West Virginia Whites = racists; 95% of blacks voting for Obama = not racist?

bootlegger10

We never hear the 95% of black voters in each state voting for Obama being called racists, but when the whites in West Virginia vote for Hilary in large numbers they are branded as racists and made fun of by the media (like just on the Daily Show) and on the cable networks. It is a double standard.

Seriously, the only reason Obama is winning this is because he IS black. If blacks voted on issues and not color Hilary would be winning. There is hardly a difference between the two candidates, but blacks vote 90% for Obama. Hell, every debate was Hilary giving her views, and then Obama following up with the same viewpoint. The fact that Hilary is this close to Obama should tell anyone with a brain she would do just as well if not better than Obama in the presidential election.

Obama will still crush McCain.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

well it is West Virgina....it carries some stereotypical baggage.

j/k

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

bootlegger10 wrote:

We never hear the 95% of black voters in each state voting for Obama being called racists, but when the whites in West Virginia vote for Hilary in large numbers they are branded as racists and made fun of by the media (like just on the Daily Show) and on the cable networks. It is a double standard.

Seriously, the only reason Obama is winning this is because he IS black. If blacks voted on issues and not color Hilary would be winning. There is hardly a difference between the two candidates, but blacks vote 90% for Obama. Hell, every debate was Hilary giving her views, and then Obama following up with the same viewpoint. The fact that Hilary is this close to Obama should tell anyone with a brain she would do just as well if not better than Obama in the presidential election.

Obama will still crush McCain.

i agree. there is a good chunk of racists voting for both candidates.

Rhinocerous Surprise

bootlegger10 wrote:

We never hear the 95% of black voters in each state voting for Obama being called racists, but when the whites in West Virginia vote for Hilary in large numbers they are branded as racists and made fun of by the media (like just on the Daily Show) and on the cable networks. It is a double standard.

Seriously, the only reason Obama is winning this is because he IS black. If blacks voted on issues and not color Hilary would be winning. There is hardly a difference between the two candidates, but blacks vote 90% for Obama. Hell, every debate was Hilary giving her views, and then Obama following up with the same viewpoint. The fact that Hilary is this close to Obama should tell anyone with a brain she would do just as well if not better than Obama in the presidential election.

Obama will still crush McCain.

It's not because Obama's black. It's cos he has charm, and a likeable slogan. The issues would do little to separate them.

Flannel Shirt

anyone who thinks race will not be or has not been a factor in this election is kidding themselves.

Hillary doesnt seem sincere when she speaks and Obama does. That is her #1 problem and will have been the cause of her having lost the nomination, not the racism. Racism may cost Obama the presidency however.

I suspect there are a lot of jerkoffs who will not vote for him simply because he is black. Sad, but true.

satansbedbugs

Well its a good thing that the black canidate is the better of the two, IMO

Given2Fly...SD

bootlegger10 wrote:

We never hear the 95% of black voters in each state voting for Obama being called racists, but when the whites in West Virginia vote for Hilary in large numbers they are branded as racists and made fun of by the media (like just on the Daily Show) and on the cable networks. It is a double standard.

Seriously, the only reason Obama is winning this is because he IS black. If blacks voted on issues and not color Hilary would be winning. There is hardly a difference between the two candidates, but blacks vote 90% for Obama. Hell, every debate was Hilary giving her views, and then Obama following up with the same viewpoint. The fact that Hilary is this close to Obama should tell anyone with a brain she would do just as well if not better than Obama in the presidential election.

Obama will still crush McCain.

its racist when close to 30% of the voters that voted for Hilary ADMITTED that race was a reason they voted for Hilary. And that worrisome because thats the only the people that admitted to it.

But again I don't think its right to vote for Obama cause he's black so its kind of a Catch22.

Also viewpoints on the issues might be the same, but the means of resolving and finding solutions are completely different. I think the decision of which one of them to vote for should be based on what strategy you like best, as hope many voters of this primary did, I hope.

Given2Fly...SD

I suspect there are a lot of jerkoffs who will not vote for him simply because he is black. Sad, but true.[/quote]

I hope you are wrong.

brandon10

And the daily show showed actual interveiws with those fat, stupid, ignorant, racist, fucks. While there may be racism on both sides, it's clearly the partially retarded/ low I.Q. on Hillary's. Why do you think she does so well in rural areas??

Anon

bootlegger10 wrote:

Seriously, the only reason Obama is winning this is because he IS black.

Thank you Ms. Ferraro....

Obviously Obama is benefiting from overwhelming black support, and in those states with a large black Democratic population, the vote is strongly affected by race. But to emphasize that point and pretend, therefore, that Obama is just winning because of race is totally ridiculous. He has won many, almost completely white states by larger margins than he has won largely black states and has he done very well in the largest states where the proportion of blacks is relatively small.

No one yelled racism when 75-80% of "Black" people supported Bill Clinton and other "Democratic Canidates". Bill Clinton would have never been elected President in the 92 and 96 elections if not for the "Black" support. In both, he got greater than 80% of the vote. From my perspective "Blacks" have been and remain the unifying force in several areas of our society. That's why it was suprising that the Clintons and their surrogates attempted to make the "What" in this election seasons the fact that Seanator "Obama" happens to be considered a "Black" man. I suspect that "Blacks" are supporting him for the same reason that I am.

If it weren't for the "black" vote in 1991 Bill and Hillary Clinton wouldn't be where they are today.

If it weren't for his white mother and grandparents who stuck by him, Barack Obama wouldn't be where he is today.

If it weren't for the contributions of all races, America wouldn't be what it is today.

Abookamongstthemany

How does Obama stand apart from Hillary 1) in his platform 2) in his voting record 3) in his ties to special interests and lobbyists?

I'd just like to see something that says why he is the better candidate other that that Hillary is this scummy bitch.

brandon10

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

How does Obama stand apart from Hillary 1) in his platform 2) in his voting record 3) in his ties to special interests and lobbyists?

I'd just like to see something that says why he is the better candidate other that that Hillary is this scummy bitch.

Quit changing the subject. Go hi-jack another thread.

Oh and I'm too tired to go through their voting records and platforms. But a huge difference in the two of them is foreign policy. Obama has stated that he will talk with all countries and try to resolve differences, she will not. She would rather threaten to obliterate any country that harms Isreal!!!!

Even if they had the exact same policies and platforms, I can still make a decision as to who I think has a better chance of accomplishing them. And it has nothing to do with race. So your question is pointless.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I don't believe a word any of them say at face value. It's all skuff...

Look at what they do, and what they stand for.

Words are cheap, and easily changed into explanations and concessions after the fact.

you know....actions speak louder than words.

Abookamongstthemany

brandon10 wrote:

Quit changing the subject. Go hi-jack another thread.

Oh and I'm too tired to go through their voting records and platforms. But a huge difference in the two of them is foreign policy. Obama has stated that he will talk with all countries and try to resolve differences, she will not. She would rather threaten to obliterate any country that harms Isreal!!!!

Even if they had the exact same policies and platforms, I can still make a decision as to who I think has a better chance of accomplishing them. And it has nothing to do with race. So your question is pointless.

I'll post whereever I damn well please and post about pop tarts and pixie stix if it the right mood strikes me.

Obama has had the same firm stance Hilary has had on Israel, Iraq and Iran....there may be small details that are different but they are both for continuing this country down the road of imperialism and interventionism just the same as the Republicans. Tell me where you see that they aren't headed down this path unless you get too tired, that is.


What would you use as your deciding factor then if they were exactly the same out of curiosity?

brandon10

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I'll post whereever I damn well please and post about pop tarts and pixie stix if it the right mood strikes me.

Obama has had the same firm stance Hilary has had on Israel, Iraq and Iran....there may be small details that are different but they are both for continuing this country down the road of imperialism and interventionism just the same as the Republicans. Tell me where you see that they aren't headed down this path unless you get too tired, that is.


What would you use as your deciding factor then if they were exactly the same out of curiosity?

Pop tarts and pixie sticks have as much chance of being elected as Nader. So go for it.

Abookamongstthemany

brandon10 wrote:

Pop tarts and pixie sticks have as much chance of being elected as Nader. So go for it.

And they have as much of a chance of bringing some real change about as Obama but I still get to keep my conscience clean.

RainDog

Blacks voting overwhelmingly for a viable black candidate when there has never been a viable black candidate in the history of our country, when only 40 years ago segregation was the law of the land, when only 40 years ago interracial marriage bans were ruled unconstitutional, when institutionalized poverty, crumbling neighborhoods, and beyond substandard eductation is still rampant in this country, it can't really be classified as racism. Now, if an individual black voter is supporting Obama because that voter hates whitey, then maybe. But that's not really what's going on here. Blacks vote for white candidates all the time.

When the main, stated reason a white person doesn't vote for a candidate is because that candidate is black, because they don't ever want to see a black office holder, because they just can't trust them darkies, that is, most certainly, racist.

I grew up on the boarder of West Virgina in an Ohio county that went 72% to 23% for Hillary Clinton. Needless to say, I wasn't surprised by the WV results (or the overall Ohio and Pennsylvania results, either).

Rhinocerous Surprise

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

And they have as much of a chance of bringing some real change about as Obama but I still get to keep my conscience clean.

Zing!

bootlegger10

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

It's not because Obama's black. It's cos he has charm, and a likeable slogan. The issues would do little to separate them.

The white equivalent to Obama is John Edwards. He can speak well, he is well-educated, and spoke about change and the common man. You saw where that got him in the primaries. Yet Obama used the same message and spoke equally as eloquently, and you see where he is ending up.

bootlegger10

Pj_Gurl wrote:

Thank you Ms. Ferraro....

Obviously Obama is benefiting from overwhelming black support, and in those states with a large black Democratic population, the vote is strongly affected by race. But to emphasize that point and pretend, therefore, that Obama is just winning because of race is totally ridiculous. He has won many, almost completely white states by larger margins than he has won largely black states and has he done very well in the largest states where the proportion of blacks is relatively small.

No one yelled racism when 75-80% of "Black" people supported Bill Clinton and other "Democratic Canidates". Bill Clinton would have never been elected President in the 92 and 96 elections if not for the "Black" support. In both, he got greater than 80% of the vote. From my perspective "Blacks" have been and remain the unifying force in several areas of our society. That's why it was suprising that the Clintons and their surrogates attempted to make the "What" in this election seasons the fact that Seanator "Obama" happens to be considered a "Black" man. I suspect that "Blacks" are supporting him for the same reason that I am.

If it weren't for the "black" vote in 1991 Bill and Hillary Clinton wouldn't be where they are today.

If it weren't for his white mother and grandparents who stuck by him, Barack Obama wouldn't be where he is today.

If it weren't for the contributions of all races, America wouldn't be what it is today.

Again, John Edwards had the same message as Obama, if not even more over the top regarding helping out the poor and middle class. Yet, he did not do well in the elections.

bootlegger10

brandon10 wrote:

Pop tarts and pixie sticks have as much chance of being elected as Nader. So go for it.

To be honest, I was hoping that this thread would be a discussion about pop tarts and pixie sticks. I'm glad someone had the courage to bring it up. I just thought if I could bring up race, the discussion would naturally turn to pop tarts and pixie sticks (when doesn't it?).

No hijacking in this thread so far!