Democratic Nomination?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah, Dadudemon, great ideology there.

It doesn't matter if Hitler killed 6 million jews, as long as he educated himself, knows what he's doing and thinks he's doing right, it's all good.

What does deciding which candidate to chose for office by weighing each candidates policies and talking points to arrive at the best candidate of choice(for that person), in the U.S. government, have to with your point in anyway?

If you don't want voters to educate themselves on each candidate's talking points and policies; weigh each candidate against current issues they, their state, and their country face; and intelligently making a choice between them based on that; what "ideology" or process do you propose a voter use/do to make their selection?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Anyway...

After reading this article:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1812050,00.html
It posed the question to me, while remaining aware of the dangers of characterizing blocs of people, is there a greater "sense of urgency" among "black voters" than there is among "women voters." Do more black people see this as a once-in-a-lifetime or once-in-a-generation moment, and if so are they more pessimistic about prospects for black people overall? Do they not see this as a true leveling of the playing field that apparently some women feminists do in the case of Clinton?

And if not, why not? Do they not see as much opportunity in the land of opportunity? E.g. there is still a large pay disparity between blacks and whites. Or is negativity unfounded? For an example, iirc, the pay disparity between males and females overall is greater than or about the same as the pay disparity between blacks and whites.

(And rather than start a new thread I thought I'd just tack onto this one.)

I thinkit's a matter of not being ables to answer your question without faulting one camp over the other. A leveling of the playing feild doesn't much consider the male vs female aspect of your argument.

Despite my support of Obama, I also realize the very real aspect that a black man faces some very real up-hill battles when it comes to being elected than does a white woman. This is why she is still posting better numbers than is Mr. Obama when it comes to middle-class white, uneducated voters. I guess I've always attributed their involvment to the little (D) next to his name, in the general election.

My only real hope is that Mr. Obama is willing to go extremely negative when the time comes, as the Republicans are more than willing to do so. I just hope Mr. obama isn't ignorant enough to become Kerry part 2.

Originally posted by Devil King
I thinkit's a matter of not being ables to answer your question without faulting one camp over the other. A leveling of the playing feild doesn't much consider the male vs female aspect of your argument.

Despite my support of Obama, I also realize the very real aspect that a black man faces some very real up-hill battles when it comes to being elected than does a white woman. This is why she is still posting better numbers than is Mr. Obama when it comes to middle-class white, uneducated voters. I guess I've always attributed their involvment to the little (D) next to his name, in the general election.

My only real hope is that Mr. Obama is willing to go extremely negative when the time comes, as the Republicans are more than willing to do so. I just hope Mr. obama isn't ignorant enough to become Kerry part 2.

That sensitivity is also likely to prevent McCain at least will have to remain largely positive - for fear of a backfire. Although I have no idea to what extent 527s are willing to go. I can envisage ads showing inflammatory statements by Wright, Pfleger, Farrahkan or even Hamas with slogans like "Friends of Barack Hussein Obama."

The 20 year association with Wright, and Obama's very slow and shifting response to this is an easily exploitable issue.

McCain is also an easy target, with his age, temper and war stance. But he's also a "bona fide hero" and trying to attack him may also backfire.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What does deciding which candidate to chose for office by weighing each candidates policies and talking points to arrive at the best candidate of choice(for that person), in the U.S. government, have to with your point in anyway?

If you don't want voters to educate themselves on each candidate's talking points and policies; weigh each candidate against current issues they, their state, and their country face; and intelligently making a choice between them based on that; what "ideology" or process do you propose a voter use/do to make their selection?

I like McCain cos he's a republican and pro life.

Great, but voting for him is probably gonna **** the world up even more than Bush already has done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xScZN2-Z_Sg

Fox News at work, folks. Enjoy. Prepare to laugh.

Originally posted by BackFire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xScZN2-Z_Sg

Fox News at work, folks. Enjoy. Prepare to laugh.

I chuckled.

Originally posted by BackFire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xScZN2-Z_Sg

Fox News at work, folks. Enjoy. Prepare to laugh.

i love how she passes it off innocently. i hope she finds a lump in her breast and its malignant.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I chuckled.

I didn't. Because I know it worked on someone.

FOX is ****ing retarded, I hope everyone who works there gets eaten.

I thought FOX couldn't get any stupider.

Having said that, and while he's certainly far more aligned to my politics and I would probably vote for him as the only palatable option; the more I read about Obama the more I find the carefully crafted public image of Obama is something of a farce. He is no less "politics as usual" than most, he's simply been clever enough to package himself as iPolitics.

Originally posted by lord xyz
FOX is ****ing retarded, I hope everyone who works there gets eaten.

Originally posted by Strangelove
by what though?

I guess cannibals would be nice.

Spot on.