• on a comment on Obama's minister over 6 years ago

    Will it mean it doesn't exist if the worst of what the right is throwing  at him isn't mentioned?

  • on a comment on Obama's minister over 6 years ago

    Okay good points. The buck stop with him, but I also find that his supporters aren't helping th ematter. I wish they would just tell him he doesn't have any clothes on this, so that if he is our nominee, when things like this happen, he can change accordingly rather than assuming he is above the fray.

  • on a comment on Obama's minister over 6 years ago

    How is it Obama's fault?

  • on a comment on Clinton is lucky to be white over 6 years ago

    I place comments into context. She also said the same things about herself. Ie, that she was picked because she was a woman and that there was historic value in it. At least, thats the story online. If that's true, it sounds like you is simply stating how she views the Democratic voter. Frankly, she isn't wrong. There is as much psychology and belief system involved on the progressive side as the right. We simply aren't willing to admit to it.

  • I wouldn't worry about it. Most of the people online are, well, to put it nice, nuts. I've got friends who support Obama, and I've got friends who support Clinton. Not one of them has said to me that they would support McCain if their candidate doesn't win. Now, mind you- they know I'd bitch slap them if they did (joke- well kind of - I would yell them for a long time and ask them how they could be so stupid after 8 years of Bush). But seriously, the polling data doesn't suggest most supporters of either candidate have lost  perspective the way people have online. Other than Teacher Ken, I almost think some of these people are GOP trolls.

  • on a comment on Clinton is lucky to be white over 6 years ago

    Tried, and been attacked for doing so. Now , I only talk when these issues flare up.

  • on a comment on Clinton is lucky to be white over 6 years ago

    So your concern is that she didn't quanitify it?

  • on a comment on Clinton is lucky to be white over 6 years ago

    Let's say you are right. It's CW and it's wrong. How exactly do we address? By pretending its not out there lurking or by calling everyone who believes it racist or by addressing the issue?

  • on a comment on Clinton is lucky to be white over 6 years ago

    For me personally, since you have asked it of me, I would have preferred someone have said- you know what' she's right race is a factor in our society, but here's how she's run in this case. THen they would have gone on to say-- you know what yes some maybe voting for me for racial reasons, and to them I say, stop- that's not hte reason to support me. THis isn't the dream for this country. The dream that King wanted for us is that you look at me at Barack Obama the man- not savior of us all, but hte man. Etc, blah, blah blah. There are many other ways he could handle it that shifts the debate from pretending ID poilitics hasn't been a factor toward saying yes it is, but here's how we are going to address it going forward. There are a lot of other ways I guess he could say it that are far more politically savvy, but the whole denial of even her basic premise seems like a flawed long term strategy.

  • on a comment on Clinton is lucky to be white over 6 years ago

    It's because you keep getting it backwards that you are confused. Because it's an attribution of how his voters view race, not about whether he has ability or not. Those things are not one and the same. Maybe he does. Maybe he does not ability. It's irrelevant to the basic question of how his voters view him. Maybe clinton does have the ability and maybe it's her last name. The thought question i asked myself early on was "would I vote for Obama were he white?" How many of his supporters did that? It would be a helpful way to break down these things. TO understand what's underneath. Ultimately yes, she did say it poorly,b ut that queston- the fundamental one- is glossed over by saying she's racist and it certainly does leave everyone feeling comfortable in condemn her without listening. My point is that by not listening we miss a chance to address something that will come up again.

  • on a comment on Clinton is lucky to be white over 6 years ago

    a) In fairness to her, she didn't put this on a national stage, Kos over at Daily Kos did. This appeared originally in some small paper. However, I agree she could have said it much better, but ultimately I don't it would matter. I have to be honest. I am pessiimist about this society at this point and it capacity to do honest conversation. Its pretty much all "how do I personally feel about X" and "This is how this person makes me feel." Etc. It's not about whether X is true or not.

    b) Holding ourselves doesn't mean blinding ourselves to what's happening. THis is a conflation of ideas- one is about our standards and the other is about what actually is happening. Mentnioning what's actually happening doesn't mean we gave up our standards. It means we understand where things are falling short of those standards.

    c) Discourse won't happen in a perfect or near perfect setting. This was an opportuntiyt. These windows are normally short and fast. I also don't think condemning people for pointing out truth is a way to produce progressive results. Lies favor the status quo. Truth, however ugly, favors progress.

  • on a comment on Clinton is lucky to be white over 6 years ago

    Politics isn't an up by your own boot straps endeavor. It's based on who brings you- ie, your supporters. This is the context of the conversation for politicians- always.

  • To the new people migrating from whereever or just signing up to do your shilling- can you please stop misusing the rating system. It's not here because you don't like someone for being caustic over your arguments. THis is  a Democratic site about electing Democrats. When someone comes on saying they are going to effectivley helpt he GOP, they aren't trying to elect Democrats. If you check the ratings, that's the trollable offense. My saying that such behavior is silly is not trollable and shouldn't be rated down. This isn't dailykos.  You don't rate people down for disagreement with your candidate of choice.

  • on a comment on Clinton is lucky to be white over 6 years ago

    She wasn't talking about him. She was talking about the nature of those who support him. The group pscyhology at work.

  • on a comment on Clinton is lucky to be white over 6 years ago

    And yet again with the manipulation. This isn't about a couple of people on the internet. Manyof you are talking from candidate support rather than any actual frank understanding of the issue. I am being rude now, because the more you post the less I think you  understand the positive and negative impact of racism on people of color. The fact is part of the problem can be found in the last paragraph. She didn't denigrate anyone to point out the dynamics of human behavior. To point out as she said that part of the reason why she , for example, was choosen was because she was a woman back in 1984. Does that mean she 's sexist and thinks that women are inheritly unequal to men or that she believes any fo the stuff others have been saying? I don't know the lady personally, but I do know when reading an argument what it means. She could have said it better, but what she says is absolutely a part of some fo the pscyhology that we are seeing here. I am sorry you can't see that. It mean by life will be harder for it.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads