Here at DA we have seen Barack Obama supporters show hostility to Hillary Clinton supporters.

According to a recnt Newsweek article called The Deep Blue Divide,it isn't only DA where this is is happening


Here's the article http://www.newsweek.com/id/123582.

Maybe it's because Clinton has used smears we typically see from the right against him, giving more momentum to McCain who would be a Bush third term?

Maybe some of us see what's at stake here..

LOL. Because obviously one group has a monopoly on "showing hostility."

yeah because clinton and her supporters are once again as pure as the driven snow and obama and his supporter are little devils running around on the earth and only clinton and her righteousness can cleanse the country of this evil incarnate!

oh look who made the thread. that says it all.

lololololololol

someone might want to lock this preemptively before it turns ugly. i see why this was made and hopefully people will have the sense to see it as well and not fall for it.

Who is to blame for all the hostility? Hillary Clinton herself.

Here at DA we have seen Barack Obama supporters show hostility to Hillary Clinton supporters.

According to a recnt Newsweek article called The Deep Blue Divide,it isn't only DA where this is is happening


Here's the article http://www.newsweek.com/id/123582.


...the battle between Clinton and Obama supporters is clearly the fiercest in a generation. Brazile says the problem is not the vitriol, but the fact that old demons—of "misogyny and slavery"—are being revived. "These are the wounds that don't heal so easily." And this, history tells us, will take more than three minutes on the Senate floor

All this, and the inescapable fact that racism is still alive and insidiously well, lurking in the safe, closeted, white, working-class neighborhoods of Middle America.

Hostility in these types of debates has flared high for as long as I can remember - why should this election be any different?

It is however sad that you should take the roll of the victim TT, by the time I reached the board you were dishing it out as much as you were taking it, and you started dishing it out at me as soon as I innocently expressed surprise you were supporting Hillary Clinton, calling me a liar and naive... and suggesting I didn't understand politics is a 'contact sport'. :) Yes, all this in your very first post to me on this subject :)

M.

That's because TT is the most condescending little bitch in the world.

:shrug:

TT, have you noticed that you always find a way to show that you're persecuted? I'm not hostile to Clinton supporters, but I'm often hostile to hypocrites and whiners.

All this, and the inescapable fact that racism is still alive and insidiously well, lurking in the safe, closeted, white, working-class neighborhoods of Middle America.
That is the biggest problem the Dems face when picking their candidate.

No matter who they pick, they'll alienate some Dems. The goal is to not alienate voters nationally and give the election to McCain.

I didn't say anything about myself [and I have never once used the word "presecuted",people in the Sudan are presecuted,I'm not].

Besides , it's not only me that gets hostility from Obama supporters.

Maybe it's because Clinton has used smears we typically see from the right against him,


How has she "smeared" him?

If he can't take this,then he won't stand a chance agaisnt the Republicans [who hit way below the belt].


Maybe some of us see what's at stake here..

Let's see,Obama supported Lieberman over an anti-war canidate and you ignore that.

Obama's war policy is no diffrent than Clinton's and you ignore that.

How is that seeing what is at stake here ?

LOL. Because obviously one group has a monopoly on "showing hostility."

Is that the most substantive argument you have?:shrug:


yeah because clinton and her supporters are once again as pure as the driven snow and obama and his supporter are little devils running around on the earth and only clinton and her righteousness can cleanse the country of this evil incarnate!

oh look who made the thread. that says it all.

lololololololol

someone might want to lock this preemptively before it turns ugly. i see why this was made and hopefully people will have the sense to see it as well and not fall for it.

I didn't write the article,this is part of the '08 election ,to ignore it would be like puting your head in the sand.


Who is to blame for all the hostility? Hillary Clinton herself.

It's all her fault and no one else's?:rolleyes:

All this, and the inescapable fact that racism is still alive and insidiously well, lurking in the safe, closeted, white, working-class neighborhoods of Middle America.

So,it's only racism that has caused this divide.

Sexism or generational differences have nothing at all to do with it?


Hostility in these types of debates has flared high for as long as I can remember - why should this election be any different?
[QUOTE]

I haven't seen this kind of hostility since 1968.

[QUOTE]
It is however sad that you should take the roll of the victim TT,


I never said anything about myself,that is you transfering that onto me.






That's because TT is the most condescending little bitch in the world.

:shrug:


Wow,that's real intellegent political debate there.:rolleyes:

TT, have you noticed that you always find a way to show that you're persecuted?


I don't feel that way,so how I can I "show" it?


I'm not hostile to Clinton supporters, but I'm often hostile to hypocrites and whiners.

You seem to be avoiding the bigger issue posed by the article by going into the psychological condition known as "transference" with me as the object.

I think you have your [mis]interpertation of what I say,as opposed to what I actually said.



That is the biggest problem the Dems face when picking their candidate.

No matter who they pick, they'll alienate some Dems. The goal is to not alienate voters nationally and give the election to McCain.


I don't think we have to like each other.

But ,if we are going to keep Mc Cain out of the White House we do have to work together after the nominee is decided [and both Clinton and Obama may wind up on the same ticket]and I don't see how we can work together if we don't respect each other.

I think both sides [I'm talking about the supporters of both canidates]should declare a truce and tone it down.

TT, have you noticed that you always find a way to show that you're persecuted? I'm not hostile to Clinton supporters, but I'm often hostile to hypocrites and whiners.

Well said.
I don't think there is anything I could add.

M.

Originally Posted by Que sera, sera
All this, and the inescapable fact that racism is still alive and insidiously well, lurking in the safe, closeted, white, working-class neighborhoods of Middle America.

So,it's only racism that has caused this divide.

Sexism or generational differences have nothing at all to do with it?

Yes, I believe closeted racism is the main roadblock, because the largely white media won't allow it to be ignored. The issue of Hillary being a woman is barely a blip on their radar screen, while the Reverend Wright issue is dragged out time and time again by pundits and political "strategists". It should be just as much of a non-issue as Hillary's gender presently appears to be, but it's not. The "angry black man syndrome" still strikes defensive fear in a large segment of today's white American culture.
And the generational divide also seems to fall between those younger, who wish to move forward and support a candidate who has the broadest popular base than any candidate in recent political history, while the older generation oh so sagely whispers that he's "not electable". And why is that, do you suppose? In large part because the Archie Bunker "old school" white segment of the population simply won't vote for a black man. Period. That's why they call him "unelectable", because they appear very motivated in defensively making sure it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yet they couch the reason for their sentiment instead in the more PC assertion of his "lack of experience". Pure BS!

That's because TT is the most condescending little bitch in the world.

TT, have you noticed that you always find a way to show that you're persecuted? I'm not hostile to Clinton supporters, but I'm often hostile to hypocrites and whiners.

Well said.
I don't think there is anything I could add.

Agreed. :nice:

What kind of mentally ill retard would support $100,000,000 Hillary who has been in Washing for decades and has nothing to show except $100,000,000?

Yes, I believe closeted racism is the main roadblock, because the largely white media won't allow it to be ignored. The issue of Hillary being a woman is barely a blip on their radar screen, while the Reverend Wright issue is dragged out time and time again by pundits and political "strategists". It should be just as much of a non-issue as Hillary's gender presently appears to be, but it's not. The "angry black man syndrome" still strikes defensive fear in a large segment of today's white American culture.
And the generational divide also seems to fall between those younger, who wish to move forward and support a candidate who has the broadest popular base than any candidate in recent political history, while the older generation oh so sagely whispers that he's "not electable". And why is that, do you suppose? In large part because the Archie Bunker "old school" white segment of the population simply won't vote for a black man. Period. That's why they call him "unelectable", because they appear very motivated in defensively making sure it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yet they couch the reason for their sentiment instead in the more PC assertion of his "lack of experience". Pure BS!

I won't vote for him because he's even more liberal than Hillary, plain and simple. Give me a conservative black woman and I'll vote for her. Condi Rice would get my vote long before Al Gore would.

I won't vote for him because he's even more liberal than Hillary, plain and simple. Give me a conservative black woman and I'll vote for her. Condi Rice would get my vote long before Al Gore would.

Rice?!?! The head of the NSA before and during the 9/11 attacks?! If she couldnt do that job without it ending in colossal disaster, then the last thing we need to do is give her more power. This is why she's in the symbolic position (in the BA) of secretary of state.

She would get creamed an a national election.

Condi Rice would get my vote



Condi is not going to run.

She's damned if she comes out of the closet about Randy Bean and damned if she doesn't.

http://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2007/09/15/is-condi-rice-a-lesbian/

Rice?!?! The head of the NSA before and during the 9/11 attacks?! If she couldnt do that job without it ending in colossal disaster, then the last thing we need to do is give her more power.

You're talking to a person who thinks Ted Kennedy is more dangerous than Dick Cheney.

You're talking to a person who thinks Ted Kennedy is more dangerous than Dick Cheney.

True, Rice is one of the biggest morons to ever hold her position, she's as big a failure as Bush.