<p>novelisto :)</p>
<p>I did not say AA support Republican candidate. </p>
<p>I am saying that majority of AA voters did not support Hillary beacuse of an AA democrat was present.</p>
<p>African Americans vote for Obama. Older white women vote for Hillary.</p>
<p>Why are those African Americans who vote for Obama considered to be racist, yet the older white women who vote for Hillary (mainly because she is a women) are not sexist?</p>
<p>This argument is ridiculous. Who cares?</p>
<p>Are women not going to vote for Obama when he is nominated?</p>
<p>The older white women don’t want to vote for Obama. But not because he’s male.</p>
<p>“But, Obama seems to have everything Hillary has, plus he represents a singular hope and inspiration within the black community. Hillary represents those same things for white women of a certain age.”</p>
<p>I think this puts it in a nutshell, very nicely. Another example of this phenomenon was Jimmy Carter, back in 1976. A lot of people I knew were proud because he was from the South and was an evangelical Christian. Of course, that sort of identification will only go so far, but it certainly adds to the pleasure of supporting somebody who you feel is like you.</p>
<p>A lot of dumb youngsters (in addition to the smart ones of course) have bought into the Obama hype, and they’re very emotional about it. That’s what I find most annoying. I’m saddened by the foreseeable outcome of this primary.</p>
<p>Actually, I don’t think Obama has done nearly enough to get the votes of dumb people. He’s going to have to fight hard to get them away from the Republicans.</p>
<p>3bm103,</p>
<p>It amazed me in NH (where the weeping episode occured) that some of these women supporters know nothing about the policies of either candidate. They simply latched on to Hillary’s skirt tails because she was a woman. The have become these “feminazis” determined to break that glass ceiling no matter what. (These are the women aged 45ish-65ish.)</p>
<p>I agree that some of the next generation older women (65 and up) may not vote for Obama because of his" background". My own mother thinks he is a muslim black terrorist who refuses to wear a flag pin. :eek:</p>
<p>Re: post 145
Hillary gets a lot more votes from the poor, elderly, and uneducated voters. I’m not sure what dumb means.</p>
<p>To me, dumb means buying lame ploys like the gas tax holiday, Swift Boat lies, stuff like that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nice. Very nice. Please do wave to the dumb masses from the pinnacle of the ivory tower where the smart ones meet to debate how to change the world while the dumb ones take care of the pesky details of holding a job and keeping a house.</p>
<p>I’m not talking about people who are concerned about holding a job and keeping a house. I’m talking about people who are specifically targeted by campaign tactics like the gas tax holiday, Willie Horton, Swift Boat, etc. These tactics are aimed at people who are uninformed and unintelligent. In the past few elections, these tactics were mastered by the Lee Atwaters and the Karl Roves of the world. If you want to come up with examples of Democrats doing the same thing, that’s fine with me. But I don’t think Obama has done it, and it may hurt him. To be specific, his opposition to the gas tax holiday may help him among those of us clustered on the ivory tower, but it may hurt him among people who don’t understand what a stupid, pandering idea it is.</p>
<p>barrons, I don’t think ‘black liberation theology’ emanated from the 1950’s. I think Wright is caught in the 70’s, not the '50’s. But I think it was probably said on this thread or another thread, if not, so I’ll repeat or merely say it: This is transparently jealousy, i.m.o., on the part of the pastor – and/or resentment – akin to the Jesse Jackson et al. line of questioning of Barack’s “black credentials.”</p>
<p>I’ve attended churches too liberal (in some aspects) with regard to their theology – or in other words, too polemic for my taste, when I don’t attend or participate for political reasons or to hear conformist rhetoric. I merely put up with it now and then if the <em>spirituality</em> of the church or parish is the persuasive motivation to join or attend. I am not comfortable with those moments of groupthink & am not asked for my assent to that line of thought when I enter the church doors, or exit. </p>
<p>Spirituality and politics are 2 different things. (“Render to Caesar…”, etc.)</p>
<p>Actually, since the Sift Boat allegations have never been proven to be lies and in fact have held up better to scrutiny than the Kerry view, a “dumb” person may easily be defined as someone who blindly adheres to the Democratic talking point that assert that they are lies. </p>
<p>Obama is also trying hard to get the “dumb” person vote by trying to get them to believe that McCain is calling for 100 years of war in Iraq.</p>
<p>Hey Xiggi - what’s your take on the gas tax holiday? And how would you describe voters who would support a candidate because he/she proposed one?</p>
<p>Nah, anybody who does any independent reading on the Swift Boat claims will readily see that they were lies–essentally all the people who were actually there supported Kerry’s version of the story. Of course, a lot of the Swift Boat Vets weren’t liars themselves, just uninformed people who believed the lies. Most of them weren’t there for the relevant events.
As I think about this some more, I think maybe I should back off a bit, and use the term “credulous” instead of dumb. For example, I don’t think my mother is dumb, but she does believe that Obama is a Muslim sleeper agent.</p>
<p>“Obama is also trying hard to get the “dumb” person vote by trying to get them to believe that McCain is calling for 100 years of war in Iraq.”</p>
<p>He’s actually calling for worse (a 100-year occupation, in a nation which has already endured an aggressive, hostile occupation, with 4.4 million displaced individuals - including 2.2 million refugees, a million widows, two million orphans, a health system destroyed by the occupiers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, teachers in exile, ethnic cleansing of its capital city, and armed thugs armed by the United States to “keep the peace”. 100 years of that, in which not a single U.S. soldier is killed or harmed. What has this cipher been smokin’?)</p>
<p>
If you believe this, then you certainly have not done the “independent reading of the Swift Boat claims” that is required to make any assertion on this matter.</p>
<p>Actually, I did do my homework on the Swift Boats. Here’s one example:</p>
<p>[FactCheck.org:</a> Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry’s War Record](<a href=“http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html]FactCheck.org:”>http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html). Wikipedia lays it out pretty well, too.</p>
<p>There are others. Don’t believe what Rush tells you. The whole thing was a political smear job, using a few liars and some well-meaning, but credulous people.</p>
<p>Hunt, Hunt, Hunt … too bad you don’t follow your own advice and not just listen to what others say and perhaps even read your own sources, which conclude:
Of course your source also contradicts your notion that “essentially all those who were there supported Kerry’s version” . </p>
<p>Here’s the facts: there are two contradictory stories about what happened with Kerry in Vietnam. We know that Kerry has had to back down on at least one of his assertions (Christmas in Cambodia) but as to the other stories, there are conflicting eyewitness testimonies (but yet the physical and logical evidence is on the side of the Swifties - how do you explain no injuries and no bullet holes in aluminum boats that undergo “whithering fire” while they all pause to salvage the mined boat? Perhaps the VC were shooting blanks?) On another issue it is Kerry’s word versus that of an Admiral whose story is also backed up by logic. Yet, somehow from this mess of conflicting evidence you are able to ascertain that the Swifties are liars. Who’s the “dumb” one here?</p>
<p>But see, I actually read the whole thing, and I know that both Kerry’s own crewmates and the Navy’s records support him. I also read multiple accounts. There are conflicting stories on some of the details, sure, but overall, Kerry’s version is the one that’s supported, and several of the Swift Boat people had to admit that they were simply reporting hearsay. I can’t help adding that we’re still debating the details of the Viet Nam service of the candidate in that election who actually WENT to Viet Nam. But if you want to believe that Kerry was the coward, and that Bush was the hero, go ahead.</p>
<p>“But if you want to believe that Kerry was the coward, and that Bush was the hero, go ahead.”</p>
<p>No one, including Bush, is trying to make him out to be a hero. Unlike Kerry who would likely never had received the nomination were it not for him playing “the hero”. This is the same Kerry who first try to avoid military service entirely by getting a deferment for grad school. When that failed, he joined the service which was believed to be the safest during the Vietnam conflict - the Navy. When he volunteered for Swift Boat duty, that type of duty was extremely safe; only after he got into it was the role of Swift Boats re-defined into something dangerous. Once he got into that duty, he was on a mission to accumulate his necessary 3 purple hearts to get the heck out of there. If this meant that he had to twist events and people’s arms to get a purple heart for the equivalent of a thorn in his hand so be it. All the Swift Boat Vets did was expose this fraud of a hero for what he was.</p>
<p>As far as the Navy records are concerned, is there any doubt that they support the Kerry view when Kerry was the likely author of them?</p>