitating line–] but it seems evident to me that you are perhaps too angry to have a reasonable dialogue about it in your current frame of mind.” ;)</p>
<p>Good luck to you this political season. I can certainly see how your candidate could inspire such exquisite devotion in those that support him. He’s certainly one of a kind.</p>
<p>As for me, politics just isn’t my thing. As you can see.
I don’t have the tools or the constitution for it. I am, on the other hand, a real fan and something of an armchair expert on hockey, if you’d like to discuss the Cup.</p>
<p>Detroit Red Wings over those skunks in Pittsburg, the Penguins: 3 -2.</p>
<p>Tega:</p>
<p>There are many reasons to vote for one particular individual besides that person’s policies. Let’s focus here on identity, because it is the issue regarding Obama (race) and Clinton (gender).
The relevant reason here is whether the vote is a “for” or “against” vote. A “for” vote does not have to be an “against” vote insofar as the voter chooses the candidate that s/he prefers but might be willing to vote for the rival. It is a vote based on preference. This is the sort of vote that voters cast in primaries. They are expected to rally behind the winner of the preference vote. A vote “against,” however, is based on unyielding hostility. Voters who vote against cannot be counted on to rally behind the winner of a primary.</p>
<p>I am sure that many black voted for Obama precisely because he is (half) black and, after Iowa, was found to be a viable candidate. Just as I am sure that many women voted for Hillary precisely because she is a woman. But I do not think that the majority of people who voted for Obama did so because they were against a woman, just as I don’t think that the majority of people who voted for Clinton did so because they were against a black candidate. And there were many who voted against Obama or Clinton not on the basis of their race or gender, but for different reasons.</p>
<p>Still,for the purposes of gauging the potential obstacles to a candidate’s chances of winning an election, it is important to discover how many voters would never vote for that candidate, and why. And if 25% of voters in a certain area say that they would never vote for a particular candidate because s/he is black or a woman, that is a cause of concern, especially if we believe in the Bradley effect.
(I hope I don’t come across as lecturing, I don’t mean to).</p>