Yet more reason why anti-Hillary crowd talks race

No one is denying That there is plenty of racism, expecially among democrats. The contention is that she is encouraging it. She is benefitting, but I dont think encouraging it.

I can agree with you on this part. 

Whatevs!  You think the Dems are more racists than Republicans?!?  Puhh-leaze! 

Dr Guy said:

I wouldn't say she's encouraging it, but then again, she has talked about the fact that the party needs the voters she is attracting, you know, the white voters   She may not be openly encouraging it, but she can't help but hope that someone encourages the racists to get their butts out and vote for her, even if that someone is her husband or herself via code word style statements.

Loca said:

Nah, they are just in more denial than the GOP may be.

Both parties have their share of racists, but Democrats have a nice long history of ignoring racism until they realized they could get themselves a nice block of voters if they pander a bit.  Unfortunately for the Democratic party that voting block seems to have woken up and figured out that this might be their time and their turn and if they don't take it they might have to go back to waiting their turn for another long period of time.  Even now they aren't being given anything they are having to take it.

Remind us all who freed the slaves Loca?  Remind us which party helped LBJ pass civil rights laws?  Then remind us again which party is more racist...

Yes I do. Democrats feed on it. Now that is not to say that all democrats are racists, or that even a majority are. But the Klan, and racism was born in the democrat party, and has never left. They use race in a pretend benign way, when in fact they are just slyly admitting that they believe non-whites are inferior and cannot compete with whites. Affirmative action is a racist program. They could have made a real statement about racism, and created an Affirmative Qualification program, but they chose the racist route because it was easier and fit into their mindset.

I listed the racist statements and actions of the past (as they are easily googled). It is not hard to find, and unlike opinion, are facts. That you are not a racist, does not preclude the fact that many of them are. For the simple reason that it works, and keeps them in power.

I'm not talking about 150 years ago or 50 years ago, I'm talking about today. 

Ok, let's talk about today.

What particular actions of the two parties TODAY make you think that the Democrats are not more racist than the Republicans?

And I'm not even talking objective standards like "number of KKK members or alumni in congress".

Looking at the policies of the two parties, I can see that most Republican policies benefit the rich over the poor, with no specific regard to someone's background or skin colour.

But I can also see that many Democrat policies care a lot about race.

Do you think that Republicans generally support special programmess to help minorities? They don't. But Democrats do. But guess what, programs to help people are good. But programmess to help people ACCORDING TO THEIR RACE are _racist_. That's what racism is: treating people differently according to their race.

You might argue that such programmes are necessary to make up for earlier racism directed AGAINST minorities. That may well be true and that would win the Democrats the "most perceptive and good-doing party" award for sure.

And remember. If you support minorities too much and are too successful, the US will end up with an orthodox Jewish man at the helm one day. (He would be a gender, religious, and ethnic minority. If you are lucky, he might even be black too.)

Loca, I know you are not of that branch of the Democratic supporters, as you (obviously) don't think that having a _black_ president is a good thing by itself (in reality, the skin colour of the president doesn't matter, a black man is not more likely to make the right or wrong decisions because of his skin colour). But you have to admit that the number of Democrats who do see value in Obama's skin colour is surprisingly high. And that is racist and, I believe, ultimately a very bad thing.

 

Let me just add that I, personally, have never seen Bill or Hillary Clinton as representative of either of the two racist wings of the Democratic party.

Anybody who calls Hillary Clinton a racist is either ignorant or a liar.

Everybody has always known what she (and her husband) stand for and I don't understand why so many Democrats suddenly abandon her as if something had changed. Nothing has changed. She still stands for the same things, and if they are good, the Democrats should support her. Instead they throw her away for an inexperienced politician with no actual ideas and accuse her supporters (and ultimately her as well) of racism.

The _only_ thing that has changed is that a black man is running for Democratic candidate. His skin colour should be immaterial, but for so many it has become a "good" reason to cast Hillary aside. And that's sad.

 

I think you are really vastly over generalizing and reaching on the reasons why Obama appeals to many voters when compared to Hillary Clinton and in reality his skin color or the fact that he is a he really doesn't have that much to do with his appeal at all.

You talk above about him being inexperienced, and that could be true, but she really doesn't have that much more experience than he does.  Your comment about '... with no actual ideas' is far from the truth.  He has plenty of ideas and has staked plenty of positions out, many of which he would agree with HRC on, or go even further in supporting (further as in further to the left...)  Part of his appeal is his position in areas that get broad support from the Democratic faithful, which explains why he has won so many of the caucuses that have been held.  The party faithful like what they've heard from him, like his positions and feel he is a strong enough leader, good enough debater, and is charismatic enough and good enough at communicating and persuading others that he can get stuff done for the country.

Assuming that his support is because of his gender or his race also ignores the fact that there are a broad range of people that won't vote for HRC because of her own background, her own history, and how she has performed and behaved in the past.  Yes there are some that hold her gender against her, just as there are some that hold Obama's race against him.  I would guess that there are fewer that are concerned about her gender than are concerned about his race, but I don't pretend that neither is a factor in the primary race.  I would however remind that HRC is a polarizing figure and many are complete fed up with the idea that we could be in store for more fun on the Bush then Clinton then Bush seesaw ride that the country has been on for the past 2 decades.  They want new blood and something different and Obama represents and personifies that while HRC does not.  (And btw, come general election season we'll be hearing how much John McCain doesn't represent a new approach either, but you probably already expect that...)

Really?

So what is it? What does he have that ALL those other Democrats, including Hillary, do not have?

She was not the only other Democratic candidate. To win the nominations, he has to beat all of them, not just Hillary. And it seems that he has done so. So what are his great qualities that set him apart from all the other Democratic candidates?

I don't doubt that voters, especially Democrats, want new blood. In fact I think him being black is a big part of this want. Many Democrats want something new and different.

But it is hard for me to believe that the same crowd who argue for affirmative action and justice for the underprivileged etc. don't think that a black president would be an excellent symbol for a new America.

And once they think THAT, his skin colour becomes part of the equation; because of those who think it is important.

No history.

Oh, come on. There must be lots of Democrats who have never done anything.

 

We can only wish.

Actually most of them BECAME REPUBLICANS AND ARE NOW REPUBLICAN SENATORS.

Liar. Byrd is not a republican and never has been. You are just a sheet wearing racist. Why do you hate people that just dont look like you?

Ok, this should be interesting.

Please give three examples of Republican senators who used to be in the KKK.

 

Strom Thurmond, admitted racist became a Republican.

Phil Gramm, RACIST Became a republican.

Jessie Helms, RACIST Became a Republican.

Lauch Faircloth, RACIST is a Republican

How many do you need?

Except to many its not. Look at some of the interviews coming out of West Virginia.

In Indiana Hillary won nearly 2/3 of the votes of those who said Race was a "big factor" in their vote.

Gee, yet again you prove yourself incapable of anything other than libel. I realize its your low intelligence but someday you may better yourself to be worthy of my pity.

Liar - None of them were ever klan, and only your warped racist mind thinks they were anything else. Plus you lied. You said "Are now". YOu just are too stupid for words. Just what the world needs, another lying racist bigotted hateful slime ball called politico.