Question

Filed in Uncategorized by on January 24, 2008

Being the uptighty whitey I am I was unaware of the lack of love Latinos and Blacks share for one another.  Perhaps this is a MSM meme being put forth but what they were saying in regards to the Democratic Party and this issue made sense and it doesn’t bode well for the Party.

The way I understand it is that this subtle yet effective race game the Clinton’s have forced out is/could have a demonstrative effect on part of the voters the party counts on.  That being the black vote.  Obama is siphoning off the black vote in large numbers.  I believe over 75% while Hillary is taking the Latino’s in similar numbers. 

So as Billary plays their typical Clinton style politics they are disenfranchising black voters that they will need come election time.  I hate the Clintons and what they are doing is shitty.  Bill sticks around in SC while Hillary moves on to the next state.  It is wrong and is exactly what we don’t need as a country.

So what we have is two fold right now.  The party is being split along racial lines as well as age lines.  The Clinton are taking older voters and Obama is taking younger voters. 

I can honestly say this if Clinton wins the Dem vote I’m praying for a third party.  I will not hold my nose and vote like I did for Kerry.  I may even cross over and vote for McCain.  No shit.  I would.  I hate what they are doing. 

 This country needs change and there is no way in hell the Clinton’s are going to make it happen. 

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

hiding in the open

Comments (28)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. anon says:

    I may even cross over and vote for McCain.

    You have a point. If we are going to allow the country to be sold out then at least let it be done by the appropriate party.

  2. disbelief says:

    Gotta’ agree with your take on the Clintons. Just hope that its not a choice between Billary and Huckabee. The only winner there will be the Canadian real estate market.

  3. nemski says:

    dv, if the Clintons cured cancer, you would still find a way of saying that they are evil.

  4. disbelief says:

    Because if the Clintons cured cancer, that would mean they would have a means to cause it, and would inflict it on anyone deemed insufficiently loyal. The problem with Hillary is that its not about our country; its about her. Always was, always will be.

  5. Von Cracker says:

    DV, you’re falling for it…hook, line, and whatever.

    McCain? are you fucking nutz?

  6. jason330 says:

    Clinton is banking in the fact that if she gets the Dem nomination, 85% of Democrats will hold their nose and vote for her as the lesser of two evils.

    Maybe it is a good idea for many of the 85% ers to say – you know what, fuck that!

  7. Von Cracker says:

    HRC is certainly my 3rd choice, but she’s better than any of the Rethugs and Bloomberg.

  8. jason330 says:

    If she wins the nomination I hate what it says about our party – but I’d vote for her.

  9. Steve Newton says:

    But there is a third option–stay home in massive numbers and refuse to participate.

    If this year’s crop is the best the two party system has to offer, then we need to do some serious rethinking.

  10. Von Cracker says:

    Where is this racial divide coming from? Where did you hear of it first? The MSM?

    I believe I made a comment a few weeks back about how we haven’t heard much from the media about ‘can this country handle a woman or black president’, and we didn’t hear anything about it before New Hampshire even though we all knew that HRC and Obama were the frontrunners. Why are we inundated with the faux fight now?

    The traditional media can’t and won’t go into a substantive debate about the issue, so it throws trite augments into the ether to make entertaining TV, articles, and blog posts….

    You might dislike Hillary for a multitude of reasons: A little too much pro-corporation (though this is completely over-hyped), that she didn’t pull a Lorena Bobbitt on Bill, or whatever….but if you think she’s only going to offer 4 more years of Bu$hCo politics and policies…you’re done, sucked in by the meme, and amused to death.

  11. Dogless says:

    but if you think she’s only going to offer 4 more years of Bu$hCo politics and policies…you’re done, sucked in by the meme, and amused to death.

    Don’t cross that bitch. She bites. If you have already crossed her, then cross your fingers and pray.

  12. Von Cracker says:

    Now substitute that last sentence with any white male politico and tell me what you think now…

  13. DV. I’d hate to see you wake up to a McCain presidency and kick yourself, until dead.
    For real. I know that you know better.
    The thing to do is not bitch and whine but to move aggressively as you can in ways that ensure that Obama is getting our support.
    McCain will be Bush redo. Do you think that the fucking president leads the country? The Clintons are horrible and will still do more for the US than any GOPerhead in executive.

  14. Dorian Gray says:

    I understand. Clinton’s not my #1 choice either. But, dude, come off it. The lesser of two evil is fine by me. Otherwise we could have real problem on our hands… AGAIN.

    Staying at home on principle is not the best decision.

  15. Dogless says:

    The peanut farmer was a nice dog.
    That guy who pardoned Nixon was a nice dog.
    Lieberman is a nice dog.
    Kucinich is a nice dog, like to hump his leg.

    None of them bite like HRH Clinton do. And she got big history. Many paybacks comin’.

  16. Steve Newton says:

    “Staying at home on principle is not the best decision.”

    Imagine a presidential election (and concurrent Congressionals) that saw participation drop below 35% out of pure disgust with the whole process.

    Imagine that as a better vehicle for change than holding your nose to vote for the lesser of two evils.

  17. Von Cracker says:

    the point being that if those traits were applied to a white guy, he would be considered a serious politician and admired by many from the flock.

    On a side note: Why don’t we make it easier to vote, like mail-in ballots, instead?

  18. donviti says:

    steve with all due respect elected officials don’t care about the turnout numbers as long as they get elected.

    short of riots jack shit isn’t going to change

  19. nemski says:

    dv said: short of riots jack shit isn’t going to change

    reporting dv to Homeland security now

  20. Brian says:

    Steve,

    Better to vote 100% libertarian than stay home. That would shake things up.

  21. Dorian Gray says:

    Steve – I just imagine it and threw up. What kind of stupid idea is that. OK 10% turn-out as a protest, guess what, there’s still a winner who has all the totalitarian power BushChenRovRummy set up. Good plan!

  22. Steve Newton says:

    The knee jerk reaction is what I expected. I’ll get you a cloth to help wipe up the vomit.

    But I think there is a realistic number somewhere (I ‘d put it at about 1/3 turn-out) when the legitimacy of any government is cast into severe doubt.

    I agree with dv that the winners would still declare themselves the winner (with mandates, I’m sure), but the overall dynamic would change–especially if the effort were coupled with an intense effort to get both Republicans and Democrats to change their voter registration to Independent.

    You can worry all you want about “a winner who has all the totalitarian power BushChenRovRummy set up,” but the fact is: we’re going to get that anyway.

    And neither candidate–Democrat or Republican–is going to be too damn quick to dismantle that power, no matter what the rhetoric about change or the ideology of the winner.

  23. kavips says:

    I’m sorry, but I seem to be missing something in this argument.

    It seems rather Deja Vu, going back to 2000 when we discussed manhood, drinking beer with a president, and the number of sighs emitted in one rebuttal.

    Had we asked, we would have seen that we would invade an oil country to acquire oil denied to us, we would pay through the nose for insurance, pharmaceuticals, and energy, all who heavily funded their protagonists campaign. Had we looked at the tax cut package being offered to us, we would have seen our deficit balloon to record levels, to the point where we cannot even support our own government, but must beg foreign governments to do it for us…

    All that was plain. All of it was said then. And America chose to ignore it.

    So today I ask, what is either candidate’s plan to get us out of debt? How are we going to pay for Medicare? How are we going to solve Social Security? What happens when the loans come due? How much will my medical plan change if any of them become elected? How will we defend ourselves against the Chinese should the see opportunity in our moment of weakness?

    The qualified candidates are gone. We have been left with only our entertainers….

    I guess that is what America wants. We have only to blame ourselves, as this thread of commentary seems to support……..

    the enemy is us

  24. Dogless says:

    I ask, what is either candidate’s plan to get us out of debt? How are we going to pay for Medicare? How are we going to solve Social Security? What happens when the loans come due? How much will my medical plan change if any of them become elected? How will we defend ourselves against the Chinese should the see opportunity in our moment of weakness?

    Dogless has good ears and hears nothing

  25. Whoever YOU want it to be says:

    Why vote for the evil of two lessers??

    On February 5 get off your dead asses and vote for John Edwards.

  26. Dogless says:

    You might have a hard time getting John Edwards off your dead asses once he gets on.

  27. To those who don’t want to hold their nose, remember Nader.
    how’d that work out for the greens?