Racism?

Don, it seems like you (and only you) are likening yourself to Joe Wilson. I don't think anybody who follows this blog is accusing you of being racist, so why defend yourself?

These people are politically motivated and supported by their constituents. I know for a fact that there is racism and racists out there. Since the makeup of our Congress is -supposed- to represent the makeup of the general US population...some events only make me wonder...

Here's an interesting observation I saw the other day by a "historian": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaxscHd4WnM

For the racism charge to be taken seriously, Obama would have had to change his race from what it was during campaign.

The entire issue is ridiculous.

Maybe people are really racist against white people, and hate Obama because he had a white mother.

Jimmy Carter, Eugene Robinson, Maureen Dowd, and Bob Herbert all have two things in common:


1. They are Obama supporters
2. They’ve all stated recently that varying degrees of the criticism directed towards Obama are motivated by racism.

I suspect they have a third thing in common also: They want Obama’s critics to be racists.

Please note that I said I suspect that they want it, not that they do. I am no more able to see into their hidden desires and motivations then they are able to see into Joe Wilson, or anyone else they associate racism to based on criticism of Obama’s administration.

Assigning racial motives to any criticism of Obama, however, does afford them some benefits. It allows them to feel morally superior, to look down on someone as a backwards bigot. To the extent someone is a backwards bigot, and you are not, you should feel morally superior. But only to the extent that both of those are true. If someone isn’t motivated by racism in criticizing Obama, however, and you look down on them as a racist, I think you’ve lost more than a little of your moral high ground.

It also spares them of having to deal with the inconvenient reality that whatever proposal of Obama’s is being criticized may actually make things worse. An honest, objective assessment of whatever it is may lead you to the conclusion that, in that particular instance, Obama is wrong. Really understanding an issue honestly and objectively, however, takes a lot of work. You can certainly spare someone having to do that work by dismissing any criticism of Obamacare, for example, as racially motivated.

I have no doubt there are people in America who can't stand Obama because he's black. But what of those who criticize Obama based on a different view of the role of government than he's been promoting? Joe Wilson's pathetic outburst may be viewed by some as a gift to be exploited... an opportunity to change the discussion away from the wisdom of an expanded federal role in health care to the racial motivations of those who question that role.

Which Robinson column? He's been out there saying that the opposition ISN'T driven by racism.

see:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/...

where he states: " I can say in plain language that Jimmy Carter was right in essence, but wrong in degree. It seems clear to me that some -- but not "an overwhelming portion," as Carter claimed -- of the "intensely demonstrated animosity" toward Obama is indeed "based on the fact that he is a black man." "

also linked at: http://www.brianslens.blogspot.com/

Right - that's what I mean. I don't know - I wouldn't put him on the same list as Carter. Aren't some people's feelings likely to be motivated by racism?

I'm confused, you state Robinson has "been out there saying that the opposition ISN'T driven by racism" and I provide a quote where he says it IS. Then your response is "Right- that's what I mean" ????

We could have a philosophical discussion about to what degree Robinson and Carter see racial motivation, but they are both on the same list of publicly saying (as I put in my post) "that varying degrees of the criticism directed towards Obama are motivated by racism"

Perhaps it's a disagreement over the meaning of "driven". I mean that he says racism isn't the driving force behind opposition. It isn't driven by it. "The opposition" seemed to be a collective statement to me. The collective opposition ISN'T driven by racism is Robinson's position. Some individuals are. That seems to me to be a fundamentally different point from Carter.

I agree with you that they say varying degrees of the criticism are motivated by racism. I deliberately didn't disagree with that portion of your post. I just think it's strange not to differentiate them. You said yourself "I have no doubt there are people in America who can't stand Obama because he's black", so you seem to be on that list too. All I'm saying is that Robinson seems to be coming from your perspective and my perspective, against Jimmy Carter's perspective (although Robinson did praise Carter for "putting it on the table" at the same time that he disagreed with him).

I think we are at risk of missing the big picture. Joe Wilson shouted "You lie" when the president spoke about illegals being a part of health care reform. A lot of the discussion since has focused on whether or not Obama critics are racists, and to what degree, instead of focusing on the merits of Obamacare (or even the issue of illegals accessing healthcare).

It seems to me like the left has jedi mind-tricked the body politic in this regard, by shifting the focus away from the merits (or lack thereof) of the health care proposals. I suspect some of it has to do with weakening the criticism by attacking the critic(s), instead of addressing head-on whatever piece of the proposal is being criticized. Wilson certainly didn't help the discussion by his moronic outburst.

Maybe Robinson is on a list with Carter in one regard, but not on another. We could spend some time diving into that and then come up with solid distinctions. Wouldn't our time be better spent, however, on more important issues?

Here is Bob Herbert's column today....it practically writes itself. Of course Dan will come in and say that Bob Herbert doesn't represent the Dem party. Yeah right!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/opinion/19her...

"For many white Americans, Barack Obama is nothing more than that black guy in the White House, and they want him out of there. "
Who's blanketing whom Dan?

Why is so much hatred being hurled toward President Obama? That's a no-brainer!

He's a Kenyan born Arab terrorist who wants to bring DEATH PANELS to this grand and glorious land of ours so he can pull the plugs on Granny and Gramps.

HE'S A LEFT WING SOCIALIST whose education was funded by the American Communist Party, MoveOn.Org, Barbara Streisand and Ed Asner.

He named his daughters Sasha and Malia - YO! WHAT'S UP WITH THAT???

He would prefer to have dinner with Mahatma Gandhi over Ronald Reagan. RONALD REAGAN!!!

He wants to start a TROTSKY FOR TOTS program for our children.

He's just an evil person!

EVIL, I SAY! My fellow Americans, heed my warning,

The Big, Black, Bolshevik Bogeyman is gonna git'cha!

It has not a thing to do with race.

I am a white person. I would not lie to you.

But seriously, folks....

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

Tom,

Is muirduck on vacation and you're filling in as this blog's Village Idiot for the duration?

Socialist can tolerate anything but opposition. You fools are just so sad, juvenile, and seemingly incapable of writing decent satire.

Please, stop beating about the bush and tell me exactly how you feel.

Cheers!

Tom Degan

Of course Walter Williams and Thomas Soul must also be racists for opposing the president.

Then again, someone from the black community could easily wonder if the president, whose ancestors are actually more likely to have OWNED slaves than to have BEEN slaves could substantively identify with the reality of their ancient complaints...

Politically, Carter should be encouraged, not refuted. His statement is not about shaming opponents into seeing things his way. It's about offering an excuse as to why a bill will not pass. The Dems have complete control over this. What they don't have is agreement amongst themselves over what to do. They also don't have the discipline to accept what's easily doable and build the more difficult things onto it another year. They could easily pass a bill concerning pre-existing conditions or set up some kind of procedure review board, likely with Republican support. But they want the whole taco and the left wing of the party won't give up on the super stupid ideas. They know they are sunk. This whole racism thing is about failing and not staying classy.

The same Jimmy Carter that deregulated trucking and shipping?

It's much easier to respond to criticism of policy with accusations of racism than it is to defend against the criticism.
Such accusations dehumanize the person making the criticism so as to take away any merit that the criticism may have.
It's not much different than accusing a supporter of universal health care a Communist.

I don't know of anybody who opposes universal health care. And, by happy coincidence, we have universal health care in the USA. I think most agree we have cost issues, and the poor suffer the most as a result, but we do have universal health care.

If you're referring to supporters of plans to have the government take over the health care industry, that's a separate topic. (Although I think socialist is more accurate description than communist for them, since having government take over health care is, in fact, socialist.) Maybe a little off topic, but IMO a government takeover will make the existing problems worse, add new problems, and drive cost up dramatically in the process. The higher costs then hurt the poor even more than what we have now.

But I agree with your first sentence.

It happens all the time right here on this blog, people using words like socialist and communist to describe those who want to increase the size of government. Granted these people may indeed be socialist or communist, just as I'm quite certain that there are people who hate Obama simply for the color of his skin, but such accusations serve more to demonize than anything else. It's a distraction and a cop out by people who cannot actually debate an issue, so they must resort to name calling. A great example of this strategy is on MSNBC at 8pm EST.

"...people using words like socialist and communist to describe those who want to increase the size of government. ... It's a distraction and a cop out by people who cannot actually debate an issue."

If you believe that government should decide when or if you should get medical treatment, you're a socialist.

Many of Yasafi's (for example) statements are Marxian, other of his statements are fascist. All of his statements are socialist in one form or another.

Our Dear Leader, the Dalai Bama (HT: Methinks) is the de-facto Chairman of GM and Chrysler - a very fascist arrangement. Obama desires single-payer, government-provided health insurance - not exactly a libertarian or conservative desire.

As has been said at this Cafe more than once: If it walks like a socialist, talks like a socialist, then it's a socialist Duck.

Congratulations to Carter and Pelosi. They got the opposition of health care off topic with an elementary school playground tactic.

I am intolerant of peanut farmers.

Well if anyone that opposes Obamacare is racist, then according to Rasmussen, 56% of Americans are racist!

The irony is that most Dems would probably agree and embrace that number. =\

It would appear that the Left is trying to redefine racism as something good. If they succeed, I don't know what word we will use to describe people who believe in an inherent superiority or inferiority of races. "Progressive" maybe.

I wish there was a way to add this inline:

http://afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/06...

Good one Ike.

I'll never forget that the Chicago politician congressman Gus Savage when accused of being a racist in utterances directed at white declared, "Blacks can't be racist"! And, not one single member of the press present called him on that.

Obviously to make a claim of superiority for one's race is racist, and claiming an incapablility to be racist is indeed racist.

I put the same proposition to a local Pacifica radio host who is black and female, laid out the Gus Savage incident and she affirmed his statement as being true, all the while claiming to be non-racist herself.

Yep, racism is alive and well in America and it has no color.

It would not surprise me if Wilson does have a racial prejudice. However, I think Carter's assertion to be a destructive diversion. They both deserved to be ignored.

I'd like to those from the right / left / middle who throw about insults and threats to suppress view in oppostion to their own change their tactics and present their own ideas in a reasonable and compeling way.

What I'd like to see is simple. Listen, think, and participate in constructive manner.

That's exactly how a racist would rationalize it. /sarcasm

I was wondering when you guys would sound off on this issue. The errant race cards being thrown willy nilly has been spleening me all week. I blogged this just yesterday:

"What kills me is that when Obama was elected president, there was all this “hands across America” feeling–we’d finally been able to put off this notion of race and racism in America and elect a black president. Huzzah! Look how far we’ve come since the 50s?

But, of course, as soon as Obama’s approval numbers drop, as soon as he comes under critical fire of his economics, of his policies and practices, of his trade tariffs against China, of his partisan’ery, of his lip service and political dodgery–real things that really matter–someone pulls out the race deck and starts a game of 52-Card Pickup and the media scatters to the floor in an attempt to get the Aces."

http://theidiom.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/scatte...

I compeltely agree that the blanket criticisms - and certainly Carter's point - was totally unfounded. There are real reasons for opposition to health reform. I suppose the advantage of me being an Obama supporter is that I can talk about how much I oppose the mandate facet, and nobody accuses me of being racist :)

But it is in the air as well. People like Limbaugh RAISE these issues independently. "Bend over and grab my ankles just because he's black", or "they’re all driven by President Obama’s thinking on one idea: reparations". Comments like these from Limbaugh don't justify Carter accusing everyone else of racism, and it doesn't mean Limbaugh is a racist either. I doubt he is. But it's clear that race was on people's minds well before the accusations started flying. That was the atmosphere that Joe Wilson shouted into, so while the response to him isn't justified, it's certainly predictable.

DK, fuck. why do you write such worthless shit? did anyone learn anything from what you said? was anything contributed to the discussion? if not, can you please shut up?

For one thing I agreed with most people here on Carter - so if their thoughts on Carter were valid contributions than my first paragraph was a valid contribution. As for my second paragraph - it added a hell of a lot more than this childish outburst of yours.

Re: "I suppose the advantage of me being an Obama supporter is that I can talk about how much I oppose the mandate facet, and nobody accuses me of being racist :)"

Unfortunately, according to that logic only ones that can oppose Obamacare are Obama supporters. Where does that leave the rest of us?

Re: "But it's clear that race was on people's minds well before the accusations started flying."

Why is it on their minds all the time? Again I want to raise my point from the other discussion. Who are the racists? The ones raising legitimate, if maybe paranoid, concern or the ones that instead of answering the question instead accuse the others of racism?

I just wish we had a man like Booker T Washington instead of the Jacksons, Sharptons and Jones now.

Re: "Unfortunately, according to that logic only ones that can oppose Obamacare are Obama supporters. Where does that leave the rest of us? "

Trust me, I'm not saying that's a good situation. But it gives me some cover, personally! Actually, it doesn't even give me cover completely. Liberal Democrats have been screaming bloody murder over the very centrists that gave them control of Congress.

RE: "Why is it on their minds all the time? Again I want to raise my point from the other discussion. Who are the racists? The ones raising legitimate, if maybe paranoid, concern or the ones that instead of answering the question instead accuse the others of racism?"

1. I don't think it's on their minds all the time.
2. I'm not sure who the racists are, but I think the number of real racists out there is pretty small in number - and to reiterate, I'm pretty confident Limbaugh is not a racist. My point is he saw this president through the prism of race very very early on when Obama's supporters were happy that (a.) we actually got the best one in the Democratic field nominated, and (b.) we actually got him elected. When we were thinking that, Rush was thinking "they want me to like him because he's the first black president". In other words, I think a lot of the opposition was preconditioned to the race issue long before anyone supporting the administration raised the issue, so that when a few idiots like Carter or Kurtz say it, everything explodes. I'm just saying Carter didn't just say something stupid. He said something stupid in a very volatile, very weirdly pre-obsessed with race atmosphere.

It's nice to see Bertha Lewis accuse O'Keiffe of being a racist for going undercover.

Who sees race everywhere?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzCzKaxDxWk&feat...

"we actually got the best one in the Democratic field nominated"

That's funny, you should do stand-up! A successful Chicago politician was "the best one in the Democratic field" ROFLMAO!!

OTOH, the bar in the Democratic Primary was set astoundingly low.

"But it gives me some cover, personally!"

Dan, you understand the problem with this, right? If you need "cover" to criticize a president because he's not white or isn't a man, that's a pretty good reason never to elect anyone who isn't a white man.

"My point is he saw this president through the prism of race very very early on when Obama's supporters were happy that..."

No. Limbaugh drew attention to the prism of race through which the Democrats saw this election.

BTW, I think it's time for your party shut Jimmy the hell up. That guy is just an embarrassing bigot.

To repeat: "Trust me, I'm not saying that's a good situation."

I'm not interested in shutting anyone up. I'm interested in convincing him that at least on this point he's wrong (and honestly I'm not especially interested in that). If Jimmy is the most insidious voice to silence, we're in a better position than I thought :)

I agree. It's not a good situation. You should have a chat with the powers that be in your party about that. I'm unlikely to vote for a black man because I want the freedom to criticize the president and his policy proposals without my email being turned in to a Commissar at the white house.

That is a defacto racist decision that stems directly from the expensive consequences imposed upon me for helping to vote in a black person. Playing the race card at every opportunity encourages racism where there wasn't any before.

how is that racist? paranoid, certainly - but racist?

how is that paranoid? Paranoia is irrational suspicion. How is it irrational to believe that if criticism of a black president resulted in charges of racism in the past it will yield the same result in the future?

It's racist because I'm not making a decision based on race, not qualifications.

The paranoia is that you think that the race card is such a common response. That's the irrationality. Insofar as it IS a response (and obviously in certain cases it is), it's rational to think it will continue to be a response.

So now we are all paranoid? Pretty soon your going to sounds like Jennine Garaffalo and try to psychoanalyze the opposition huh?

Well maybe I am a little paranoid...it happens when you get called a racist for not supporting Obama....yes it has happened to me personally numerous times. That's why I think the way I do, from first hand experience. And yes I do admit not all Dems are like that, just the majority of them. Moderate Dems are not as plentiful as you think Dan.

Jennine Garaffalo is one of the most prominent people to call Obama's opposition racist. How do I bear any resemblance to her position? To be honest she's closer to yours, just for the other team.

I have to say, I can understand why being called a racist can lead to that kind of reaction on your part. I understand it, and I'm not OK with people accusing you of that (although it's the rare media report that accuses ALL opposition of being racist... usually they just say that it's a motivating factor). Regardless - I definitely see why that would put one on edge. It's exactly why these accusations are so toxic and wrong. It's just like when people used to get accused of siding with the terrorists when they didn't agree with everything Bush said. This kind of rhetoric is very destructive and breeds distrust.

Re: "To be honest she's closer to yours, just for the other team."
HA That is rich...trying to throw her under the bus already. Not that I can blame you, but sorry Dan she is all your Party.

I agree with your second paragraph though. This kneejerk partisan reaction to everything is highly destructive. I would argue though that most, not all, of the kneejerk reaction comes from the Left. Your Bush example, and the current racism example I offer as proof.

LMAO!!

Yes, the race card being played every hour on the hour every time there's opposition to the Dalai Bama's exalted policies is "not that common"!!!!

Let me clue you in, Danny. We are not too stupid to notice when you redefine terms to make meaningless garbage out of them.

How could Obama's race not be a factor, it was his only visible and verifiable qualification. As a white man, based on his ideas, background, and experience, Obama doesn't even score double digits in Iowa and his candidacy is DOA.

Good oratory? It is to laugh. Take away his teleprompter and that facade is ripped away. I have heard too many examples of the man trying to talk when the teleprompter isn't there for him. In those circumstances he makes the previous president sound like Daniel Webster.

Ideas? Right out of the starting gate they were all stale tired old socialism, and only idiots to young to know better, and old people infected with thumbsucking too willing to overlook it, thought he had something to offer.

It was the left that inserted his race into the campaign for office, not the right. Oh my gosh they were just gushing and peeing down their legs at the opportunity to elect a.......black man! That showed the world! Yes it did.

So, is there racism alive in America? Yes there is and the left is not going to let go of it until it wins them total control of the trough.

Heaven forbid, that Obama thought it was customary to deliver a speech with good oration skills. Apparently righties see a good orator and think "snake oil salesman" hence Bush Jr. and McCain verbal clumsinesses. Though Jay Leno did have to point the way GWB did, for some reason, believe he had to speak his Spanish speeches well.

Absolutely, and the Attorney General wants to have a discussion where only he can speak. Your damned if you do and damned if you don't open your mouth. As Karl Popper has said, you can't have a rational discussion with an irrational person.

Exactly, and well-stated, Vidyohs.

And it is quite significant that the resident Apologist Extraordinaire for All Things Obama cannot refute a word you wrote.

Agree!

Well done, Vidyohs.

When I find your assessment of policy to be a reasonable basis for casting my vote I'll let you know.

Despite your extensive programming, sonny, you're still an intellectual wanna-be. And, until you rip the blinders of enculturation away from your eyes, that's all you will remain.

I forgot more about the real world than you're ever likely to learn, and still retained more than you're likely to ever learn. Your programming has you locked in but you can't see it for you seem unable to do any introspection in reality.

From you it is all pat little reactionary responses pulled from your softdrive.

RE: "I forgot more about the real world than you're ever likely to learn"

You're the one that keeps telling everyone how much smarter you are than me, buddy. I don't know if it's insecurity or what the drives you to keep saying it. Whatever it is, and even if you are smarter than me, the fact is your opinion never really manages to sway me that much. Sorry if that's a blow to you.

DuplicitousKuehn,

You won't let youself see the point. I am not "smarter" than you, your ability to absorb extensive programming and regurgitate it on reaction is notable and indicative of a good hard drive. Your problem is that you have let others do the programming, and you haven't discovered that yet. I went through the same thing, so it is easy to see in you. It is after you discover your enculturation and begin to understand it that you really begin to learn.

What I am telling you is that I am (IMO) just more broadly experienced and therefore have a greater perspective; and, have had for a very very long time. You may not like that, you may not think it possible, but there it is. You see all of this high flying theory that gets bandied about here is nice to be in the middle of, but until you've done it on the street and succeeded you'll never understand just how little of it is needed to learn, grow, and succeed.

Cut yourself loose, become an entrepreneur, develop a business, look for people to hire that you can trust and who have solid qualifications, fire people who you've found don't meet what you expected, train them, get them to produce for your business, deal with the government regulations as this happens, and walk that thin line between good unhampered operations and silly-ass frivolous lawsuits because of imagined slights or racist charges. Do this and you'll find I have grown a lot wiser than you ever realized.

That, for instance, is one arena where I am educated, and you don't seem to have a clue. And, youngster, this arena is vast and just filled with pitfalls to be avoided, so the few things I mention above are just samples of the problems of being a free independent successful business man.

You learn things such as that there really are people in this world who will bullshit you with a straight face all the while just wanting to use you as the vehicle to the lawsuit jackpot, and you find that those people are indeed more prevalent in particular groups than others. Not exclusive by no means, just more prevalent, and it has as much to do with a mindset than a particular color; but it is as a result of the enculturation of socialism which some groups have been more eager and willing to accept than others.

No, DK, I am an ignorant man for all of that, and I know it. But, that confession/admission I have made before and it doesn't mean that I don't know where I fit in the vast pool of ignorance that constitutes humanity, nor in relationship to yourself as you reveal yourself in your posts.

I am trying to help you over the knee-jerk, and to hopefully jolt your brain into gear.

This is not from altruism by no means, it is to keep you from thinking you have a right, or can assign a right to someone else, to put your hand in my pocket. It is very selfish and personal to me, so no need to thank me.

Well, one thing I can say is that I'm not surprised at all that you've had lawsuits filed against you.

What do you think I am? Some sort of advocate of frivilous discrimination lawsuits? I'm one of the few people in this whole post NOT to have accused someone else of being racist!!!!!!!!! You vidyohs - you, and Justin and Methinks are the type of people that FILE THOSE FRIVILOUS LAWSUITS. Maybe not you personally, but your mindset that sees racism and unfair treatment everywhere.

As for knee-jerk, I've criticized the position of the ideological group you attribute me to countless times on this blog. On what basis do you consider me knee-jerk??? You WANT me to be knee-jerk so bad that you've invented this idea that half of what I say is honest and half of what I say is dishonest, because if it wasn't I wouldn't fit into your little box you've made for me. Who's the knee-jerk one now??? It KILLS you that I'm not a shill for the left but that I also don't dismiss them out of hand. Sorry but as a wise man once said: "nature's action is complex, and nothing is gained in the long run by pretending that it is simple, and trying to describe it in a series of elementary propositions".

Re: "nature's action is complex, and nothing is gained in the long run by pretending that it is simple, and trying to describe it in a series of elementary propositions".


ha ha great quote and very ironic coming from a proponent of Keynes, who tried to simplify everything into aggregates.

I'll have you know, I've never filed a frivolous lawsuit, or any lawsuit.
For your info, I do not see race everywhere. I see people, most are asshats and it doesn't matter what color or gender they are an asshat is an asshat no matter what.
I do love how you say you never accuse anyone and then in the next sentence...accuse everyone or racism...good form.

I didn't accuse anyone of racism Justin. Please point out where I did. I did accuse you of something, granted, but it wasn't racism and I have pretty good documentation of it too!

I said you see racism everywhere and given your diatribe about Democrats, I don't think it's entirely unmerited. It's that mindset that leads to frivilous lawsuits, whether you personally have engaged in that or not.

Your implication that I am one of "those people" that file frivolous racial lawsuits is enough.

I never said I see racism everywhere. I said that Democrats use the race card when ever it suits them. My evidence for this was Obama's use againts Clinton and Ferraro. Hank Johnson's recent comments, Carter's recent comments, Jesse Jackson's and Al Sharpton's whole careers...there are more but I'm being too lazy right now to type them out....I know Methinks can and will come up with more examples.
I also said that, I think the real racists are the one's that go around looking for it in every nook and cranny. Did I ever say that I go around looking for it? Your trying to imply something that I never said. Which in turn is trying to use my words to label me as a racist. I don't really appreciate that.

Sir, I never labeled you as a racist. I have yet to label anyone as a racist.

Again little one, you make assumptions that are not borne out by communication or fact. I never said I had been sued, threatened one time, but plain facts discouraged that.

My profession is a legal videographer, and I see that shit virtually every day, so I am well aware of what others go through.

As an independent business man employing others for ten years I did experience all the other crap I listed.

Nothing about you kills me, youngster, absolutely nothing. You are a shill for the left and your words in total make your pathetic attempts at denial all the more obvious. You can't help yourself.

Trust me, sonny, you were never hard to cipher, right from the git go you identified yourself and where you stand. You like to think you're cuter than everyone else here with your word slinging, but really you are a novice compared to some of the heavy hitters, and that was easy to see.

You see, where we differ and I know that I am wiser, is that I do dismiss the left out of hand. Because I know that all their ideas and actions are predicated on the bedrock of theft, and nothing they propose can be done without that theft. It is an evil, immoral, and degenerating religion and (I will say this in this one instance) should be eradicated from the face of the Earth.

The fact that you do not dismiss them out of hand merely proves that you are indeed still young and ignorant. Time will cure the former, but nothing but you can cure the latter.

RE: "Again little one, you make assumptions that are not borne out by communication or fact. I never said I had been sued, threatened one time, but plain facts discouraged that."

Oh it was a joke vidyohs! Give me a little artistic license.

His opinions aren't likely to sway a giraffe, either.

Excellent, if somewhat perplexing point ;-)

Sometimes the giraffe doesn't know he's a giraffe.

lmao. Clearly, he didn't.

That was the atmosphere that Joe Wilson shouted into, so while the response to him isn't justified, it's certainly predictable.

Yes, it was predictable -- Limbaugh, among many others, predicted that Obama's supporters would accuse his critics of being racist. So what? What is the relevance of that?

Are you saying that since it was predictable that one would be called a racist for criticizing Obama, we should, therefore, refrain from any such criticism?

Are you suggesting that the fact that the accusation of racism was predictable somehow attenuates or otherwise excuses to some extent the irrationality of those making the accusation?

Or perhaps you are just hoping that by introducing the irrelevant you can make us forget the essential point -- the essential point being that the act of accusing someone of being racist without proof or evidence of any sort is a smear tactic, not an argument, and a smear tactic of the lowest sort to boot.

Oh, and MichaelSmith, you said that very well.

RE: "Are you saying that since it was predictable that one would be called a racist for criticizing Obama, we should, therefore, refrain from any such criticism?"

Huh? I'm saying the racism critique is unjustified and people are justified in criticizing the health reform plan. They should feel no shame in doing that. You're misunderstanding what I'm saying about Limbaugh. I'm saying that he (and others) brought race into it without any prompting. A lot of people (myself included) were thrilled that Obama was elected and that an eight year nightmare was over - and to be honest I think other people oughta feel the same way (why would I believe something if I didn't think it was worth other people believing after all?). And how does Limbaugh interpret that latent proselytization? He says "I should bend over and grab my ankles because he's black". My point is a lot of people independent of guys like Carter saw the support for Obama as being fundamentally race based from the beginning. In that kind of environment, it's understandable why others might think the opposition has race on the brain. It doesn't make these unsubstantiated accussations from Carter right. But would we expect anything otherwise?

RE: "Or perhaps you are just hoping that by introducing the irrelevant you can make us forget the essential point -- the essential point being that the act of accusing someone of being racist without proof or evidence of any sort is a smear tactic, not an argument, and a smear tactic of the lowest sort to boot."

Why would I hope you forget this? I agree with this point and made it a bunch of times on an earlier post on here too.

Race was brought into it long before Limbaugh. Race was brough into in back in the primaries when Obama's people half ass accused Bill Clinton of being a racist. It was only a matter of time before the Republicans, whom the majority of Democrats already think are racist, to accuse Conservatives of being racist just because. It was predictable, only because Democrats have a long history of playing the race card when ever it suits them.

Your trying to give Democrats a pass by calling Carter "independent?" Please give me a break! Carter is not more independent than Rush Limbaugh. Carter is a very partisan Democrat, who is well withing the mainstream Democratic thought.

I know your a more moderate Democrat, but you really need to look at the Democratic party as a whole and see that moderates are in the minority. most of the Democratic base are the MoveOn, Kos, Huff Po, MSNBC types.
How come the NY Times and most of the MSM did not cover the Van Jones story?
Why are they not covering the ACORN scandals, instead saying it's people like Beck who are "smearing" ACORNS "good" name? It's because the majority are not like you, they are very partisan. Instead they focus their news stories on Wilson, who even you admit, raised a legitimate concern. Instead they run stories and interview Democrats saying that the only way Wilson could do such a thing is if he is a card carrying KKK.

Again I have to raise another point from the other discussion....that you are in the minority and your defending a sinking ship!

Yes - that Clinton thing was dumb too.

Let me be clear - I'm not saying "Limbaugh started it" and I'm not even saying "the Republicans started it". I'm just saying everyone seems to be unnecessarily suspicious about race on both sides so Carter made it explicit in a volatile situation. You don't think someone with ten minutes to spare can google another GOP race paranoia that happened before the Clinton incident? It's not my point to play "who did it first" - that sort of game won't illuminate anything.

RE: "Your trying to give Democrats a pass by calling Carter "independent?"

See Don's other post on multiple meanings of words. I said that independent of the Carter statement, Limbaugh had race on the brain. Independent - ie, outside of, without reference to, etc.

Until recently, I never listened to Limbaugh. I started because so many leftists were quoting him. I haven't heard anything at all from Limbaugh that could be misconstrued as racism. Not one thing.

The race baiting Democrats have been playing the race card ad nauseam - especially during Obama's campaign and presidency. As my husband says "They're obsessed with his blackness and how they may best use it to their advantage." Limbaugh didn't start anything. Only the KKK and Democrats give a crap about the Dalai Bama's skin tone. You can whine about the GOP all you want, they aren't the problem.

BTW, Danny. Last week I had the unfortunate task of unexpectedly helping to plan a funeral. I almost fell off my chair when the undertaker was introduced to me on the phone. His name was Daniel Kuehn.

Just because you hadn't heard anything racist from Rush during the few hours you tuned in doesn't mean he's not a racist. His racist comments are well-documented and a quick Google search should change your mind.

**Did you know?** You don't need to be taped saying the n-word to be labeled a racist.

I've been listening to Rush for nearly 20 years. He is quick to poke fun at the real racists, people who use race as a tool for ensuring a convenient division of the culture. Apart from being insensitive to the tyrranical hegemony of political correctness, something real racists like to label racism, he is not one.

For full disclosure, I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh for 20 years, but like I said, a quick Google search will show that he has said some racist things. (To be fair, to get some context from where the quotes were extracted will take a little longer.)

I just pulled up the first 3 links that popped up for me while searching "rush limbaugh racist quotes" and I must say it's hard for anyone to justify slavery or justify awarding a confessed murderer a medal of honor.

Oh...and the reactions of Dems to my husband is hilarious. They sidle up to him and speak of the Dalai Bama with a glow in their eye, thinking they've found a fellow traveler.

My husband can't stand the guy and tells them so. Their face drops. The glow disappears. They're crushed. They stand, mouth agape, in stunned silence. "But...", they start before their social filter stops them. The look in their eye says it all "But...but...but...don't all you dark skinned people think alike? I'm so confused. You black people confuse me when you insist on having individual opinions that are not exactly the same. It's hard enough when you all look the same to me."

I call it the Barbara Boxer syndrome.

I've seen that reaction first hand as well. ACORN was at the Little Rock Tea Party event...came up to my friend, who is even more against Obama than me...asking him if he was there to gauge the opposition. When he told them what he thought of our Dear Leader...their mouth dropped too. He thought he heard them call him a Uncle Tom but he wasn't 100% sure.

:-D

I'm not sure if it's "you all think alike", so much as a pretty sure statistical bet, but whatever it is, it's obviously a bad assumption to walk around with. My brother is a theology grad student attending an evangelical church. He's provided me with similar stories of blank stares from that side of the aisle (no pun intended)

I think it's the "most people don't take the time to think critically" syndrome.

Right. That's why I called it the Barbara Boxer Syndrome.

I don't know what evokes blank stares from people in your brother's case. I suspect he's getting blank stares on individual issues. My husband was getting (not blank) stares because he didn't blindly support a man whom the other party believed to belong to the same tribe.

You just pointed out something interesting.

"I'm not sure if it's "you all think alike", so much as a pretty sure statistical bet"

You're essentially saying that the majority of us are xenophobic and racist. Those are tribal behaviours. If that's true, then it's not a bad assumption to walk around with because our best decisions are made based on what we assess as the highest probability outcome. Morally, I think we would all like for that to be a bad assumption to walk around with, but in practice, it really isn't.

I think a certain amount of tribalism is encoded into our DNA. Environmental factors can lengthen or strengthen that. Thus, racism is not unique to whites and is often stronger in minority groups against both whites and other minorities - although you're not allowed to call minorities who are racists "racist". It's always presented as "yes, it's bad. BUT, it's understandable for XYZ reasons." Everything following the BUT is what one really thinks.

"because he didn't blindly support a man whom the other party believed to belong to the same tribe. "

No, that's about the same thing Evan was dealing with. My favorite was that one person in the church un-friended him on Facebook over it, and sent an email explaining that she didn't realize he supported Obama and could no longer be his facebook friend :)

RE: "You're essentially saying that the majority of us are xenophobic and racist."

This was a nice conversation for a while - please don't start reading this into my comments again. No, my point was nine times out of ten they'd be right. That's not racist that's a probability assessment that requires no assumptions about race. And as I said quite clearly, it's still wrong. If you walked up to ANY American at the election you'd have... what was it, like a 51 or 52% chance of talking to an Obama supporter. Same sort of probability assessment. No xenophobia to speak of.

RE: "although you're not allowed to call minorities who are racists "racist". "

Ooops - I never got that memo :-D

RE: "Everything following the BUT is what one really thinks."

Intereseting theory. Completely contrary to all the English grammar I've ever learned. I'll make sure to rotate what comes before and after my "but"'s from now on. I promise, when I say "but" I mean it how it is usually meant - that both what comes before and after are important.

No, my point was nine times out of ten they'd be right.

That's a 90% probability

But then you say....

If you walked up to ANY American at the election you'd have... what was it, like a 51 or 52% chance of talking to an Obama supporter.

Don't you have to take a lot of math for an Econ degree. I seem to remember a shitload of calculus (back in my day when we did it on an abacus:). So is the extra 39% because they're talking to a man with milk chocolate skin or did you just get the math wrong? And if they had even odds (51% is not overwhelming probability in favour) when approaching my husband, why were they stunned into painful silence when he said he didn't care for him. I never got stunned silence. My skin is the colour of aspirin.

I don't get this come-back of your, Methinks.

Is, in your mind, any acknowledgement of skin tone at all an inherently racist act?

"Right... it's the color of his skin. That's what I've always been saying. Have you been under the impression that I've been saying something different?"

No...but, do you realize you just provided a justification for racial profiling?

According to you, there's a 90% probability that my brown husband supports Obama because he's also brown. Thus, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that my husband is a supporter and to keel over from shock and dismay upon finding out he's not.

If follows that if young black men commit disproportionately more crimes than young white men, then it's perfectly acceptable for a cop to be more suspicious of them and approach them more frequently.

"Is, in your mind, any acknowledgement of skin tone at all an inherently racist act?"

Not in my mind. But, "acknowledgment of" and "decisions based purely on" are not the same thing. That's what you seem to be missing. Although, in fairness, my husband lives in the NorthEast, is well educated and very successful. So, perhaps their assumption wasn't based on his skin colour alone. Although, I don't think they would have been less shocked if a young black guy from Harlem didn't support Obama, so maybe it is all race based.

RE: "No...but, do you realize you just provided a justification for racial profiling?"

You might want to spell this out in a little more detail. I provided a statistical justification for racial profiling. That's not the same thing as saying that racial profiling is justified. What are we left with, Methinks? Ignoring polling data? Ignoring crime statistics? My point is, though, that a cop that racially profiles is an asshole and he's wrong - but the fact that he profiles doesn't necessitate that he thinks "all black people are criminals".

You don't seem to be getting this - I'm saying it's a BAD thing. I'm just saying you're misinterpreting it and reading too much into it.

RE: "According to you, there's a 90% probability that my brown husband supports Obama because he's also brown."

I didn't say "because he's also brown" (or if I did I should retract it). The point is, conditional only on information about his skin color there is a 90% probability he supports Obama (and I don't know - maybe higher. I thought 90% is the usual Democratic probability. It's likely that it's even higher for supporting Obama). Don't blame me - blame the laws of conditional probability!

RE: "Thus, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that my husband is a supporter and to keel over from shock and dismay upon finding out he's not."

Feel free to point out where I said anything like this. I'm waiting.

RE: "then it's perfectly acceptable for a cop to be more suspicious of them"

Again, feel free to point out where I said anything like this. Do profiling cops have probability on there side? Yes, they do. Does that make it "perfectly acceptable" as you say? I don't know when conditional probabilities have ever constituted an ethical standard. I'm not sure why you're pretending that I think it does constitute an ethical standard. Again - as usual, you're putting words in my mouth.



You said something very, very, very specific at the outset. You said they thought all black people think alike. I responded that that probably wasn't what they were thinking but they were still wrong and comisserated with you with a similar experience. Don't twist my very specific response into a statement that profiling is "perfectly acceptable". Geez, you're getting as bad as Carter!

What are we left with, Methinks? Ignoring polling data? Ignoring crime statistics?

You tell me. I'm not saying:

"a cop that racially profiles is an asshole and he's wrong - but the fact that he profiles doesn't necessitate that he thinks "all black people are criminals"

How did you work all this out in your own head? First of all, if the cop's job is to protect the public from crime and statistics (which you are reluctant to abandon) show that young black men are more likely to commit crimes, then isn't the cop just doing his job by being more wary and watchful of young black men? How do you justify calling him an asshole?

Second, using your own logic, if the cop is standing in the middle of Grand Central Station, knowing nothing else but crime statistics that show young black men commit a disproportionate number of crimes, he would be fully justified in thinking that a young black man passing by is probably a criminal. I mean, that is how we're identifying my spouse as an Obama supporter just randomly picking him off the street, right?

I responded that that probably wasn't what they were thinking but they were still wrong and comisserated with you with a similar experience.

A.) your experience wasn't similar

b.) The underlying assumption had to be that all brown people think alike. If that wasn't the assumption, they would have simply asked him what he thought of Obama. They also wouldn't have been as shocked as Barbara Boxer when she couldn't bring the uppity black president of the black chamber of commerce to heal.

Geez, you're getting as bad as Carter!

Can you have ONE conversation with someone who doesn't agree with you without calling them stupid?

RE: "First of all, if the cop's job is to protect the public from crime and statistics (which you are reluctant to abandon) show that young black men are more likely to commit crimes, then isn't the cop just doing his job by being more wary and watchful of young black men?"

I'll remind you that young black men are part of the public that the cop is charged with protecting as well.

RE: "using your own logic, if the cop is standing in the middle of Grand Central Station, knowing nothing else but crime statistics that show young black men commit a disproportionate number of crimes, he would be fully justified in thinking that a young black man passing by is probably a criminal."

If you're going to keep imputing arguments to me like this, just stop. All I'm doing is saying "no, I didn't say that and I never used that logic".

I'll remind you that young black men are part of the public that the cop is charged with protecting as well.

There's no better counterargument than a non sequitur!

Profiling does not mean he's not protecting them.

All I'm doing is saying "no, I didn't say that and I never used that logic".

So, you're just upset that my short-term memory is still good enough to remember that's exactly what you said and that's exactly the logic you used.

Right... it's the color of his skin. That's what I've always been saying. Have you been under the impression that I've been saying something different?

I'm just saying that recognizing the long odds that he's not an Obama supporter is different from thinking that all black men "think alike" (your words). That was the initial statement of yours that I was specifically responding to.

"My favorite was that one person in the church un-friended him on Facebook over it, and sent an email explaining that she didn't realize he supported Obama and could no longer be his facebook friend"

How is that the same thing?

"No, my point was nine times out of ten they'd be right. No, my point was nine times out of ten they'd be right. That's not racist that's a probability assessment that requires no assumptions about race."

It was a nice conversation until you started engaging in your old habit of backpedaling and denial.

I wasn't taking issue with their initial assumption because they had a 50/50 chance of hitting upon an Obama supporter. I was pointing out that they were clearly making assumptions about my husband's choice of candidate based on race. How is assuming (based on probability) that my husband would support Obama because he belongs to the same race NOT an assumption based on race? Explain that to me. My mental gymnastics are rustier than yours. If that's the best assumption (based on probability), how can it be wrong? What does "wrong" mean to you in this context?

Ooops - I never got that memo :-D

It's in wide distributed in New England and in your party.

"when I say "but" I mean it how it is usually meant - that both what comes before and after are important."

Talking out of both sides of your mouth must be more common than I thought. You can't mean both because what comes before the but and and after it are mutually exclusive. An example from your own posts: racism is wrong, BUT in this case understandable for XYZ reasons. Is it wrong or understandable? Which?

RE: "How is that the same thing?"

Same thing as what? I just thought that particular story was funny. The church thought that all evangelical Christians opposed Obama. They were shocked to find out it wasn't true - not by a long shot.


RE: "How is assuming (based on probability) that my husband would support Obama because he belongs to the same race NOT an assumption based on race? "

Holy cow Methinks!!!! I'm AGREEING with you it's an assumption based on race. What I'm saying is that it's not necessarily based on an assumption that all black people are the same or that they all agree. I'm sure they recognize they don't "all think alike" (your words) - they recognize that quite clearly. But chances are a black person is an Obama supporter. I can say that too - if you made me guess who a random black guy on the street supported I would have to say "Obama". That's not because I think all black people think the same. It's because of simple probability. I'm just saying I'd be careful before imputing racism to these people, however impolite and stupid they may have been. If I pointed out a black man on the street to you and said "if you had to guess, who do you think he voted for" what would you seriously say??? Would that make you a racist or does that mean you think all black people think the same? No - it means you understand percentages.

RE: "Is it wrong or understandable? Which?"

Ummm.... both. Why can't it be both? Do you never caveat or qualify what you say? I think that would lead to a quite impoverished public discourse.

The church thought that all evangelical Christians opposed Obama. They were shocked to find out it wasn't true - not by a long shot.

Belonging to an organization with certain values is not the same thing as being born into a certain race.

If you voluntarily choose to belong to an organization which holds certain values, it's perfectly reasonable for others to assume that you hold the same values. Being born into a particular race is not a voluntary acceptance of certain values. It's not an involuntary one either.

"if you made me guess who a random black guy on the street supported I would have to say "Obama". That's not because I think all black people think the same."

Of course it is. If you didn't assume black people support Obama, on what basis do you assume that an individual black person would support him?

The issue isn't the assumption that my spouse is an Obama sycophant (that's a role better suited to and embraced by white liberals). It's the reaction to his disabusing them of their illusion. They didn't just shrug it off. They almost fainted from confusion.

In fairness, not all Democrats did that. It's just that ONLY the lefties had that reaction when the initial assumption was that my spousal unit supported Obama because he's roughly the same colour. Which is why (getting back to the original point), I'm saying that the race obsession comes from the Democrats who are now falling over themselves to call every scrap of opposition to Obama's policies "racist".

Of course being a Christian isn't the same thing as being a certain race. I don't recall saying it was. What's your point?

RE: "If you didn't assume black people support Obama, on what basis do you assume that an individual black person would support him?"

Really? Because nine out of ten do. That's why. Why are you identifying probability with assumptions about what they think. Knowing nothing about what your husband thinks I would guess that as well. Conditional only on color of his skin. If I had additional information about how he thinks to condition my guess on, it would obviously be a different guess. All of this is wholly different from what I assume about your husbands. And because I'm not a jackass I wouldn't make the assumption in the first place or be surprised to be proven wrong. But if you made me guess there's only one guess.

RE: "They didn't just shrug it off. They almost fainted from confusion."

And, I might remind you, I had the exact same reaction to that that you did. What I had a different reaction to was your statement that they think all black people think alike.

Of course being a Christian isn't the same thing as being a certain race. I don't recall saying it was. What's your point?

I asked you to explain to me how "the same thing" happens to your brother. This was the example you introduced to illustrate how "the same thing" happens to your brother. It's not the same thing - that's what I'm pointing out to you.

Really? Because nine out of ten do.

Right. The implicit assumption is based on everyone of the race thinking alike.

I'm not a jackass

Who told you that? :) :)

But if you made me guess there's only one guess.

I didn't make you guess. It was your hypothetical. I didn't make you do anything.

Nobody made the other people guess either. You know, the other option for them (since they were talking to him) was just to simply ask first.

What I had a different reaction to was your statement that they think all black people think alike.

Of course. Logic defeats you.

RE: " asked you to explain to me how "the same thing" happens to your brother"

But my point is that I never said it was the same thing. I said it was "about the same thing". Once again, you're asking me to defend things I've never said. Obviously there are differences, which is why I didn't say they were exactly the same.

RE: "The implicit assumption is based on everyone of the race thinking alike. "

NO! The implicit assumption is that given to people who think about this one single, electoral issue, NINE of those ten people think the same thing on this one, single, electoral issue. On what basis do you claim that the implicit assumption is that they think alike in any sense other than the very specific case of who they like for president (and even in that case, the WHOLE POINT is they don't think alike - only 90% do)? You are loading this up with implicit assumptions that have absolutely no basis at all, just like you loaded up my statement that they are "about the same thing" to mean that "they are the same thing". No dice, Methinks. You're not going to slip this past me.

RE: "I didn't make you guess. It was your hypothetical. I didn't make you do anything."

Right - hence me saying "IF you make me guess". Are hypotheticals off limits now as a discursive method now, along with conditional probabilities?

RE: "You know, the other option for them (since they were talking to him) was just to simply ask first."

And you and I have BOTH said ad infinitum that that is the best choice. You're ignoring the fact that all I'm saying is the fact that they didn't ask first doesn't mean that they think all black people think the same - and no hypersensitivity for your husband's sake is going to make them think that all black people think the same.

"Of course it is. If you didn't assume black people support Obama, on what basis do you assume that an individual black person would support him?"

To clarify: as in your example, an individual random black person on the street.

"Holy cow Methinks!!!! I'm AGREEING with you it's an assumption based on race. What I'm saying is that it's not necessarily based on an assumption that all black people are the same or that they all agree."

Daniel...look at those two sentences you wrote again. Do you not realize that implicit in an assumption based on race is an assumption that everyone in that race is alike? That, in fact, is the problem with assumptions based on race. No? I think Martin Luther King delivered a very famous speech on this issue.

You might want to quote the speech. I'm not sure it says what you think it says.

Are physicians who advise their black patients that they need to watch out for heart disease saying that all black people are the same too? This is getting downright comical.

Which part of the speech did I misunderstand, in your enlightened opinion?

Are you seriously too dense to understand that there's a big difference between a physical attribute of a race and varying opinions and values held by individuals of that race, or are you just unable to admit that you're in an untenable position and want to keep swinging at air?

Well you brought your enlightened opinion of the speech to my attention and left me scratching my head. Clearly you had something in mind, and given my relative unenlightenedness I was hoping you'd quote from it.

I'm not sure why you think I'M the one swinging at air. You're saying that mere recognition that there are statistical differences between people who look a certain way is assuming that all the people who look the similar are the same. It is completely beyond me how you came to that conclusion.

ummm...that would be "weaken or strengthen". yeeesh.

I never listened to him either (still don't... although I did for an hour or two when I was driving through Ohio last week). But a lot of people do listen to him, and I suppose that's the point.

I agree with you completely on Limbaugh that I haven't heard anything out of his mouth that seems racist to me. But I think he shares this weird perspective that your husband seems to share too: that it's all about Obama's race - that that's what supporters see in him. Race (not racism) has been in the air for a while - and Justin mentions other examples on the other side. That's how these things blow out of proportion.

I'm sorry for your loss - that is very funny, though. I can say with confidence that I've never been involved in the funerary services business :)

Thanks, I didn't think it was you, but it took me a minute to collect myself as I immediately lost my train of thought.

I don't think it's a weird perspective. I think it's spot on. We never heard any mention or allusion to race from Libertarians and Republicans. But, the Democrats were always dying to talk about it - probably particularly to us because my husband is an African immigrant whose skin is roughly the same hue as Obama's and his name is also Islamic. They thought Obama's race would make us more sympathetic to him and they thought they could win brownie points for supporting a black guy. We know a lot of Libertarians who supported him and a few Republicans. But, they never mentioned his race. Other Democrats in NYC confessed to friends of ours that they're voting for the Bama because "we need a black president". I thought we needed a competent president, but that's just me. That's not to say that these people are a majority of the pro-Bama Dems, but the race obsessed were all lefties.

Sorry, but the obsession with race comes from the left. Rush Limbaugh merely pointed out that fact.

"We never heard any mention or allusion to race from Libertarians and Republicans."

::blink blink::

Those are some compelling anecdotes about your friends. I don't doubt them, but I can't say I've heard anything remotely like that from Obama supporters I've talked to. Maybe they cleverly concealed it because they realize I second guess everything and I'd call them out on it ;-)

And that's all important to separate from the "history" of the moment. His race didn't play into my decision at all, but that doesn't mean I'm not floored by the significance of electing a black guy. If Obama had Hillary's record, and Hillary had Obama's I'd vote for her (and not cause she's a woman!).

Blink away. It doesn't invalidate our experience regardless of your own motivations.

So, are you saying that if Hilary's only accomplishment and experience was running for office, you'd vote for her?

I don't find any significance in electing a black guy. This is the least racist country I've ever lived in. It's a first, but he's also the first black candidate who wasn't an incoherent rhyming mess. I won't be getting my pompoms out for the first woman either.

btw, please tell the Bama the campaign is over. The memo didn't get to him.

Yes, I think that is exactly what DuplicitousKuehn was doing. It's his typical M.O..

It's very odd to have you take me seriously when you disagree with me and not take me seriously when you do agree with me. It's like you don't want me to say that Carter was wrong. I don't get it. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be your straw man opposition. Carter was wrong to say it and Don's letter is dead on. You may not like me thinking that, but I do.