comment #1

Indeed says ...

It could be that perhaps (and this is simply conjecture at this point) that it has little or nothing to do with racism or education levels, but mainly a difference of opinion?

For instance, Im younger than you, better educated, and make more money...yet I wouldn't think to vote for Obama in a million years (I question the judgement of those who would, however I dont judge them personally). Nor would I think about voting for Hillary. Or McCain. Perhaps Im racist against both blacks and whites?

Maybe someone on here could explain this paradox to me. It's been driving me bonkers over the past few weeks seeing as, according to this site, there's something fundamentally wrong with me.

comment #2

Wrecktum says ...

Curious. Who would you vote for, Indeed?

comment #3

mrbill says ...

Ron Paul

comment #4

Bocephus says ...

Or he might be one of those assholes who thinks he makes a bigger statement by not voting at all. It's the perfect excuse to justify not hauling your lazy ass out to the election booth to do your civic duty.

Bite the bullet, do your research, and vote for the lesser of two evils like the rest of us. It's the American way.

comment #5

Indeed says ...

Wrecktum: mrbill is probably correct as I would end up voting for Ron Paul, but I would also like to see what any other (I) candidates have to say.

One could easily argue that I'm "throwing my vote away," whereas I could argue that the longer we remain focused on the two party system that has done us nothing but disservice for the past few decades, the worse things will continue to get.

comment #6

Indeed says ...

Bocephus: I've voted in every type of election I could since I turned 18...but yes, that does appear to be "The American Way" these days.

Which is kinda sad, when you think about it.

comment #7

Roman says ...

There is nothing, but nothing I would love more at this point than to see Obama denied a niomination. I just want to see that look on his face. I'm sick of his hollier than though attitude (that's the main reason why I could never self myself on him). And I'm sick of how easy the media made it all for him.

Go Hillary!

comment #8

admiralmpj says ...

It may be nothing's wrong with South Dakota.

There have been a tremendous amount of stories about S.D. flipping for Hillary. It may happen, but at the same time where's the polling?

All these articles have shown us zero polling numbers. It's all based on speculation about those "hard workn' white folks". Before yesterday, there hadn't been a poll floated in S.D. since mid-March. The one poll that was floated yesterday was by ARG, a firm with terrible reputation, as far as have any numbers that can get within sniffing range of reality.

Bottom line is who knows. She could win, but then again, they said she was catching up in North Carolina, only to be handed a 14 point drubbing. They said she was going to win P.R., which she did, but with such a turnout (of 2 million voters) that she would overtake Obama by any legitimate Popular Vote metric (she didn't, and only 26% of Puerto Ricans turned out).

The only poll that matters is the one tonight. Either way, it ends tonight.

comment #9

lazarus says ...

Roman, why don't you just call Obama "uppity" and get it over with?

Apparently you prefer Hillary's sense of entitlement, which is perhaps even worse than the debatable holier-than-thou attitude coming from Obama. Regardless, I'd love to see the latter try and top the sanctimony forced down the throats of the public by Bush and the Republican party for the last 8 years.

comment #10

D.Z. says ...

Roman: "I'm sick of his hollier than though attitude "

He should show more humility and claim Jesus wanted him to invade Iraq.

comment #11

corey3rd says ...

Montana has been bought up by rich Hollywood folks who like to drive 120 mph on the interstate.

comment #12

Michael says ...

Hillary's sense of entitlement is easier to take than Michelle Obama's, that's for sure. These are two deeply flawed candidates the Dems have put up...and I'll vote for either one of them over McCain.

I'm saying this as someone who has never voted Dem before...(sorry)

comment #13

bb says ...

Hillary's mistake was that early in the campaign they did not begin identifying people that voted for Obama as IDIOTS. If every person that voted for Obama was immediately identified as an obvious IDIOT then maybe people would have been reluctant to cast such a vote and be identified as an IDIOT.

Of course Obama was better prepared and launched the RACIST label campaign early on, identifying anybody that voted against him as a RACIST so now nobody wants to be a RACIST and must in good conscious vote Obama.

It's too late for the IDIOT strategy but I will always wonder if people would have been more inclined to avoid the IDIOT or RACIST label.

Maybe McCain's team will pick up on the IDIOT strategy. It's no RACIST but it will do.

comment #14

The Bandsaw Vigilante says ...

^
|
|
|

Wow...there ARE a lot of high horses on the Internet, aren't there?

I hear you can buy them cheap.

comment #15

Krazy Eyes says ...

By Wells's logic there must be a lot of racists in this comments section.

comment #16

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Krazy Eyes: As any student of elemental logic will tell you, my statement that "low information" voters tend to vote along racial lines (polls have determined, or so it's been reported, that a good 10% to 12% of voters out there won't vote for a black guy under any circumstance) obviously doesn't mean that people who don't favor Obama are racist.

And that 10% or whatever is just a percentage of polled respondents who have admitted to this.

It is, however, ludicrous to imply that race hasn't been a significant factor in the voting since last January, especially in the industrial Appalachian states, and equally ludicrous to imply that the epicenter of racially- discriminatory voting isn't among "low information voters" of limited education, under $50,000 annual income and white pigmentation.

Give us all a break & cut the crap.

comment #17

Indeed says ...

Jeff, I think that if you are going to relentlessly bring up the idea that a good amount of people may not be voting for Obama simply because he's black, you should at least admit that a good amount of people are going to vote for him simply because he's black.

There is a percentage that admits to this, too.

comment #18

bb says ...

"And that 10% or whatever is just a percentage of polled respondents who have admitted to this."

Ironically that is the inverse of the percentages of black votes going to Obama. What does that say?

comment #19

Gaydos says ...

There are two political battles underway: the first is Obama vs McCain. AP just reported that Obama has clinched the nom.

The second is Harold Ickes, Terry McAuliffe, Lanny Davis, Paul Begala, Sid Blumenthal, Bill and Hillary vs the rest of the Democratic Party. I watched the Rules Committee hearing on Saturday and boy was the veil lifted from my eyes. It's about political power. Cold-blooded, cynical disgusting, old-fashioned, raw, brutal power-mongering. Ickes makes Karl Rove look like Gandhi.

They once owned the Party and they want it back. Here's to blocking them at all costs...

Here's to Jeff for his early and consistent support of President Obama....

comment #20

MattyCurtis says ...

If I were a politician Jeff Wells is the last person I'd want publicly supporting me! You think his political rants over the past however many months have actually been GOOD for Obama?!? Granted, in the grand scheme of things, HE has likely played no role whatsoever in affecting the race, but it has shown Wells to be a complete political hack unable to view anything except through the lenses of his Obama-is-The-One lenses.

Face it, if you're not a die-hard Obama supporter, Wells thinks you're an idiot and going to hell. Anyone that extreme and inflexible in their intellectual grasp on politics is not going to produce quality journalism.

comment #21

Ghost072 says ...

"I think that if you are going to relentlessly bring up the idea that a good amount of people may not be voting for Obama simply because he's black, you should at least admit that a good amount of people are going to vote for him simply because he's black."

This is true. Black people have voted overwhelmingly for Obama, and a case could be made that they have done this purely due to the color of his skin. However, is it really surprising that a portion of the country that has been largely held powerless and has NEVER had the opportunity to vote for a black person to be president would do so?

In other words, I can understand black people voting for Obama because he is black a lot more than I can understand a white person voting for Clinton or McCain because they are white. Maybe after a few black nominees and/or presidents, this behavior will subside, but white people really have no excuse, IMO.

comment #22

OtownRog says ...

First of all, you can have a lot of problems with Obama, his record, his long associations with black racialists, and not be a racist. You can also hate McCain's guts and still "support the troops."
Secondly, nobody referring to him/herself as "better educated" should ever use the words "Ron Paul" back to back. He took you rubes for a lot of money that, shockingly, he gets to keep when he leaves Congress. Suckers.

comment #23

T. S. Idiot says ...

Hilary's speaking tonight from Baruch College. The geniuses who rented her space gave her the only room (a basement gym) in the whole place with no Internet connectivity--with cell towers blocked as well--so cables are being run from a truck parked on the street to correct the problem. Almost tripped over one. Ain't America great?

comment #24

Josh says ...

So if you don't vote for Obama you're racist, Wells??

comment #25

Pete Zha says ...

Like Jeff isn't one of the "low information voters" he himself despises.

comment #26

Chicago48 says ...

Would everyone who makes a claim about what Obama said or didn't say, or did or didn't say....would you please cite your source? Where exactly did you see what he said/didn't say? What newspaper? What web site? Because honestly, I don't remember him stating those things you attribute to him.

comment #27

Chicago48 says ...

Surely the Obama camp knows that there are some people (white, Hispanic) who will not vote for him because he's black....and he shouldn't try to win those people over....like some on this board....and as much as you state it's because of his policies or whatever, you know deep down it's because of his color.

comment #28

Major Calloway says ...

...you know deep down it's because of his color.

"Witness the man who raves at the wall....set the controls for the heart of the sun." - Roger Waters

Not that it's where we want to go, but we do need those side thrusters.

And that, in a nutshell, is why it is good to have certain people around even if following what they say would be insanity.

comment #29

MattyCurtis says ...

"like some on this board....and as much as you state it's because of his policies or whatever, you know deep down it's because of his color."

That's a pretty despicable accusation to throw around so loosely. Care to specify whom you were referring to?

And do you believe that it's possible for someone who voted for Hillary to not be a racist? I get the feeling that Jeff Wells doesn't.

comment #30

appleman says ...

So, as the clock keeps ticking, the word has spread that Hilliary's "open for the VP slot." In Hilliary's world, that can only mean two things: One, a back room deal has been cut. She will by Thursday morning openly endorse him and begin the process of uniting the two factions. Boy, doesn't that sound swell.

The other option is that she's been refuted by Obama and is taking the issue to the great unwashed.

Please Obama (and I'm sure he's an HE fan), do not be tricked. She's a well meaning psychopath who will undermine you with all the Clinton charm and political savvy.

comment #31

Josh Massey says ...

"and as much as you state it's because of his policies or whatever..."

Yeah, I mean they're just policies! How important are those when we can just judge a candidate on the color of his skin and ability to make a rousing speech? You know, the important things!

comment #32

LFF says ...

*south dakota passed a ballot referendum to ban nearly all abortions a couple of years ago. This was done in case Bush managed to get R v W overturned in favor of individual state restrictions. (Some friends of mine in Iowa jokingly suggested they should drive to the sioux falls border and hold up signs saying "Women! Come to Iowa! We like girls here!")
*SD ousted Tom Daschle from their senate seat despite the piles and piles of Pork dollars he was bringing into the state.
*Despite some cool people and the presence of the sturgis rally, this state is as redneck as they come. I saw a whole lot of the popular "Guns and Roses was here/ raped woman artwork" t-shirts, and another with a KKK artwork titled "boys in the hood" out for sale when I was there last time.
*Not even going to get into the powerful religious stupidity in this state.
*Why these folks would for Clinton over Obama makes zero sense to me, but I guess much like kentucky, race trumps sex.
*North Dakota, interestingly enough, is far less redneck. Maybe its the bigger military presence, or the proximity to canada. Fargo is actually pretty cool.

South Dakota: prove me wrong about your state. Don't be the kentucky of the upper west.

comment #33

D.Z. says ...

Michael: "Hillary's sense of entitlement is easier to take than Michelle Obama's, that's for sure."

Last time I checked, Michelle didn't make it a policy to attack white voters.

bb: "Hillary's mistake was that early in the campaign they did not begin identifying people that voted for Obama as IDIOTS. "

Yes, Obama supporters should be more savvy, and vote for a candidate who lied about dodging gunfire.

"Of course Obama was better prepared and launched the RACIST label campaign early on, identifying anybody that voted against him as a RACIST so now nobody wants to be a RACIST and must in good conscious vote Obama."

Um, no, it's people who've been decisively anti-Obama who's been using the race label. He's been trying to get past the issue.

"so now nobody wants to be a RACIST and must in good conscious vote Obama."

Your own comment is racist, since there are other reasons people would vote for Obama besides his skin color-such as him being against the war.

"Ironically that is the inverse of the percentages of black votes going to Obama. What does that say?"

They've also normally voted for white Democrats, so it doesn't say anything.

Indeed: " you should at least admit that a good amount of people are going to vote for him simply because he's black. There is a percentage that admits to this, too."

If they voted specifically because of skin color, then Jesse Jackson and Shirley Chisholm would be President.

Otown: "First of all, you can have a lot of problems with Obama, his record, his long associations with black racialists, and not be a racist."

True, but it does look like a double standard, when many of the same people who bring up those points against Obama ignore the fact that Bush was a silver spoon politician and the fact that his family had close ties with the terrorists who blew up the WTC.

Chicago: "Surely the Obama camp knows that there are some people (white, Hispanic) who will not vote for him because he's black....and he shouldn't try to win those people over...."

I think he should, even if it'll be a tough fight. He can win those groups over on the issues better than McCain.

comment #34

Ogami Itto says ...

Roman: "I'm sick of his hollier than though [sic]attitude "

No kidding. Why does that uppity bastard think he's qualified to be president?

comment #35

Major Calloway says ...

Um, no, it's people who've been decisively anti-Obama who's been using the race label. He's been trying to get past the issue.

Too bad he's stuck with supporters like you.

If they voted specifically because of skin color, then Jesse Jackson and Shirley Chisholm would be President.

No. They did. And those candidates lost.

True, but...the same people who bring up those points against Obama ignore the fact that Bush was [insert boogeyman nightmare here] and.. his family had close ties with the terrorists...

As someone said earlier, your tuition dollars at work. And a lot of these people didn't care much for Bush 8 years ago.

I think he should, even if it'll be a tough fight.

Totally agreed.

comment #36

Josh Massey says ...

It has very clearly been Obama's followers (disciples?) injecting race into every single aspect of the campaign ("disagree with him, and you're a raaaaaacist!"). I've heard a comparatively minuscule number of his opponents' supporters dwell on the issue.

Oh, and DZ, that last post might be the dumbest thing you've ever written. Which, as we all know, is saying a lot.

comment #37

Indeed says ...

Otownrog: "Secondly, nobody referring to him/herself as "better educated" should ever use the words "Ron Paul" back to back."

Ah, attacking the intelligence of someone who is pushing for a different candidate than you. How Wellsian of you.

I happen to know a lot of Ron Paul supporters. Many of them are pretty smart people, usually when it comes to economics. A few of them are crackpots that don't really know anything about anything.

I'm sure the same applies to Obama supporters, except I assume the ratios are reversed.

comment #38

Major Calloway says ...

A few of them are crackpots that don't really know anything about anything.

One man's crackpot is another man's T.A.

comment #39

Ghost072 says ...

Indeed, I'm curious what you think of the Ron Paul newsletters containing some of the most vile racist and homophobic language this side of David Duke (in fact, several of them are quite complimentary of Duke)?

Paul is an engaging candidate and his economic ideas are certainly interesting, but anyone who would allow his name to be placed above the ideas put forth in those newsletters isn't fit to command a Taco Bell, much less the United States of America.

comment #40

Indeed says ...

Ghost, being a black man myself I get that question a lot. From what I understand, the comments were included in his newsletter, yet were not written by him. Considering the man has stated in the past that MLK is one of his heroes (and this was before the controversy with the newsletter), that he promptly went public on the issue and accepted moral responsiblity, and he has been a very close friend to someone like Nelson Linder for decades leads me to believe this is no worse (perhaps even better) than Obama sitting in a church for 20 years listening to different variations of racist rhetoric from a wacko preacher and even having said preacher marry you and act as a spiritual advisor.

Even if the man would choose not to walk through a dark alley where a few black guys are hanging out late a night, that still doesnt change the fact (or opinion, I should say) that he is probably the only candidate who could do something substantial regarding the economy...which is kind of a big deal and should probably be the one topic every candidate should be discussing more. Plus I'm sure our image abroad will be vastly improved when we stop sticking our nose into other people's business.

But again, that's just me. And I wont judge anybody who happens to think otherwise.

comment #41

Filmsnob says ...

There is nothing, but nothing I would love more at this point than to see Obama denied a niomination. I just want to see that look on his face. I'm sick of his hollier than though attitude (that's the main reason why I could never self myself on him). And I'm sick of how easy the media made it all for him.

Go Hillary!

Hmm , why is it that I never hear a white person described as "uppity"?Roman believes that Obama should know his place.

comment #42

D.Z. says ...

Calloway: "Too bad he's stuck with supporters like you."

We're called progressives.

"No. They did. And those candidates lost."

They voted for the candidates, because they talked different messages not being heard by their white counterparts. And those candidates lost, because they didn't have the financial influence to be heard in mainstream media outlets.

"As someone said earlier, your tuition dollars at work."

At least I earned my way into college.

"And a lot of these people didn't care much for Bush 8 years ago."

But they voted for him, anyway, simply because of oral sex and homophobia.

Josh: "Oh, and DZ, that last post might be the dumbest thing you've ever written."

Obama pretty much summed up why most of them act like they do with his "bitter" comment. I'm sure that, if he tries to bridge gaps, instead of widen them, like Republicans have been doing, that he'll have a better chance at winning.

Indeed: "that he is probably the only candidate who could do something substantial regarding the economy..."

The only thing he'd do is give us more Katrinas and collapsing bridges.

comment #43

Indeed says ...

D.Z.:"The only thing he'd do is give us more Katrinas and collapsing bridges."

Shit, so Ron Paul has the power to summon hurricanes now? If thats the case, shouldnt we all vote for him lest we are vanquished by rain and gale force winds?

Or maybe he'll create hurricanes that only target us black folk.

comment #44

Roman says ...

"Hmm , why is it that I never hear a white person described as "uppity"? "

I don't think he's uppity. I just I think that he's shown that he has experience to be a President. I would still, vote for him over McCain in a heartbeat but I also believe that Democrtic Parties has better options.

"Roman believes that Obama should know his place."

Roman believes you should stop trying to put words in Roman's mouth. I have absolutly no problem with having a black President. I would love for that to happen, actually.

Still, I can't help but wonder, at what point exactly did Obama stop being a biracial candidate?

comment #45

bluestater says ...

The dems have done something very foolish tonight. They have elected a man who will be wiped out in a 50-state landslide by McCain. Not a big McCain fan myself, but there will be no choice but to vote for him given the choice....

...especially when the October Surprise is dropped. It'll be a surprise unlike any surprise you've ever seen. Just wait...

comment #46

D.Z. says ...

Indeed: "Shit, so Ron Paul has the power to summon hurricanes now? If thats the case, shouldnt we all vote for him lest we are vanquished by rain and gale force winds?"

I meant that we'd get even less investment in infrastructure to protect us from disasters, because Libertarians think we can run a country without taxation.

Oh, and regarding Wright vs Duke, Wright has actually done things for this country besides trying to recruit separatists on talk shows.

Roman: "Still, I can't help but wonder, at what point exactly did Obama stop being a biracial candidate?"

Probably when Republicans went after him.

bluestater: "They have elected a man who will be wiped out in a 50-state landslide by McCain. Not a big McCain fan myself, but there will be no choice but to vote for him given the choice...."

What is with people who keep saying that? Obama still polls higher than McCain in terms of electability. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080603/pl_afp/usvotepoll_080603152437

comment #47

Josh Massey says ...

Indeed: If you're ever in Atlanta, the first round is on me.

comment #48

Roman says ...

"Roman: "Still, I can't help but wonder, at what point exactly did Obama stop being a biracial candidate?"

Probably when Republicans went after him."

That's bull. Besides, if I were him I'd be more afraid of when the Republicans REALLY go after him.

comment #49

Indeed says ...

Josh, ditto if youre ever in Chicago.

We can have some sort of racist Klan meeting or something and hate on Obama.

comment #50

dangovich says ...

So Mitt Romney won Montana, Mike Huckabee racked up 3,000 votes in SD, and Ron Paul finished second in both states.

Sounds like there's more than a little ambivalence toward McCain among conservatives.

comment #51

D.Z. says ...

Roman: Republicans can't do a thing in districts in which they normally have the edge. Any attacks against Obama are just delaying the inevitable.

comment #52

Roman says ...

This only confirms my suspicion that Republicans want to lose the election on purpose. They know the situation is shit and they want Dems to wallow in it.

comment #53

nola says ...

Roman do you live in the united states? Barack is biracial and has never downplayed his mother but in america if you are biracial you are black. You can try like Tiger "to transcend race" not going to happen. He looks black, he's black.

What I find incredible is that Hillary has lost the nomination but did not give a concession speech last night.

The earlier poster who talked about Ickes and the crew is right. This is about raw power and all the feminists who are saying hillary was denied because of her sex should really look at her inner circle and what they are fight for. Something deep is going on. I worked in national politics, I have never seen anything like this. Maybe she wants to pick as VP and for Barack to pay her 20 million dollar campaign debt.

She and bill are worth over 100 million. they should pay for it.

comment #54

Dave Polands Gut says ...

"We're called progressives."

I'd like you to find one instance where Obama or Hillary called themselves progressive. They both avoid the term liberal like its the plague. Why is that? Why cant they admit what they are??

comment #55

Ghost072 says ...

"Ghost, being a black man myself I get that question a lot. From what I understand, the comments were included in his newsletter, yet were not written by him."

This is a problem to me, for the same reason that Clinton's terribly run campaign is a problem for me. It doesn't show great management skills when a person cannot even manage the content of a newsletter that bears his name. I have no doubt that Paul is not a dyed-in-the-wool racist, but I would never allow my name to be associated with anything like that - and if it were, I would make sure that the next issue denounced all that had come before. Not because I have political aspirations, but because things like that MATTER. Paul's response to the situation seemed ineffectual at best to me, and that portends serious problems to an actual presidency in my book.

Now, as to the Reverend Wright issue, I think Obama was performing a tightrope act that is difficult to understand for a lot of white and black America. There IS a lot of anger and mistrust in black America (for good reason, IMO) and Wright's incendiary sermons (the ones clipped and looped anyway) speak to that on a fundamental level. Obama has to play to many distinct demographic groups (black and white ebing just two of them), while still trying to pull them all together. The fact that Reverend Wright was blown up to the level it was, above all of the other wacko ministers, just demonstrates the racism that still exists, IMO. The man said some pretty stupid things, no doubt, but so have Hagee, Robertson, Falwell and innumerable others; it kind of comes with the territory when you have the gall to speak for God. Just behind the veil of the coverage of Wright, again in IMO, was the image of the "scary black man, coming to rape your women." It is a reliable old standby that has paid dividends for the power brokers over the centuries in this country and the rightwing (and, to a lesser extent, the Clintons) have been treading very carefully as they dredge it up again. We'll see if that image becomes more overt during the general.

Now, as to economic policies, I agree that Ron Paul has a better grasp on them than most. But so did Greenspan and many other people in ancillary roles where there skills can be best utilized. With that in mind, if Obama were to offer Paul an economic advisory role, I'd be tickled pink. Some people's skills don't translate to the ultimate executive position, and I believe this axiom especially applies to Paul.

"But again, that's just me. And I wont judge anybody who happens to think otherwise."

I am definitely with you on that sentiment...

comment #56

Roman says ...

"Roman do you live in the united states? Barack is biracial and has never downplayed his mother but in america if you are biracial you are black. You can try like Tiger "to transcend race" not going to happen. He looks black, he's black."'

Do you now know what a leading question is?

comment #57

jany says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability solutions