<p>“It is ridiculous we are even having this conversation.”</p>
<p>Interesting that you think it’s ridiculous to suggest that some Republicans won’t vote for a non-White, and yet you dismiss Romney because he is a Mormon.</p>
<p>“Ok all of you folks are so enlightened that you’re choosing Obama because you’re so much better than the unwashed, unenlightened masses, WHY are you voting for him?”</p>
<p>I never understand this kind of poor-me argument from Republicans, the party of wealth and privilege. The Republicans are the ones who show contempt for the “unenlightened masses” by tricking them into voting against their own interests. Personally, I’m voting for Obama for several reasons. First of all, I think the Republicans have done such a miserably rotten job of running the country for the last eight years that I want their hands off. Second, I think Obama is a smart and capable guy, who is able to listen and learn. Third, I think he’s right on more of the issues than McCain is.</p>
<p>Poor me, nothing. You misread. I was pointing out the hypocrisy, ignorance and racism of some on the left.</p>
<p>Oh, and Hunt, you need to get updated information. The democratic party is now the party of the wealthy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then stand on that instead of attacking people who don’t share your view. You guys should go back and re-read this thread with an open mind.</p>
<p>
That’s utter nonsense, as welfare reform has proved here in New York and elsewhere. Besides, who are you to presume to know what anyone’s interest other than your own? That’s what drives me nuts about some liberals. A complete lack of respect or understanding of anyone else.</p>
<p>Nope, I didn’t misread. It was another complaint against those mean old liberals who look down on the “unwashed” conservatives. Although I’ve heard it lots of times, I just don’t believe it.</p>
<p>Like Poetsheart, I find it disingenuous at best for a conservative to insist that Obama has been too successful. His success is his appeal. I wish him great success and fortune. The more the better and more appealing he is.</p>
<p>We, as Americans, might route for the underdog, but we do not want a dog of any sort running the country. We want a winner; say what you want about Senator Obama, but he is a winner!</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m with Mercymom here. </p>
<p>Newjack88 could not be more wrong: And certainly he is wrong.</p>
<p>Jindal will energize the Republican base more than anything short of a resurrection of Ronald Regan. What’s more, he would definitely turn the head of many voters, like myself, that have turned away from McCain and towards Obama given the similarities between the two candidates (liberal/moderate) and the fact that Obama would offer something new and fresh into the body politic. Something it needs.</p>
<p>Jindal, for me, represents the same phenomenon as Obama: Young, different, fresh, hands-on, successful, inspiring etc, etc.</p>
<p>Contrary to the dimwitted boilerplate of many pro-Obama liberals (as distinguished from the centrists–of which there are a few notables here on cc) conservatives would be more likely to vote for McCain with Jindal on the ticket than not. Conservatives tend to like winners…and results. Jindal is a true conservative…that gets results.</p>
<p>Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingram, Emmett Tyrell, Dinesh D’Souza and more are saying Jindal is the second coming of Ronald Regan. The enthusiasm is palpable – even if very unlikely to get the desired result.</p>
<p>I would almost certainly switch over to McCain if Jindal was on the ticket. </p>
<p>I do not think he will be picked, however; not because of his skin, but because of his age. A bit more seasoning. Something I also wish Senator Obama had a bit more of. A bit less raw and a bit more cooked.</p>
<p>But the world is what it is, and Obama, though a bit risky, seems about worth the risk.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m TELLING YOU that you misread. I’m also telling you, flat out, exactly what I intended. How dare you presume to speak for me? How dare you attribute anything to me. </p>
<p>Some very nice, smart posters have taken a road trip to Obnoxious Town on this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you hold those views without calling racist the mythical republicans who don’t share your views?</p>
<p>I don’t by any means suggest that all or most Republicans are racist in any way. I have heard from too many people on this very forum who have perfectly valid reasons for not voting for Obama and I don’t believe it has anything to do with race. I was simply pointing out that there are some - I don’t know how many - who will vote because of race and race alone. I grew up in an area where there are quite a few of them. I also know Democrats who will do the same. I know Democrats who stayed at home from the primary because they couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a black or a woman. Some of these people have argued with me that they know Obama is a muslim and that he is part of some vast conspiracy to take over the United States - these are Democrats telling me this. Racism crosses party lines.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, I’m not presuming to speak for you. I’m just characterizing your post, which, in my personal opinion, is the same anti-liberal rant I’ve read hundreds of times. You wrote:</p>
<p>“Ok all of you folks are so enlightened that you’re choosing Obama because you’re so much better than the unwashed, unenlightened masses, WHY are you voting for him? Is it his experience? Not likely. His legislative track record? Don’t think so? His history of reaching across the aisle? Yeah. No. Then what? His jump shot, which I hear is very good? His eloquence? Well that upspeak is quite annoying.”</p>
<p>First of all, you seem pretty comfortable attributing views and motives to others. And then:</p>
<p>" I personally know many liberals for whom self esteem is all and it is profoundly important to them that they be seen as different, better, smarter than ordinary folks. Some of those people NEED to vote for and support Obama and to create a scenario where others are racist (and therefore less smart, enlightened, etc.) to hold themselves up and apart. But the thing is this: many of them are not holding Obama (or their decision) to the same standard to which they would hold another candidate (white), because the whole thing isn’t about the candidate it’s about them. They have to b first among the lemmings to scream to the world “look I’m not racist because I’ll vote for a black man!!” but really, they don’t see his humanity or his possibilities, just his skin. Because that’s the only thing that sets Senator Obama apart from lots of other under-qualified liberals supporting the same views."</p>
<p>So, this is the same old conservative rant that those mean old liberals are the REAL racists.</p>
<p>Cartera, I don’t dispute the fact that there are racists on the right at all. I just take exception to this particular thread. Coming in to it after an absence, it’s just a bit disturbing to see so much ugliness and pack behavior among people I usually like. It’s the pack behavior that I’m having a problem with.</p>
<p>Hunt, I told you what I meant. Go back and read it and don’t imply that I’m a liar. I don’t appeciate that at all.</p>
<p>I characterized a group of people of my experience. I did not attribute something to a specific person. Very big difference. You don’t like to be lumped in a group, do you, but you’re comfortable in doing it to others. Perhaps I struck a nerve. In any event, you don’t get to speak for me. I do. I told you exactly what my point was: ignorance, hypocrisy, etc. No poor-me at all and such a thing has never, ever, in my entire life crossed my mind. It wasn’t there, it isn’t there, and you don’t get to put it there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quote me on that because it IS what I meant and what I absolutely believe.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…you need a new class of friends. </p>
<p>I do not know of a single person THAT WOULD HAVE voted for Senator Obama (or hypothetically, Jindal) that did not vote for him, or would not vote for him, because of his skin color. Not one. </p>
<p>I do not even know any real (as opposed to virtual ON-LINE people) that know anyone that knows someone that wanted to vote for Senator Obama but didn’t for him because of his skin color.</p>
<p>Statistically, I suppose that person must exist…someone where --like the welfare queen driving a pink Cadillac and buying Porterhouse steak for lunch-- but they are a rare and mysterious breed; known only to political mystics and progressive shamans.</p>
<p>Jindal, as a Republican, won 53% of the vote in the deep south. What’s that say about skin, race and success?</p>
<p>However, Jindal only recieved 10% of the black vote.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>I’m not calling you a liar, Zoosermom. You are being too sensitive if you think that criticism of your post is “speaking for you.” And the reason I called your post “poor-me” is because it is typical of complaints by conservatives that they are being called racists, when the REAL racists are those liberals who are voting on the basis of the candidate’s skin. But I guess your post did strike a nerve, because it was pretty insulting. Maybe you should also go back and read it.</p>
<p>15 weeks – what there is left in this race – is an eternity, but here’s a view from Time Magazine that says the race is over. It’s just not McCain’s year, and even though the horse race fans in the mainstream media are going to keep calling it close, it’s just not:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-confidential-cafe/541265-time-magazine-mccain-long-shot-no-shot.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-confidential-cafe/541265-time-magazine-mccain-long-shot-no-shot.html</a></p>
<p>Admit is, skin color, sex, ethnicity are parts of the equation. If it wasn’t why does the news constantly remind us that we have the 1st black nominee. He’s the dem nominee. Why did the media remind us that for the 1st time there could be a woman President? Now with Jindal in the picture it will be abouth ethnicity. Last time I checked to be on the ticket should not be defined with your genetic background. I am sick and tired of hearing about what skin color, age, sex, sexual orientation or ethnicity. Unfortunately the media keeps talking about it!</p>
<p>I maybe naive, but I believe we should vote on issues and not genetic make up, but I also do believe when people start saying they are not voting for a candidate because of one of those reasons than our society is in for a whole lot of pain.</p>
<p>Bedhead…I put about much faith in Time reporting in an unbiased view as I do NYT. Any journalist can pick and choose what they want and need to slant an article their way. All of the polls have them neck and neck. It will come down to get out the vote.</p>
<p>Also remember pollsters are saying that they fear their polls are going to be skewed the wrong way. Rasmussen said this a few weeks ago, and used the primary with Hillary and Obama being incorrect quite often. Polls historically run lower numbers for Republicans, but when the actual tabulation comes out they rise. If they are neck and neck now, Obama will get his bounce from this trip and then the convention, McCain will get his bounce in Sept from the convention. It will be end of Sept. when the true numbers will shake out</p>
<p>Have we voted already? Why should I believe anything written by the media?</p>
<p>z-mom - I liked your post #39.</p>
<p>The 2nd paragraph is one of the most profound thngs I’ve read on CC. I’m sure there are plenty of folks on here who won’t actually agree w/ it, but it was good nonetheless. I applaud you for being brave enough to post those views - especially here.</p>
<p>bh - don’t write McCain off just yet - even the exit polls (so they say) projected Kerry was gonna win in '04. You just never know…</p>
<p>And as an American who wants to believe my fellow Americans aren’t all idiots, I have to hope they will see thru Obama’s “smoke & mirrors” before it’s too late.</p>
<p>pima - another good post! CC is hoppin’ today!</p>
<p>Some of y’all should have your own shows - beats the heck outa Rush, and the Lauras!</p>