Are Democrats Racist?

You are insisting tht their position was that Obama and Hillary could not win the Democratic nomination, which is absurd.

Their position was, the Democratic voters, would not nominate Obama or Hillary, because of their race and gender, instead, they would nominate Gore. They didn't think Obama or Hillary would win the nomination, although, they later agreed they could be nominated, with a "general" on the ticket.
 
You are insisting tht their position was that Obama and Hillary could not win the Democratic nomination, which is absurd.

I don't know if you understand this, but the nominee in the primary, runs in the general election, they were talking about BOTH, the nomination of the party, and the general election. They specifically said, Obama and Hillary would not win the NOMINATION, because the Democrat voters would consider them "long-shots" in the general election. So, I don't understand your parsing of words here, it makes no sense, unless you are just trying to muddy the water for others, so they don't see my point.

Short and sweet... These Democrat talking heads felt that Hillary and Obama would not win the nomination of the Democratic party, because the Democrats would realize they are both "long-shots" in the general election, precisely because of race and gender, and couldn't be elected.... THUS, they would end up picking Gore.

I think you should adapt Maine's take on it, and say it's perfectly normal for them to discriminate against the black man and the woman, and that's just the reality of politics!
 
You're such a little punk Dixie. I never said he didn't use the phrase "long shot".

"Nope, that's not what she said at all." ---Darla (circa 25 minutes ago)


You are making two completely contradictory claims here.

You keep trying to make some distinction between the primaries and the general. No, they didn't say either were a long-shot in the primaries, they both agreed they wouldn't win the primaries, and that Gore would. Their reasoning for believing this, was because they thought the Democratic voters would consider them both to be "long-shots" in the general election, precisely because of race and gender.
 
In a bizarre twist, Dixie is absolutely right on this one. The fact that Democratic voters are gaging the race or gender of their candidate in order to win a national election shows that they are more willing to sacrifice a candidate for the good of the party, rather than the good of the country.
 
Dixie said:
You are insisting tht their position was that Obama and Hillary could not win the Democratic nomination, which is absurd.

I don't know if you understand this, but the nominee in the primary, runs in the general election, they were talking about BOTH, the nomination of the party, and the general election. They specifically said, Obama and Hillary would not win the NOMINATION, because the Democrat voters would consider them "long-shots" in the general election. So, I don't understand your parsing of words here, it makes no sense, unless you are just trying to muddy the water for others, so they don't see my point.

Short and sweet... These Democrat talking heads felt that Hillary and Obama would not win the nomination of the Democratic party, because the Democrats would realize they are both "long-shots" in the general election, precisely because of race and gender, and couldn't be elected.... THUS, they would end up picking Gore.

I think you should adapt Maine's take on it, and say it's perfectly normal for them to discriminate against the black man and the woman, and that's just the reality of politics!
Click to expand...

I see, so now they were talking about both the general and the primary. It took you six pages of posts to finally say you are claiming both, after first saying "NOT the primary" and "NOT the general". Why did you waste 6 pages of posts insisting and ranting that they were talking about the primaries and not the general election? You must lead a very confused life.

In fact, neither of them predicted that Gore would win, they predicted he was going to enter late in the race and that there would be a call for a "statesman".

Chris Mattews is not a "democratic talking head". He is a talk show host, and one who famously infuriated a lot of liberals by claiming about George W that "everybody likes this guy it's just the nuts who don't".

As for Turner, she's right, but for the wrong reasons. It won't be race or gender that allows Gore to enter the race late, if indeed he even does; it will be the passion in the liberal base for him.
 
Last edited:
Beefy said:
In a bizarre twist, Dixie is absolutely right on this one. The fact that Democratic voters are gaging the race or gender of their candidate in order to win a national election shows that they are more willing to sacrifice a candidate for the good of the party, rather than the good of the country.
Click to expand...

First of all, both Republican and Democratic voters gauge the ELECTABILITY" of their nominees.

Second of all, Democratic voters have done nothing yet, except, by a super-majority in polls, say they want Hillary as their nominee. She's a girl you know. And leading the pack at 41% support among Democratic voters...the next up is Obama, (I think he's still black) and then Edwards. So the first white male comes in third today, in polls taken among Democratic voters.

So this claim is just laughable on its face.
 
Democratic voters speak, as much as they can at any rate, before an actual election:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sen. Hillary Clinton holds a large early lead over other top candidates in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, said a national poll reported on Sunday in The Washington Post.

New York's Clinton was the favorite of 41 percent of Democrats polled, more than double the 17-percent, second-place rating scored by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the Post said.

Former Sen. John Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee, placed third at 11 percent, with former Vice President Al Gore at 10 percent. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 presidential nominee, came in at 8 percent.

http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-5&rpc=92
 
Hillary Clinton: 41% among Democratic voters

Barak Obama: in second place with 17%

John Edwards: our first white male comes in at 3rd place with 11%

Please tell me again how Democratic voters are "racists" and "sexists".
 
I was googling looking for the female and/or black Republican Presidential candidates for 2008:

Sam Brownback: Well, his back is brown! It's really too bad that Toni Morrison called Bill Clinton the first black president. It could have been Sam's. Oh well.

John McCain: So white he looks sickly. I don't know how the Republicans are going to dress this one up. He better forget trying to pass himself off as the black candidate and slip into some pink tuille number. We still need a female.

Rudy Guiliani: At least he's tanned, but his hostility towards black males is so notorious in NY, I just don't see the tan helping. However, the good news is, he did actually once dress up as a woman (albeit a butt-ugly one) and pranced around a Saturday Night Live stage.

Well, that's all I got from googling. So let's recap. We have a woman blowing away the rest of the field in the Democratic polling for Presidential nominee, and a black male coming in at second place still ahead of all white males in the running.

And in the Republican party we have...three white guys.

Huh. Yeah, the Democratic party sure is racist and sexist!
 
Dixie said:
Could you imagine what pinheads would post, if Sean Hannity had a conversation with a republican pundit about Condi's chances at becoming nominated, and both Hannity and his guest agreed, she couldn't possibly win the republican nomination because she was a black woman? I mean, can anyone possibly imagine the level of shrill rhetoric we would hear about the "racist" republicans?

The hypocrisy is absolutely astonishing to me.
Click to expand...


Um Hannity has had discussions on his show about whether minority or female can win. There was no uproar. Discussing political realities and opinions is not racist.
 
Blackflag said:
Um Hannity has had discussions on his show about whether minority or female can win. There was no uproar. Discussing political realities and opinions is not racist.
Click to expand...

This is self-evident. Why is this even being debated for three pages? Asking if mormon Mitt Romeny can get elected, does not make one an anti-mormon bigot.
 
Um Hannity has had discussions on his show about whether minority or female can win. There was no uproar. Discussing political realities and opinions is not racist.

I've never heard Sean Hannity say that a woman or black would be "long-shots" to win. In fact, he is one of the main lobbyists for Condi to run.

It's amazing to me, I have to go find the fucking transcripts to prove Democrats said something, even if they were watching the show and saw it for themselves... blackflag mentions something about hearing Hannity say something, and the pinheads line up to pat his back and congratulate him on making an excellent point!

It seems we have a bit of a double standard when it comes to providing proof of something that was said. Let's see the transcript, flagass?
 
Dixie...this is a tempest in a teapot of your making. There is nothing racist or sexist in any way in discussing the electability of women or minorities to national office...it is merely an assessment of the prejudices present in our society.... those discussing those prejudices and their prevalence need not personally hold them to discuss them.
 
maineman said:
Dixie...this is a tempest in a teapot of your making. There is nothing racist or sexist in any way in discussing the electability of women or minorities to national office...it is merely an assessment of the prejudices present in our society.... those discussing those prejudices and their prevalence need not personally hold them to discuss them.
Click to expand...

Sort of like Church members discussing Satan, does that make them satanistic ?
 
Last edited:
To not even be able to talk about rascism and such without being labeled racist. That is pretty far beyond PC crap.
 
uscitizen said:
To not even be able to talk about rascism and such without being labeled racist. That is pretty far beyond PC crap.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the wonderful world of Ward Connerly. See, in modern conservative-speak, you have to pretend that racism doesn't exist. Not only that, we have to prevent anyone from doing statistical studies that might help demonstrate that it does still exist. Believing that racism exists is racist. Got that?

Everybody wish real hard, click your heels together three times, clap your hands and, if your hearts are just pure enough, racism will just go away.
 
And the poor only exist because they are lazy right ?
The homeless because the don't want to pay rent, etc...
Everyone can have "above average" income if they only work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top