Blogging Tory and revered right-wing, Canadian political pundit Adam Daifallah lays down some deep thoughts:
Hillary Clinton's decisive victory tonight in Kentucky is again proof of the resilience of her campaign and that Barack Obama is simply not connecting with certain segments of the U.S. population.
Quite right, Adam -- he's not connecting with dumbfuck, redneck bigots and racists who don't like niggers. Has it really taken you this long to figure that out?
13 comments:
I don’t know why people are getting exercised over crushing victories in places like Kentucky and W. Virginia that in all likelihood are going to go Republican in any case (in part, for the reasons you stated).
Well, Obama does seem to connect with the majority of one significant segment of the population: Democratic party voters.
That's a pretty important segment here, wouldn't you say?
Yeah Gosh, he is within 100 delegates of majority...he's floundering badly.
What a git.
Daffy Dumdaifallah favours us further:
1. Drop out in early June -- in good faith -- and swing behind Obama;
2. Use the leverage she has to force him to put her in the VP spot; or
3. Stay in the race even longer (possibly until just before the convention) to weaken him as much as possible and improve his chances of losing, thus setting her up for 2012.
He's certainly put a new twist on the meaning of the expression enfant terrible.
Quite right, Adam -- he's not connecting with dumbfuck, redneck bigots and racists who don't like niggers. Has it really taken you this long to figure that out?
That's out of line. Would you characterize the 42% of voters in Oregon that way? How about 56% of the voters in Massachusetts?
CC, I'd be interested to hear your frank opinion of the typical black voter. In most cases, less than 10% of black voters are voting for the white woman. Do you have some choice names for those voters? Are they dumbfuck racists and sexists?
You wouldn't be one of those dumbfuck liberal hyprocrites, would you? :-)
You wouldn't be one of those dumbfuck liberal hyprocrites, would you? :-)
By Blogger Larry Moran, at 10:25 AM
I believe he's referring to the Hillary crowd members who if Hillary doesn't' win will cry and sulk and then go vote for McSame even though voting for McSame is voting for a Bush third term.
The only logical reasons to vote against your own and your nation's best interests in such a manner is that either you are an infant throwing a temper tantrum, you are not actually a Democrat at all but rather a DINO, or you're so hung up on race that you'd rather vote for WWIII to start in Iran than you would for a black man. There are racist Democrats out there as well, as the Republicans go to great lengths to remind us all of.
Sweeping generalization? Perhaps but if the shoe fits, wear it.
For reference, I will not be voting for Hillary whether she wins the nomination or not. In the event that she wins I will be voting against McCain rather than for Clinton. Because I do not trust her, I do not like the way she runs her campaign, this nation doesn't need dynastic presidencies and you don't get radical change if you keep voting the same people into office over and over again. This is because I am an adult who has more than two brain cells and I realize that voting for McSame is the electoral equivalent of shooting myself in the testicle with a nail gun. It's not going to feel good. It's not going to fix anything and four years down the road I'd just end up hating myself for it. So if it comes down to giving the country back to the Republicans so they can rape it for another term or putting a woman to hallucinates that little girls with flowers are snipers and that 18 years being first lady (10 in Arkansas and 8 in DC) is the same as experience being an elected official into the oval office I will choose the latter for the good of my country.
and this is coming from a person who voted for Bill twice.
The gift shop at the Drake Hotel in Chicago has Obama 2008 Presidential campaign buttons. Who wants?
Larry Moran writes:
"That's out of line. Would you characterize the 42% of voters in Oregon that way? How about 56% of the voters in Massachusetts?"
Larry, I think it's fairly obvious that I'm not using that description for every single voter who votes against Obama.
Rather, I'm simply pointing out that the main reason Obama is getting clobbered in some southern states is that he's black and a lot of those people are racist. This is not a secret -- TV interviews in some of those Southern states have asked some people specifically who they're voting for and why they're not voting for Obama, and they come right out and say it's because he's black.
So what's the big deal here, Larry? Obama gets creamed in places like Kentucky and West Virginia because those states are still loaded with racists. They don't even try to deny it. In fact, one might say they're still quite proud of it.
So let's not go blaming me for simply pointing out the obvious, shall we?
CC says,
So what's the big deal here, Larry? Obama gets creamed in places like Kentucky and West Virginia because those states are still loaded with racists. They don't even try to deny it. In fact, one might say they're still quite proud of it.
So let's not go blaming me for simply pointing out the obvious, shall we?
I'm challenging you on two points. First, the accuracy of your characterization leaves a lot to be desired. Furthermore, it comes perilously close to a similar tactic where people charge everyone who disagrees with Israel's policy as anti-Semitic.
It's true that some opponents of Israel are anti-Semitic but the charge is used as a blunt weapon to attack everyone who opposes Israeli policy. That's not very helpful when we want to have an intelligent discussion.
Second, I'm challenging your rationality and accusing you of hypocrisy. As you well know, race plays a very important role in whether or not blacks vote for Obama or Clinton. Why is it that those who accuse Clinton supporters of racism don't make the same accusation against black supporters of Obama? The facts seems very clear, don't they? I blame you for not pointing out the obvious.
Larry, I heard on CNN during Tuesday's broadcast that 9 out of 10 voters who indicated that race is an issue for them voted for Hillary. I'm amazed that they're so comfortable with their racism.
Unless you assume that Obama's supporters are lying about the importance of race to them, it is pretty damning, wouldn't you say? Or do you think it's probable that Obama's supporters are lying in great numbers about whether race plays a part in their decision?
re: my 11:04...
Sorry, I failed to mention that this was specifically about Kentucky. I do expect that other southern states are rather similar in nature, though.
Anyway, it certainly lends credence to cc's 4:52 am comment and specifically his 2nd last paragraph there. Neither my wife nor I could quite believe people would be so open about it.
¢rÄßG®äŠŠ says,
Unless you assume that Obama's supporters are lying about the importance of race to them, it is pretty damning, wouldn't you say? Or do you think it's probable that Obama's supporters are lying in great numbers about whether race plays a part in their decision?
Oh no, I'd never accuse Obama's supporters of lying. We all know that Obama supporters are pure as gold. That's what gives them the right to call everyone else a racist.
The fact that 90% of blacks won't vote for the white woman is merely a coincidence. Race doesn't matter at all to those voters. I'm sure that at least 90% of white folk would vote for Obama except that they're racists.
I'm not defending racism. I'm just pointing out that there seems to be a double standard when it comes to accusing people of racism.
Rev. Wright isn't a racist but the hillbillies of Kentucky sure are racists. I find this logic very strange. I hope it's due to political correctness and not stupidity.
Larry, the 90% / 10% numbers that you're talking about - are those based on polls from the various primaries?
To be honest, I expect that lots of people being polled on both sides are lying. It's pretty hard to say how many. I was certainly struck by the "9 out of 10", but nothing short of dumbfounded by the fact that people would admit so readily to it. Do you think that Obama supporters on the whole would be far less likely to "come clean" about race-based preference?
Post a Comment