View Single Post
Old 03-14-2008, 04:52 PM   #59 (permalink)
nuttyjoe
Council Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,219
Points: 5,103, Level: 45
Points: 5,103, Level: 45 Points: 5,103, Level: 45 Points: 5,103, Level: 45
Level up: 77%, 47 Points needed
Level up: 77% Level up: 77% Level up: 77%
Activity: 7%
Activity: 7% Activity: 7% Activity: 7%
nuttyjoe is offline
Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katczinsky View Post
Gagetory, last time I checked it is Clinton voters who say they support Hillary because she is a woman. Here goes Hillary supporters crying victim again, that they can't talk about race issues. Complete rubbish. A Clinton supporter has all the right to say they support Clinton merely because she is a woman and that supports the feminist cause, whilst an Obama supporter would be ridiculed for saying they're voting for him merely because he's black.

Obama polls across demographics. Exit poll after exit poll showed that Clinton's base mainly lies with white women; the largest voting bloc.

While polling data indeed shows racial divisions, those racial divisions actually have been shown to work in favor of Hillary Clinton. Have you forgotten that African American voters are a minority in the United States? Ferroro is right when she says that the election would be much different if Obama was white; he'd already be our nominee.

Whilst had Hillary Clinton been a male and had a different last name she would not have been a viable candidate. Truly, as her campaign has mostly been based on the illusion of inevitability and 'experience'. Truth is she doesn't have much more experience than Obama. This experience bullshit is getting annoying. By her logic the wives of major league baseball players are viable candidates to become baseball players. Truth is, Obama has more experience than Abraham Lincoln at the time of his election, and he's older than both the Presidential candidates of Bill Clinton and JFK. History shows us that experience doesn't always necessarily mean a good Presidency, but even more important is the ability to bring a dynamic of fresh perspectives.

All 'experience' means in this campaign is just how much you're in bed with K-street and corruption in Washington. That is what a lot of people think, and the fact that Obama is giving a voice to those disenfranchised is why he is such a good candidate by the value of his character and not (as the Clinton camp would have us believe) by the color of his skin. Whilst Clinton in her sarcasm is frequently giving a voice to the defeatists which is why she is so repulsive to many Democratic voters. The loss of Obama would be like the loss of Bobby Kennedy. The strength of Obama's campaign isn't just his ability to overwhelmingly woo independent voters over McCain and Hillary, but his ability to energize the left and get people out to vote for him who would not have otherwise voted. That's what these 'head-to-head' polls against McCain don't show (polls of which he still beats Hillary in).
I definitely agree with Kat's assessment of experience; and how Hillary keeps using this word. What has she really had experience in? She is claiming many years of government service. Doesn't she really mean she is married to Bill, the person who held those offices? I think America sees this.