Democrats...Racists and Sexists Oh My!

[Psycho4Bud]

Here's a lil' ditty to discuss:

If you say just the wrong thing regarding Obama your a racist....point proven with B. Clinton in S.C. during the primaries. Now H. Clinton and others are talking of the sexism regarding her treatment during this primary race.

How, honestly, can a party so divided in so many ways proclaim themselves as the "uniters"? Both of these are hell bent on destroying the other and the way they act with trivial comments, their comments are FAR from being "Presidential".

Any feedback? Should Obama be the martyr for the blacks and Clinton the bra burner for the women? Are they doing their party any good in the long run due to their actions?

And what about Obama locking in over 90% of the black vote...isn't that a bit racist? I've always found it ironic that it's "politically correct" to state how proud you are to be black, hispanic, asian but NOT to say your proud to be white. Seems the Dems have brought issues to the table that isn't meant to unite.

Have a good one!:s4:

Psycho4Bud Reviewed by Psycho4Bud on 05-22-2008. Democrats...Racists and Sexists Oh My! Here's a lil' ditty to discuss: If you say just the wrong thing regarding Obama your a racist....point proven with B. Clinton in S.C. during the primaries. Now H. Clinton and others are talking of the sexism regarding her treatment during this primary race. How, honestly, can a party so divided in so many ways proclaim themselves as the "uniters"? Both of these are hell bent on destroying the other and the way they act with trivial comments, their comments are FAR from being Rating: 5

[daihashi]

While I agree 100% with everything said in your post, you have to acknowledge that if someone does want to be a "uniter" that it must start somewhere.

With that said, if you are trying to point out the irony of the democratic party in regards to being the party of the people and as such should automatically be considered "uniters" then I think you may have missed the mark.

This is something that should be looked at on an individual basis; not a party basis, because regardless of what we may think... it is the individual we put into the presidential office and not the Political Party. Take a look at George W. Bush and his approval ratings among his fellow republicans and conservatives over the last 8 years.

I think beginning of the year his approval ratings among republicans was at 60% (although I speculate this to be lower) as opposed to when he first entered presidency where it was at 92-94%. Overall approval rating I think is sub 30%. It's just a good example about how an individual does not always reflect the Party; the reverse should also considered to hold true.

None of these candidates are uniters.

Mccain doesn't have enough appeal on both sides of the plate to unite Americans.

Obama; while being a great speaker; or I should say his ability to shift negative attention from him onto his advesaries, just doesn't vote enough. It's great to be inspirational or have a good public image but it is useless if you don't show up to vote :wtf:

Clinton: Obviously has a personal agenda. The democratic party has their own rules in regards to primaries and selecting the nominees and it's become painfully obvious how inferior it is to the republican way of doing this (before anyone jumps on me.. I'm a moderate. I lie right in the middle.). Two states jumped the gun on their voting and had their votes not count; which seems reasonable to me as they were not abiding by the rules.

With those two states gone the fate for Hillary was pretty much sealed; yet she continued to trek on. With her rants and raves at her primaries and speeches across the country. Sometimes appearing unhinged.. and just about all the time appearing to live in some disillusioned fantasy world where she felt she could still win and people would applaud her for her willingness to not give up. I forgot which primary it was, but she won by a marginal number like 1% vote difference and in her victory speech she went on to say how the people proved that they want her as president. Granted that's not exactly what she said but that's how it sounded paraphrased. I wish I lived in this make believe kingdom.

She's hurt her party in more ways than she can imagine. Even if she does win the Democratic ticket she's now going into battle with John Mccain. A man who has worlds more expierence than her, is a decorated war hero (yes he is a real war Hero. You may not like the man but you have to respect what he did and what he has gone through for his country) and someone who remains unsullied throughout the course of this. Hillary Clinton would be entering this battered, bruised and exhausted.

Honestly I'm tired of the circus the democratic party has put on for the last few months. I've supported a number of democrats in different offices from City Council up to presidential. I'm a firm believer in voting who you feel will lead the country best and not blindly stand by a nominee just because of party affiliations, but with everything that's happened I a truely disgusted with the democratic party and not sure I ever want to send a vote their way again.

Boy that was a rant and I got off topic a little.. back to the point. Vote for the person, not the party.... use their party affiliation and voting record just to help you try to determine their way of thinking or what they may or may not do in office.

That's my opinion anyway.

[daihashi]

btw, do a search for democratic party uniter and republican party uniter.

At some point throughout both parties campaigns.. they have both claimed to be uniters.

Which media source you get information from will determine which party is saying they are uniters :thumbsup:

Damn media and putting a spin on everything

[ldg420]

the only chance in hell that the dems have is a dream ticket of Obama/Hillary............ which will never happen.....:stoned:

[Psycho4Bud]

With that said, if you are trying to point out the irony of the democratic party in regards to being the party of the people and as such should automatically be considered "uniters" then I think you may have missed the mark.

Not the case....this is the rant that both Obama and Clinton have been using on the campaign trail. Of course both "parties" wish to be considered that....the Republicans with the memories of Reagan and the Dems now trying to create a new JFK.

I guess I just find it amazing that the dems managed to get themselves into this quagmire (LOL) of racism and sexism. Two issues that really should have been their party's taboos, and the republicans downfall, are being played against itself.

Really though, how can anyone say that this contest isn't about race when you have the black vote in the 90%+ range for Obama? What would be said in the press, and "world opinion" if 90%+ of the white voters were going for Clinton? From what I've seen so far, this Dem. primary election hasn't been as much about issues as it has about Obama's skin color. Anyone would have to agree that if it weren't for the black vote being so unproportional, Clinton would probably have the upper hand on Obama right now.

Have a good one!:s4:

[daihashi]

Not the case....this is the rant that both Obama and Clinton have been using on the campaign trail. Of course both "parties" wish to be considered that....the Republicans with the memories of Reagan and the Dems now trying to create a new JFK.

I guess I just find it amazing that the dems managed to get themselves into this quagmire (LOL) of racism and sexism. Two issues that really should have been their party's taboos, and the republicans downfall, are being played against itself.

Really though, how can anyone say that this contest isn't about race when you have the black vote in the 90%+ range for Obama? What would be said in the press, and "world opinion" if 90%+ of the white voters were going for Clinton? From what I've seen so far, this Dem. primary election hasn't been as much about issues as it has about Obama's skin color. Anyone would have to agree that if it weren't for the black vote being so unproportional, Clinton would probably have the upper hand on Obama right now.

Have a good one!:s4:

I agree whole heartedly. For a while watching the Dems was alot of fun and amusement. To be honest now I'm just annoyed and wish one of them would kill the other off (Obama or Clinton) so that way Mccain can seal the deal (really he's not my preference but better than the other 2).

I wonder if the Dems are still disillusioned and think they have a chance at taking the office despite how much self inflicted mutiliation they've done on the campaign trail.

[killerweed420]

I don't know that its hurting the democratic party with these 2 idiots screwing around but it certainly can't be hurting McCain's chances.

[Mississippi Steve]

None of them are worth knockin inna head. Billary and Obama have shot the Dems in the foot. The only way that McCain will have a chance(and add some common sense to the ticket), is to pick a running mate like Conde Rice or Colin Powell.

[daihashi]

None of them are worth knockin inna head. Billary and Obama have shot the Dems in the foot. The only way that McCain will have a chance(and add some common sense to the ticket), is to pick a running mate like Conde Rice or Colin Powell.

Either one would be an excellent choice I think. Although Conde has expressed she has no interest in holding a political office.