Anomalous Reading: All of that verbiage and you still can’t come up with anything. Not even a good story. (Is that code, too? ‘Story’? I can’t tell, and it’s liable to become one at random.)
See… this is where I wish this were in the pit. You are being, on some level, dishonest.
He allusion to Jesse Jackson winning the state was a backhanded allusion to Obama’s blackness. It was meant to diminish the vote, the win, and the voices behind that win. People didn’t like it.
I didn’t like it. It was about then that I swore off HRC. I’m an independent and have NO complusion to vote for a PARTY. I vote for a person. A platform. A plan. And a person I trust.
Be that as it may, I’m talking to a brick wall. You are bound and determined to call the race issue a non-issue. Well… we have another Southern-ism.
“Bless your heart.”
But Obama is black. And any rational discussion of this election or Obama’s candidacy should certainly include his race as a factor, no?
And while I am no fan of Bill Clinton at all, why is it not realistic to point out that Jesse Jackson won the SC primary twice, and by implication, show that Obama simply won the state because he is black, if such an implication is true?
Or should we be so politically correct that we “invent” reasons for Obama’s victory even if race WAS actually the factor, so that we aren’t perceived as racists.
It’s actually funny watching these accusations leveled at Bill Clinton because I took these things seriously in the 90s when the GOP was in charge. Do you actually think that Bill Clinton is a racist?
No. But I do think he can be myopic. Disagree?
Obama IS black. And it’s fair to make that point and to say that 4 out of 5 black voters voted for him. To reduce his appeal to his skin color, I find that offensive. I just watched the debate. He is not a skin color candidate.
That’s the offense, imo.
Missed the Edit window:
I’m not saying that the race factor was the sole reason for Obama’s win, but it certainly could and should be a topic of discussion. Any why would that hurt anyone’s feelings? It wasn’t like Clinton was saying something negative about blacks, ONLY that their larger than average numbers skewed the vote to Obama.
It would be like if a fictional state had 93% of the electorate as hell-fire and brimstone Baptists and the Rev. John Hagee won the primary. If someone pointed out that in this fictional state, that 20 years ago Pat Robertson won the primary, would that be seen as bigotry toward fundamental Christians?
While some will dispute this… religion is chosen. Race isn’t.
That makes issues of race, gender, sexuality… more volatile. And less open to certain comments.
I am NOT arguing race should be taboo. Quite the opposite generally. I didn’t like the approach, that’s all.
Well, I don’t mean to offend, but I am sure that a large part of the SC Democratic electorate voted for Obama because of skin color. Eighty percent is good evidence of this.
I don’t think Clinton or anyone else would say that the ONLY thing Obama has to offer is skin color. His remarks were limited to the SC primary…
Was it skin color or identity? A feeling that maybe now someone who might TRULY understand might win the office?
I don’t know the answers. I agree that skin factored heavily.
If you were Baptist and someone took some shots at drunken Christians… would you not want to vote against them?
Well, for the sake of this discussion, I won’t debate your core points, but whether or not a certain thing is chosen or not, it is a fair point of discussion when you are analyzing the strategy or the “why or why not” questions of an election.
Let me try another example: Another fictional state with a large younger population has a Presidential Primary where Angelina Jolie wins over Hillary (This state is pretty out there). Exit polls show that 80% of the young votes voted for Angelina while the older population went for Hillary.
Now, a persons age is not their choice, so do you think that any comment on the above should be “less open to certain comments”?
Well… Carrie Fisher won there twice twenty years ago…
Dunno. You tell me. What of the people in between?
What does it matter? Even if the hypothetical example gave the full picture or it didn’t. Campaigns spin things all of the time, and nobody reacts in outrage because of it.
What if, after McCain won the NH primary, Romney said “So what? Pat Buchanan won there 12 years ago.”
It has no correlation in any type of logic, but is a good talking point (that the NH winner doesn’t matter because Buchanan eventually lost)
Would anyone seriously say that Romney was disparaging the people of NH?
It’s a matter of personal intuition and experience. I don’t see you having a double standard in application and I do think reasonable people can disagree on this…
I think that’s where we are. I’m really not dogging Clinton. I just didn’t like it when the response some people gave to comments by the Clinton’s were made to just all sound silly. That’s the reason I got a bit forceful.
My discourse with you has been open throughout and rather enjoyable. I think we might agree more than it seems…
You’re talking about people speaking in secret codes whether they apparently know it or not and you’re accusing me of being dishonest. That’s precious. I want to hang that on my wall in a nice frame.
Please. Go ahead.
I’ve offered my case. All we have left is more name calling. I’m tired of that kind of conversation.