Uncategorized

Great. Just Ducky.

Pennsylvanians popped out of their glens and gables to vote, but they must have seen their own shadows because we’ve got God knows how many more weeks of this.

People are talking that it’s about the margin of victory, but let’s keep it real. If she wins by two or twenty the battle rages on. She’s becoming down right Spartan-esque on a “300” level about this shit.

But can you blame her? He’s the first black guy with a shot and racism … I mean, history is totally on her side! She can’t be beat, right? Right?

Standard

17 thoughts on “Great. Just Ducky.

  1. lol @ the 300 comparison: I agree! I think Clinton has attacked ferociously. Plus, she has the white feminists on her side who many are advocating for women to choose a woman even black girls over a man. Obama is an inspiration pure and simple who does not need to be all up in your face like Clinton. She has grabbed politics by the bollocks because she is trying to compete like a man which is troubling for feminism anyway.

  2. It is not a “Black guy” that she is running against……she is running FOR the office of the Presidency. In truth – for people to expect her to yield so that HE can make history they are ultimately playing into the hands of John McCain.This is a classic battle. Some folks need to get beyond their typically tar and feathering with the race card (or even the gender card) and instead stay focused on what will allow their candidate to win the primary but not destroy the party in preparation for November.

  3. Andrea says:

    I agree with Constructive Feedback.I can’t stand Hilary but I hate that people are asking to quit. How would any of us like it if someone told us to quit when we knew SOMETHING was not right. Proof positive: There is a problem with him winning the majority of the voters who swing. That is a logistical problem. And then tack on maybe pissing off Florida and Michigan voters of Jews and Blue-Collared Whites…that’s crazy logic. As much as I have never liked the Clintons, she has basic arguments that are substantial for the party to consider.My issues about Obama have nothing to do with supporting hers. The sad thing is that as much as I despise her, I understand the bully tactics and I feel for her on that bit. And I feel for her making sound arguments that most Obamaholics just don’t want to hear because it does not fit the narrative they are writing or hoping will play out.The Clintons actually have not opened a can of whoop-ass on him. Obama has framed the media’s view of ruling that this campaign be as he wants it to be in being scarless. I don’t know how you really fight without getting scarred though. And that is the mastery of the Obama machine. It’s all FRAMING. The Republicans are not going to go for it though. I wish we could get past this “affirmative action, let’s play nice campaign” and just be honest.

  4. constructive feedback and andrea: I don’t think she should drop out either. (And I’m probably one of the few bloggers who like Obama who don’t really have a problem with Hillary.) I’m just exhausted from the campaign. I’m a news junkie, so I’ve been following this drama since 2006. It’s just tiring.And I also find Hillary and Obama’s “Clash of the Titans-esque” fight is kind of hilarious, so it’s hard for me not to make fun of it. The partisans in the battle sometimes sound like a chorus of “me firsts!” over the gender and race issue. It’s kind of moronic.I’m also surprised that no one has spliced Barack and Hillary heads onto the film “Clash of the Titans” and set it to pop music. Of course, someone lazy would just make Barack Perseus/Jason and Hillary one of the three hags or Medusa, but it’s still surprising that it hasn’t been done.

  5. Andrea says:

    I really don’t think the entire country is ready for him on so many levels. As I watch I see more and more prominent people endorse him but the Clinton argument (as delicately as they are putting it WITHOUT playing the race card) is what they can’t say about their own people. And that is the sticky situations The Clintons and their machine is in. They and political insiders can talk straight behind closed doors of the state of issues surrounding demographics and demographic attitudes. The Clintons are not wanting to say the truth in that there is too many ordinary, regular White folks that don’t care about new ideas and new direction from someone who has not shown any executive experience or results in programming that they are more experienced than at-worst her husband’s connections to help her do executive level business as CEO of the country. When some people see her, they see that his people will help her run it. When they Barack, they see someone that sounds good but has not proven anything yet but being able to run a great campaign to keep rising campaign after the other.All is not based on just hating Blacks. Some of it is because of his lack time in experience at running something and topping that off with the doubt of him because he looks Black. Regular ‘ole folks that never went to college just don’t take leaps of faith on factors such as that. Politicians have to be careful how they word messages for the working class without eluding to them that really the bottom class of America could and should have more social capital power in democracy than what they utilize. For all the people who are at the top who are educated, they never seem to remedy making more of the bottom ranks more educated. And the only time they seem to need the bottom ranks is when it comes to simple voting (going to the polls).The bottom is less educated and clearly all parties need them because of their numbers but the same polls will not tell them same people who they are in worth as lemmings, under and uneducated in contrast to the top-half who rules.The Clintons can’t tell America that America won’t vote for Barack because they are too uneducated. They need the uneducated and under-educated voters at this time. So does Barack but they and he are allergic to each other.

  6. “I really don’t think the entire country is ready for him on so many levels. As I watch I see more and more prominent people endorse him but the Clinton argument (as delicately as they are putting it WITHOUT playing the race card) is what they can’t say about their own people.”After he wins the nomination, she can help bring “her people” on board. She can educate them.

  7. dewfish says:

    andrea,what exactly is “affirmative action” about this race? Obama is just as qualified if not more than hillary. As far as “playing nice”, I have seen very little of that as well. Especially with all of the race-baiting hillary has been doing while playing the “they hate me because i’m a woman” card, something they would never let obama get away with if he tried the same with being black. If the debates so far have been too “civil” for you, keep in mind that they are both presidential candidates, so yes, civility is and should always be part of the equation.

  8. Andrea says:

    Dewfish,Your looking at the comment from a one slant and I am talking about the “hite Liberal Elite this is not my affirmative action vote”. It exists. It exists more in ways of trying to erase ideas of White Privilege if they can vote for Barack. So they are affirming their action to support a Black Man to pay penance for White Privilege.His qualifications is not the issue. It’s about White Liberal Guilt that I am talking about and there is also pain ‘ole White Guilt on the Clinton end to not tell the truth that those Whites who are not White Liberal Elites don’t give a fuck about affirming the action of dealing and coming to terms with any guilt over us.It benefits The Clintons that a lot of White People don’t care about paying for racial penance. And that unfortunately is something the superdelegates will have to come to term with if these “plain White folks”, “blue-collared Whites” and “White Ethnics” don’t support Barack. It’s not about him. The Democrats will lose and not just Barack. They have think of the bigger picture and he will have to step aside if Whites because it clearly shows evidence that they really are not going to support him over a White Candidate who has a worse reputation in likeness and trust.

  9. dewfish says:

    Andrea,that is way off base. “white guilt” does not provide the kind of support that Obama has been getting. Where was the “white guilt” support for Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton? They never saw the level of support that Obama is getting. What you are saying is a huge insult to both Obama and to many of his white supporters, with no truth behind it.

  10. Andrea says:

    Oh…sorry Obama supporter! I will keep the truth to myself about such things I do know are true.As much as some White young people like Obama for something else more pure, there are a lot of older White Liberal Elites that are voting for him because it is their affirmative action vote. Because he is a competent and skilled politician with a great marketing scheme and vision, that does not detract from what White Libs see in him. They see…PENANCE instead of giving up White Privilege. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119466546698288951.htmlIt’s not something most are going to ever, ever, ever admit. And it’s something that you cannot test upon empirical evidence because most people don’t tell the truths in depth that way about racial proxy.I think the young people that are White are truly more innocent in intent in supporting him because they travel the world and have friends of all races. They learn “I Have A Dream” speeches and work in inner-cities doing community service. They are different. I am talking about White Liberal Elites who are older.Just as much as people who purposely look for others to date outside their race, people always seek the next hot social trend to strike relevance (Stuff White People Like). Somethings are social trends. Sorry to tell you the plain truth about this. I will keep it to myself the next time. Not.

  11. dewfish says:

    So, in your view, all these “old white liberals” are voting for Obama out of guilt. Don’t let the truth that a lot of his support is actually coming from the younger voters get in way of your “theory”. Still didn’t tell me why all the other black presidential candidates didn’t get this “white guilt” vote. And provide something with more credibility than “stuff white people like”.

  12. Andrea says:

    OK…I’m figuring out how you operate. You want to battle ideas. The problem is on my it is getting boring.Watch Hardbell tonight and listen to Chuck Todd or Chris Matthews admit the same exact thing. If you are wondering why now…well consider time has pass and things have gotten worse for Blacks without the government and the country having had address the unfinished business Dubois and Frederick Douglass talked about. In 40 years since some superficial advancements, White Liberals know that a lot did not work in favor of Blacks. White Liberal wonks that deal with issues involving the data of Blacks have been talking about it in academic circles. Do your research.

  13. dewfish says:

    You still haven’t answered why all of the other black presidential candidates before Obama didn’t get this “white guilt” vote. Were things not bad for blacks then as well? By your theory, things would have been even worse for blacks back then, and would have resulted in an even larger turnout of the “white guilt” vote. So why wasn’t Shirley Chisholm elected president? There was a lot more to be guilty about back then…

  14. dewfish says:

    And if your idea of “research” is listening to Chuck Todd or Chris Matthews, I don’t know what to tell you…

  15. Andrea says:

    Dewfish,I’m sensing that if you don’t know what “do the reserarch means” extensive of television news means (you are tiring…check out the recent studies by studies of the past few months by think-tanks and research institutions in DC and NY or any academic research by a scholoar).I can send several articles and postition papers and data but it seems that only you are harping on fixations in arguing with me. It’s very obvious of your obsession to continue. And its not even cracking a smirk with me or making me roll my eyes. I am wondering how can you ask these questions and try to seem as if you are seriously questioning what is and has been proven as empirical data. That you have not known this or don’t know this implied research speaks volumes. Can you hear the decibel?The point of pointing out Chuck Todd and Chris Matthews last night was that hence the Pennsylvania results, White analysts are now starting to talk about what they hesitated in talking about prior to the results because the results hence another Big State shows the data leading to prove the hesitant assumption of White Liberal Guilt even from their own lips. The Obama Campaign does not want to consider the issue and The Clinton Campaign can’t touch it either. No one can talk about it because that then opens up a can of worms about “what is there to be guilty about” and hence Obama’s connection to a large part of his constituency.Read Shelby Steele…read Glenn Loury…just type White Liberal Elite or White Guilt and do some reading.And as for answering why other Black Candidates like Shirley Chisolm or Jesse Jackson did or did not get White Guilt votes, I am not wasting my time breaking down all different campaigns which all probably as well did get White Guilt votes as well. That counter argument you are using as a point makes no sense. Times change. We live by social trends and react to them. Stop making me scratch my head wondering who formed your conceptual routing of critical thought. I am no longer answering your questions of absolutely rudimentary routing.

  16. dewfish says:

    telling someone you’re annoyed that your wild accusations are being questioned does not constitute an answer. If your theory is correct, then there should have been an even greater showing of this “white guilt” vote in the past, since there a greater amount of racism which would lead presumably to more guilt. The truth is it didn’t reslult in more votes for the past presidential candidates because this “theory” is bogus.

Leave a Reply