White guilt at its pinnacle?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Is the push by the media and many others for Obama to get the nomination the ultimate example of white guilt in America?

Hillary may very well end up with the popular vote. She will end up winning the big, important states necessary to win a general election. She does give the Dems the best chance of winning this year. Yet, everyone wants her out despite the fact they stand a very good chance of getting crushed in the general election by forcing Obama on the ticket. By putting Obama in that position it makes white people, who support him, feel good. Isn't that what liberalism is about? Doing what feels good and right and just. They win the battle, but lose the war. Seems to be consistent with their thinking. Long term thought seems to be absent in many of the things they do.

Your thoughts?

[Nick]

Midnyte appears to live in a parallel dimension where everything is upside down and inside out. Which explains his perpetual assumption that black is white.

[Forthe]

I don't know if it is white guilt per say. I'm sure there is a desire to show the US has moved past racism. Would that be guilt?

But at this point Hillary is a fatally flawed candidate. Her negatives are way too high and trustworthiness way too low, among DEMOCRATS. It is worse for independents and republicans. She would be a GOP motivation and her self described base are also more likely to vote for a man than a woman.

However, unless the climate changes she would probably still beat McCain.

[Xatrei]

The popular vote is completely irrelevant in the primary system where millions of voters are represented only by caucuses, and thus don't factor into vote counts. The only thing that matters is delegate count, which is, by all indications, going Obama's way. Winning "big, important states" is equally irrelevant because most of those states in question will still go Democrat regardless of who wins the nomination. This is about who the best, most appealing candidate is, not your imaginary white guilt.

I'd go on, but your premise is so flawed that this is about all I'm willing to say in response to it.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Ty X. I however, feel it's worth examination. Not a far out crazy hypothesis by any means.

[Spang]

Your thoughts?

Barack Obama is the right person for the job. His race, gender, religion, wife, pastor, kindergarten teacher, barber, and last person to bag his groceries have no baring on my decision. He's charismatic, has a good sense of humor, is in touch with modern day society, and has an excellent grasp of the English language. Those things are most important to me in a leader.

There are way too many reasons why a person chooses who they vote for, or against. White guilt may in fact be one of those reasons, but it's not mine.

[Boogahz]

The popular vote is completely irrelevant in the primary system where millions of voters are represented only by caucuses, and thus don't factor into vote counts. The only thing that matters is delegate count, which is, by all indications, going Obama's way. Winning "big, important states" is equally irrelevant because most of those states in question will still go Democrat regardless of who wins the nomination. This is about who the best, most appealing candidate is, not your imaginary white guilt.

It is too bad that Clinton cannot recognize these things as well.

[Sueven]

Umm... Hillary LOST. She's behind in pledged delegates, states, and the popular vote. She's behind in every single metric and she will not catch up in any of them. There's an outside chance that she catches Obama in the popular vote, but that doesn't count the caucus states, every one of which Hillary lost, so the metric is pretty irrelevant.

I recommend reading Sirton and I's discussion to see the flaws in the "she won the big, important states necessary to win" argument. Sure, she won Ohio and Pennsylvania, and I guess Florida and Michigan if you want to call those "wins." She also lost Virginia, Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin...

The "push by the media" to have Obama win has very little to do with "white guilt." It has everything to do with the fact that usually the WINNER is the person who WON. Christ.

What do you think of the push by the media to have McCain win? Is that the product of some agenda or is it a product of the fact that he, you know, won the fucking nomination process?

[Forthe]

Her popular vote argument is based on Obama getting 0 votes counted in Michigan.

She is arguing that an unsanctioned election with only her name on it is a valid measure. She only beat "Uncommitted" by 15%.

Her argument for Florida is weak but her Michigan argument is preposterous.

[Xatrei]

And the fact that her argument completely ignores millions of voters in the caucus states she lost is just as obnoxious.

[Sylvus]

It's purely anecdotal evidence, and based on far too small a sample, but I live in Michigan and don't know a single person (that isn't interested in voting McCain) that would not have voted Obama.

I find it bordering on criminal that I wasn't allowed to vote for Obama in the primary. I still don't know who made the decision that ultimately led to him being left off the ballot.

That said, the original premise of this thread sounds like it was made by someone who is entirely too concerned with race. Perhaps, in his case, he should feel white guilt.

[Forthe]

Dems just took MS-01...Republicans are now busy shitting themselves.

[Ashur]

Sorry, Forthe it's early here - what is "MS-01"?

[miir]

Maybe this?

http://www.2008racetracker.com/page/MS-01?t=anon

[Ashur]

Ahh, ok. Thanks.

[Forthe]

This was a very safe republican district. I expect you will see a shakeup in the Republican leadership ranks shortly.

RNCC is advising it's candidates to become "change" candidates.

[Fash]

but it was a democrat incumbent?... how is that a safe republican district?

[Forthe]

but it was a democrat incumbent?... how is that a safe republican district?

That is showing its current status for November. It was a special election last night.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

So? Ohio has been a safe Republican state for a long time. If the Republican candidate is a retard and the Dem candidate is a moderate, then who the fuck cares what their party says? This whole party system needs to go and let people's actual stances and views be representative of what they stand for.

[Forthe]

So? Ohio has been a safe Republican state for a long time. If the Republican candidate is a retard and the Dem candidate is a moderate, then who the fuck cares what their party says? This whole party system needs to go and let people's actual stances and views be representative of what they stand for.

Bush won Ohio with a 2% margin
Bush won MS-01 with a 25% margin
This was a decent republican candidate, was hard fought for and they played the Obama\Wright boogeyman card relentlessly.

The democrats have won 3 safe republican seats in 2 months by running blue dogs. Check out the reaction at http://www.redstate.com/.

I agree about your party system. You have so many regional differences it is hard to represent eveyone with just 2 parties. You end up with 2 parties that stand for nothing or stand for a small subset of their members.

[Fash]

It's a lot easier to control, this way.