The Daily Obamanation .... ALL ROLLED INTO ONE

He pulled 90% of the black vote in one state that has a horrible history of race relations. Is anybody fucking surprised black Mississipians would choose the first promising black candidate to come around in perhaps forever.

People vote for people they can relate to. Not because of what it says on page 275 of the NAFTA trade agreement.

I disagree he would be just another white candidate if he wasn't black. He'd be among the elite of the white candidates. He's basically a young Bill Clinton with black skin.

Being black may have helped him in Mississippi, but it certainly didn't help him in many of the other states.

 

Dude you have alot of growing up to do, with due respect.

There's a difference between someone who says that "Whites are devils" in reaction to the well documented mistreatment of blacks in the States (and South Africa, etc.....), and other races (Australian Aborignes, Native Americans, etc etc) over the last few centuries...but doesn't wish them harm and just wants to separate from them (as co-existing caused pure hardship for blacks)......


.....and someone like for example..Hitler (but he's BY NO MEANS an isolated case)...who would have gladly eradicated every non white person off the planet because they weren't part of a master race.

Like I said before..I don't think you really understand what racism is...

 

wrong

if he was white, i think alot more emphasis would be put on his record, which is slim

if he was white hed be exactly like hillary policy wise except with less experience and shed have the factor of being a woman

if obama was white hed have that going against him plus his lack of experience

 

ill point to SC as probably the turning point in this nomination process

 

Whiteness wasn't hurting Bill Clinton...who had a relatively THIN record when compared with George Bush senior. I'm sure blacks supported him in DROVES.....plus whites

 

What's with this "policy" shit? Does anybody think Bill Clinton, George Bush or Ronald Reagan won their elections on "policy"? :dunno:

 

bill wasnt running against a woman either

you seemed to miss that point

 

EXACTLY!

 

im sure i could point out policy positions they held that helped them win their elections

most recently, bush in 2000 ran on a humble foreign policy, which was part of the reason he got elected

policy is what matters ultimately

who cares if you can bring people together and are charismatic, if your policies are shit to start with, bringing people together and getting them passed isnt going to make them any less shit

 

No my friend you (conveniently) missed MY point..which is that Bill Clinton was a likable, intelligent, charismatic (like Obama) but WHITE MALE....and as such he sailed through teh primaries.

A woman, especially as dislikable as Hilary is....wouldn't even have been close to him. You know it and I know it.

 

Not true. People elect on personality and potential more than policy.

 

dude, the fact that he wasnt running against a woman (especially as one as viable as his wife) is a variable you have to take into account

clinton is very popular in democratic cirlces, she regularly wins the primaries in democratic voters, obama wins with independents and crossovers, these are facts

your making the most vague comparison there is, and its weak

 

I don't have to list Farrakhan's history of racism, as it's pretty well known, but if you want to defend Farrakhan, I think it speaks volumes about who you are. If you want to justify racism against whites, and defend a man who claims whites are 'potential humans' who 'haven't evolved yet', feel free, but then don't run for claims of racism thrown your way.

And yet I get called a racist.

But back on subject. Do you...or Reed for that matter...think that someone not voting for Hillary because she's a 'cunt' is any different or better then someone not voting for Obama because he's a black?

TFK

 

what does potential even mean?

thats so damn vague, potential.... for what?

the only way you can see what his potential is, is to look at his policies and his voting record

potential, pfft

 

Nonsense.

I'm responding to your point (trying to change it now)...which was that a white male with charisma but a THIN record wouldn't have made it this far.

Well buddy...explain Bill Clinton....and Southern White male with Zero foreign policy experience and a very thin record of anything (relative to Bush in any event)...

Don't try to dodge it...and don't suddenly try to pretend that Hillary is your point. :nono:

 

Bullshit!! Bush got elected because the common man felt like he could have a beer with the guy and get along with him. Clinton was a charismatic charmer who made everybody feel comfortable around him and Reagan drew on his acting career to deliver the great speeches that were put in front of him to read.

You are a big Ron Paul supporter right? How far has his strong "policy" stances gotten him? :dunno:

 

George Foreman is charasmatic and likable, I wonder if he'd make a good president. Same with The Rock. Pat Sajak seems like a good natured guy, maybe he'd be a good president too.

TFK

 

How does "black" or "N*gger" equate with "cunt"? :dunno:

Perhaps in US speak..."cunt" is a term only used of a woman, because she's a woman. If that's the case we have a misunderstanding.

in Britain we call anyone who is "not a nice person" a cunt.

 

so bill would have done equally as well against a woman with hillarys experience instead of bush?

 

If that be the case, you'd rather see someone who's policies you don't agree with (McCain) be elected then someone who's policies you do agree with, but who isn't 'nice' (Hillary)?

That doesn't make a lick of sense.

TFK

 

::

 

What does that have to do with anything. I thought the spirit of the thread was "Why is Obama leading in the democratic primaries so far?".

What does being a "Good" president have to do with anything?

I don't know. George Foreman is black. I guess he has the advantage over all the other candidates right there. :dunno:

 

Sly seems to think that being charasmatic and likable are more important then policy when it comes to choosing a president. If that be the case, then why not someone like Foreman, who is much more likable then Obama. Who cares what his political experience or policies are, right? It's being likable that counts.

TFK

 

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Suxll18ygi8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Suxll18ygi8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

Sly can't even vote. I know he's supporting Obama but the thread isn't about who "you" would vote for, but whether Obama is beating Hillary just because he's black.

He's more charismatic then her and that is very important for the figurehead of the country IMO.........ESPECIALLY if their policies are the same.

 

Ah......wisdom. Finally someone who gets it.

 

why would sly vote for mccain over hillary then?

 

President of USA is so much more than a policy maker...

Who would you rather, objectively speaking, represent the most powerful nation on Earth: Hillary or McCain?

An emotional angry looking woman with a chip on her shoulder, or a likable, pleasant war hero?

 

Because she's a cunt? :dunno:

 

dsimon writes:

yeah but it is as much a disadvantage as an advantage.