And the latino community which by and large feels inexplicably compelled to vote Republican.
Is this true though? Even in 2004, the majority of Latinos voted for Kerry and for the three decades prior, the Dems could largely count on the Latino vote in any presidential election. They've lost ground over the years but especially in California, with a large Mexican American population, the Latino vote still has historically gone - in the majority - to the Dems, not the Republicans.
And those who presume religion has anything to do with it have it partially wrong as well. The HIGHEST percentage of Latinos likely to vote Republican are NON-CATHOLICS, followed by the growing Latino Evangelical base (note, NPR's Day to Day discussed the Latino Evangelical vote today and it was said that their belief in social justice tends to make them distinctly different than the conventional Religious Right. They vote for the moderate candidate which means either McCain or Obama would have an edge with them. The anti-immigration (read: anti-Latino) hypery is not doing the Republicans any favors with these voters).
Catholic Latinos overwhelmingly voted for Kerry in 2004 and have done so for every Democratic candidate going back to when figures first began to be kept.
To add: "Following the [2004] elec- tion, some journalists suggested that Latinos???conservative religious values led them to the Republican???s ???moral values??? campaign. However, polls con- ducted on issue salience prior to the election do not bear this out. Among every slice of the Latino electorate??? educated and uneducated, poor and rich, young and old, foreign- and native-born, Catholic and Protestant???the number one election issue was the economy. The war on terrorism consistently rated second, followed by the situation in Iraq, education, health care, and immigration-related concerns. These findings are consistent with previous research that suggested economic/educa- tion/health issues are high priorities for Latinos and that socio-religious values are less critical on Election Day." (Source: http://faculty.washington.edu/mbarreto/papers/2004vote.pdf)
Two BS views that I have seen here are that Latinos vote Republican and that Latinos hate Blacks.
George Bush, in 2000 courted the Latino vote in a way that no Republican had ever done. Latinos were supposed to be a cornerstone in his permanent Republican majority. He spoke Spanish at campaign stops and supported a path to citizenship. In 2004 Anti-immigrant forces in the party made immigrants the new boogiemen and drove Latinos away from the party in droves.
An exception has been the Cuban community in Florida. They have traditionally voted Republican but the Republicans have managed to alienate that community also and young Cuban Americans are moving to the Democrats.
I'd like to see a breakdown of the Latino vote by tax bracket/income.
And the latino community which by and large feels inexplicably compelled to vote Republican.
Is this true though? Even in 2004, the majority of Latinos voted for Kerry and for the three decades prior, the Dems could largely count on the Latino vote in any presidential election. They've lost ground over the years but especially in California, with a large Mexican American population, the Latino vote still has historically gone - in the majority - to the Dems, not the Republicans.
And those who presume religion has anything to do with it have it partially wrong as well. The HIGHEST percentage of Latinos likely to vote Republican are NON-CATHOLICS, followed by the growing Latino Evangelical base (note, NPR's Day to Day discussed the Latino Evangelical vote today and it was said that their belief in social justice tends to make them distinctly different than the conventional Religious Right. They vote for the moderate candidate which means either McCain or Obama would have an edge with them. The anti-immigration (read: anti-Latino) hypery is not doing the Republicans any favors with these voters).
Catholic Latinos overwhelmingly voted for Kerry in 2004 and have done so for every Democratic candidate going back to when figures first began to be kept.
To add: "Following the [2004] elec- tion, some journalists suggested that Latinos???conservative religious values led them to the Republican???s ???moral values??? campaign. However, polls con- ducted on issue salience prior to the election do not bear this out. Among every slice of the Latino electorate??? educated and uneducated, poor and rich, young and old, foreign- and native-born, Catholic and Protestant???the number one election issue was the economy. The war on terrorism consistently rated second, followed by the situation in Iraq, education, health care, and immigration-related concerns. These findings are consistent with previous research that suggested economic/educa- tion/health issues are high priorities for Latinos and that socio-religious values are less critical on Election Day." (Source: http://faculty.washington.edu/mbarreto/papers/2004vote.pdf)
Two BS views that I have seen here are that Latinos vote Republican and that Latinos hate Blacks.
George Bush, in 2000 courted the Latino vote in a way that no Republican had ever done. Latinos were supposed to be a cornerstone in his permanent Republican majority. He spoke Spanish at campaign stops and supported a path to citizenship. In 2004 Anti-immigrant forces in the party made immigrants the new boogiemen and drove Latinos away from the party in droves.
An exception has been the Cuban community in Florida. They have traditionally voted Republican but the Republicans have managed to alienate that community also and young Cuban Americans are moving to the Democrats.
I'd like to see a breakdown of the Latino vote by tax bracket/income.
This is from that same Washington.edu study of the 2004 election
Income:
25K Kerry 59.5% Bush 29.6% 25-49K Kerry 63.5% Bush 28.3% 50K Kerry 62% Bush 33.7%
I'd like to see a breakdown of the Latino vote by tax bracket/income.
Well, read that shit, dude. It's all there!
There's very, very little difference between poor vs. middle class Latinos when it comes to Democratic support.
It varies between 66% to 67.4% Democratic partisanship.
In 2004, the class spread didn't change dramatically either. Latinos earning more than $50K were the most likely to vote for Bush but it was still 33.7% to Kerry's 63.5%. Compare that with Latinos earning less than $25K: Bush: 29.6% vs. Kerry: 59.5%
Reagan did well amongst Latinos - the best of any U.S. president since the 1970s - but even he couldn't command a majority. Carter still pulled an edge in 1980 with 56% Latino support.
LATINOS VOTE DEMOCRATIC. That's how it's been for a long ass time and it's why many Republicans are willing to adopt a harsh, anti-immigrant posture: they figure the Latino vote is already lost for why bother courting? Bush was one of the few GOP leaders to really try to reverse this and even he couldn't convince a majority of them IN ANY DEMOGRAPHIC (save for non-Catholics) to give him over 50% of the vote in 2004, a year he otherwise dominated.
The non-Catholic thing is intriguing to me - I'm assuming it's some Born Again Recognize Born Again thing with Bush.
I'd like to see a breakdown of the Latino vote by tax bracket/income.
Well, read that shit, dude. It's all there!
There's very, very little difference between poor vs. middle class Latinos when it comes to Democratic support.
hahaha maybe later dude. I want my info spoon-fed to me dammit!
really I was just looking for X factors. as you well know when you factor in age/income these whole "X community votes X" versus "Y community votes Y" comparisons often get complicated, e.g. maybe community X is by-and-large older or poorer than community Y.
i only made it through the first 3 chapters of "behold a pale horse"..
Aw, man, you bailed before it really got good and crazy. You didn't get to the part where E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind are revealed to be thinly fictionalized documentaries and where JFK's driver is the one who shot him. And then it gets even nuttier from there.
I first heard about this whole Obama/CFR thing over the weekend--and it came from a pretty left-wing dude, at that, who claimed Obama's CFR alliance made him the guy who would create the North American Union and install the Amero as our currency and complete the massive superhighway linking Mexico and Canada, therefore rendering him unworthy of being voted for (his candidate of choice is Ron Paul). Kinda weird.
Blacks make up 50% of the dem voters in georgia and obama is getting 90% of their votes.
Someone may have posted this before but I think its appropriate.
I just voted for Obama but dude, miss me with that bullshit. Seriously.
If you can't see the humor in that...
you need to stop WRITING son
Tell you the truth, I don't see the humor.
I think it's time to kill the 'ho thing. And Clinton ain't no 'ho.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Same dogfood, different bowl.
Now to clown but... you don't really have a place in a serious discussion about politics. Your mind occupies several alternative private fantasy gardens simultaneously. I mean... You're pulling shit from dudes like Jeff Rense, Alex Jones, David Icke and shit. When's Obama gonna transform into a lizard?
Keep the clowny shit to yourself.
Whatever dude...is Brzezinski his foreign policy advisor or not?
Simple answer, NO! And to make this assertion sound even more idiotic, since when does a senator have a dedicated foreign policy advisor? Step outside into the real world for a minute.
Also, find me ONE piece of documentation that isn't some wacko-nutjob website that states that Brzezinski has done nothing more than support/endorse Obama (which everyone in America has the right to do freely).
You don't have to gargle the Kool-Aid...chugging it from a fountain is good enough.
And yeah, presidential candidates do bring on foreign policy advisors...that typically become cabinet members when said candidate wins.
I found dozens of websites that treat the Brzezenski appointment as fact...some potentially nutjob, others seemingly on the level.
But whatever, I'm not here to do your homework for you, especially not on your how-can-I-be-down-with-the-big-dogs terms...time will tell whether dudes are in league with each other or not.
as vulgar as it is, it does reveal the possibility that sexism superscedes racial bias in a presidential candidate? dont know if i used the term supercede correctly but you know what i mean. anyhow i see a black/female/any other ethnicity as prime minister here in canada before america ever gets close to the same with their president, you guys(i mean your country as a whole) did kinda elect bush 2 terms in a row?!?!
I guess my attempts at Super Tuesday humor didnt go over so well. Lighten up dunnies! As my mea culpa, I offer a feminist critique of the bros before hos phenomena.
During my decades in civil-rights, anti-war, and contemporary women???s movements, I???ve avoided writing another specific ???Goodbye . . .??? But not since the suffrage struggle have two communities???joint conscience-keepers of this country???been so set in competition, as the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls. So.
Goodbye to the double standard . . .
???Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who???s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.
???She???s ???ambitious??? but he shows ???fire in the belly.??? (Ever had labor pains?)
???When a sexist idiot screamed ???Iron my shirt!??? at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted ???Shine my shoes!??? at BO, it would???ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.
???Young political Kennedys???Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.???all endorsed Hillary. Senator Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort ???See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.??? (Personally, I???m unimpressed with Caroline???s longing for the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe???s suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.)
Goodbye to the toxic viciousness . . .
Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary???s ???thick ankles.??? Nixon-trickster Roger Stone???s new Hillary-hating 527 group, ???Citizens United Not Timid??? (check the capital letters). John McCain answering ???How do we beat the bitch?" with ???Excellent question!??? Would he have dared reply similarly to ???How do we beat the black bastard???? For shame.
Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged???and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.
Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan ???If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!??? Shame.
Goodbye to Comedy Central???s ???Southpark??? featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC???s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.
Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not ???Clinton hating,??? not ???Hillary hating.??? This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage???as citizens, voters, Americans?
Goodbye to the news-coverage target-practice . . .
The women???s movement and Media Matters wrung an apology from MSNBC???s Chris Matthews for relentless misogynistic comments (www.womensmediacenter.com). But what about NBC???s Tim Russert???s continual sexist asides and his all-white-male panels pontificating on race and gender? Or CNN???s Tony Harris chuckling at ???the chromosome thing??? while interviewing a woman from The White House Project? And that???s not even mentioning Fox News.
Goodbye to pretending the black community is entirely male and all women are white . . .
Surprise! Women exist in all opinions, pigmentations, ethnicities, abilities, sexual preferences, and ages???not only African American and European American but Latina and Native American, Asian American and Pacific Islanders, Arab American and???hey, every group, because a group wouldn???t exist if we hadn???t given birth to it. A few non-racist countries may exist???but sexism is everywhere. No matter how many ways a woman breaks free from other discriminations, she remains a female human being in a world still so patriarchal that it???s the ???norm.???
So why should all women not be as justly proud of our womanhood and the centuries, even millennia, of struggle that got us this far, as black Americans, women and men, are justly proud of their struggles?
Goodbye to a campaign where he has to pass as white (which whites???especially wealthy ones???adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and women demanded of her, and then found unforgivable). If she were blackor he were female we wouldn???t be having such problems, and I for one would be in heaven. But at present such a candidate wouldn???t stand a chance???even if she shared Condi Rice???s Bush-defending politics.
I was celebrating the pivotal power at last focused on African American women deciding on which of two candidates to bestow their vote???until a number of Hillary-supporting black feminists told me they???re being called ???race traitors.???
So goodbye to conversations about this nation???s deepest scar???slavery???which fail to acknowledge that labor- and sexual-slavery exist today in the U.S. and elsewhere on this planet, and the majority of those enslaved are women.
Women have endured sex/race/ethnic/religious hatred, rape and battery, invasion of spirit and flesh, forced pregnancy; being the majority of the poor, the illiterate, the disabled, of refugees, caregivers, the HIV/AIDS afflicted, the powerless. We have survived invisibility, ridicule, religious fundamentalisms, polygamy, teargas, forced feedings, jails, asylums, sati, purdah, female genital mutilation, witch burnings, stonings, and attempted gynocides. We have tried reason, persuasion, reassurances, and being extra-qualified, only to learn it never was about qualifications after all. We know that at this historical moment women experience the world differently from men???though not all the same as one another???and can govern differently, from Elizabeth Tudor to Michele Bachelet and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.
We remember when Shirley Chisholm and Patricia Schroeder ran for this high office and barely got past the gate???they showed too much passion, raised too little cash, were joke fodder. Goodbye to all that. (And goodbye to some feminists so famished for a female president they were even willing to abandon women???s rights in backing Elizabeth Dole.)
Goodbye, goodbye to . . .
???blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys???though unlike them, he got reported on). Let???s get real. If he hadn???t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.
???an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so that it???s ???cooler??? to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.
???the notion that it???s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance.
Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts ???entitled??? when she???s worked intensely at everything she???s done???including being a nose-to-the-grindstone, first-rate senator from my state.
Goodbye to her b
eing exploited as a Rorschach test by women who reduce her to a blank screen on which they project their own fears, failures, fantasies.
Goodbye to the phrase ???polarizing figure??? to describe someone who embodies the transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to make in this one. It was the women???s movement that quipped, ???We are becoming the men we wanted to marry.??? She heard us, and she has.
Goodbye to some women letting history pass by while wringing their hands, because Hillary isn???t as ???likeable??? as they???ve been warned they must be, or because she didn???t leave him, couldn???t ???control??? him, kept her family together and raised a smart, sane daughter. (Think of the blame if Chelsea had ever acted in the alcoholic, neurotic manner of the Bush twins!) Goodbye to some women pouting because she didn???t bake cookies or she did, sniping because she learned the rules and then bent or broke them. Grow the hell up. She is not running for Ms.-perfect-pure-queen-icon of the feminist movement. She???s running to be president of the United States.
Goodbye to the shocking American ignorance of our own and other countries??? history. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir rose through party ranks and war, positioning themselves as proto-male leaders. Almost all other female heads of government so far have been related to men of power???granddaughters, daughters, sisters, wives, widows: Gandhi, Bandaranike, Bhutto, Aquino, Chamorro, Wazed, Macapagal-Arroyo, Johnson Sirleaf, Bachelet, Kirchner, and more. Even in our ???land of opportunity,??? it???s mostly the first pathway ???in??? permitted to women: Representatives Doris Matsui and Mary Bono and Sala Burton; Senator Jean Carnahan . . . far too many to list here.
And now the sexism vs. racism debate really kicks into gear. I can already see it - CNN is breaking down the ethnicity/gender demographics more than they ever have, talkin' bout "white woman votes" and stuff.
California is the looming question mark here.
I am still pissed at a few friends who did not get their acts together and register.
During my decades in civil-rights, anti-war, and contemporary women???s movements, I???ve avoided writing another specific ???Goodbye . . .??? But not since the suffrage struggle have two communities???joint conscience-keepers of this country???been so set in competition, as the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls. So.
Goodbye to the double standard . . .
???Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who???s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.
???She???s ???ambitious??? but he shows ???fire in the belly.??? (Ever had labor pains?)
???When a sexist idiot screamed ???Iron my shirt!??? at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted ???Shine my shoes!??? at BO, it would???ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.
???Young political Kennedys???Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.???all endorsed Hillary. Senator Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort ???See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.??? (Personally, I???m unimpressed with Caroline???s longing for the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe???s suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.)
Goodbye to the toxic viciousness . . .
Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary???s ???thick ankles.??? Nixon-trickster Roger Stone???s new Hillary-hating 527 group, ???Citizens United Not Timid??? (check the capital letters). John McCain answering ???How do we beat the bitch?" with ???Excellent question!??? Would he have dared reply similarly to ???How do we beat the black bastard???? For shame.
Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged???and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.
Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan ???If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!??? Shame.
Goodbye to Comedy Central???s ???Southpark??? featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC???s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.
Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not ???Clinton hating,??? not ???Hillary hating.??? This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage???as citizens, voters, Americans?
Goodbye to the news-coverage target-practice . . .
The women???s movement and Media Matters wrung an apology from MSNBC???s Chris Matthews for relentless misogynistic comments (www.womensmediacenter.com). But what about NBC???s Tim Russert???s continual sexist asides and his all-white-male panels pontificating on race and gender? Or CNN???s Tony Harris chuckling at ???the chromosome thing??? while interviewing a woman from The White House Project? And that???s not even mentioning Fox News.
Goodbye to pretending the black community is entirely male and all women are white . . .
Surprise! Women exist in all opinions, pigmentations, ethnicities, abilities, sexual preferences, and ages???not only African American and European American but Latina and Native American, Asian American and Pacific Islanders, Arab American and???hey, every group, because a group wouldn???t exist if we hadn???t given birth to it. A few non-racist countries may exist???but sexism is everywhere. No matter how many ways a woman breaks free from other discriminations, she remains a female human being in a world still so patriarchal that it???s the ???norm.???
So why should all women not be as justly proud of our womanhood and the centuries, even millennia, of struggle that got us this far, as black Americans, women and men, are justly proud of their struggles?
Goodbye to a campaign where he has to pass as white (which whites???especially wealthy ones???adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and women demanded of her, and then found unforgivable). If she were blackor he were female we wouldn???t be having such problems, and I for one would be in heaven. But at present such a candidate wouldn???t stand a chance???even if she shared Condi Rice???s Bush-defending politics.
I was celebrating the pivotal power at last focused on African American women deciding on which of two candidates to bestow their vote???until a number of Hillary-supporting black feminists told me they???re being called ???race traitors.???
So goodbye to conversations about this nation???s deepest scar???slavery???which fail to acknowledge that labor- and sexual-slavery exist today in the U.S. and elsewhere on this planet, and the majority of those enslaved are women.
Women have endured sex/race/ethnic/religious hatred, rape and battery, invasion of spirit and flesh, forced pregnancy; being the majority of the poor, the illiterate, the disabled, of refugees, caregivers, the HIV/AIDS afflicted, the powerless. We have survived invisibility, ridicule, religious fundamentalisms, polygamy, teargas, forced feedings, jails, asylums, sati, purdah, female genital mutilation, witch burnings, stonings, and attempted gynocides. We have tried reason, persuasion, reassurances, and being extra-qualified, only to learn it never was about qualifications after all. We know that at this historical moment women experience the world differently from men???though not all the same as one another???and can govern differently, from Elizabeth Tudor to Michele Bachelet and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.
We remember when Shirley Chisholm and Patricia Schroeder ran for this high office and barely got past the gate???they showed too much passion, raised too little cash, were joke fodder. Goodbye to all that. (And goodbye to some feminists so famished for a female president they were even willing to abandon women???s rights in backing Elizabeth Dole.)
Goodbye, goodbye to . . .
???blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys???though unlike them, he got reported on). Let???s get real. If he hadn???t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.
???an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so that it???s ???cooler??? to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.
???the notion that it???s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance.
Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts ???entitled??? when she???s worked intensely at everything she???s done???including being a nose-to-the-grindstone, first-rate senator from my state.
Goodbye to her being exploited as a Rorschach test by women who reduce her to a blank screen on which they project their own fears, failures, fantasies.
Goodbye to the phrase ???polarizing figure??? to describe someone who embodies the transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to make in this one. It was the women???s movement that quipped, ???We are becoming the men we wanted to marry.??? She heard us, and she has.
Goodbye to some women letting history pass by while wringing their hands, because Hillary isn???t as ???likeable??? as they???ve been warned they must be, or because she didn???t leave him, couldn???t ???control??? him, kept her family together and raised a smart, sane daughter. (Think of the blame if Chelsea had ever acted in the alcoholic, neurotic manner of the Bush twins!) Goodbye to some women pouting because she didn???t bake cookies or she did, sniping because she learned the rules and then bent or broke them. Grow the hell up. She is not running for Ms.-perfect-pure-queen-icon of the feminist movement. She???s running to be president of the United States.
Goodbye to the shocking American ignorance of our own and other countries??? history. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir rose through party ranks and war, positioning themselves as proto-male leaders. Almost all other female heads of government so far have been related to men of power???granddaughters, daughters, sisters, wives, widows: Gandhi, Bandaranike, Bhutto, Aquino, Chamorro, Wazed, Macapagal-Arroyo, Johnson Sirleaf, Bachelet, Kirchner, and more. Even in our ???land of opportunity,??? it???s mostly the first pathway ???in??? permitted to women: Representatives Doris Matsui and Mary Bono and Sala Burton; Senator Jean Carnahan . . . far too many to list here.
as vulgar as it is, it does reveal the possibility that sexism superscedes racial bias in a presidential candidate? dont know if i used the term supercede correctly but you know what i mean. anyhow i see a black/female/any other ethnicity as prime minister here in canada before america ever gets close to the same with their president, you guys(i mean your country as a whole) did kinda elect bush 2 terms in a row?!?!
Ah, we already had a female PM. Not that she lasted long. But still...
BILL KRISTOL: Look, the only people for Hillary Clinton are the Democratic establishment and white women. The Democratic establishment -- it would be crazy for the Democratic Party to follow an establishment that's led it to defeat year after year. White women are a problem, that's, you know -- we all live with that.
(laughter)
JUAN WILLIAMS (National Public Radio correspondent and Fox News contributor): Not me!
as vulgar as it is, it does reveal the possibility that sexism superscedes racial bias in a presidential candidate? dont know if i used the term supercede correctly but you know what i mean. anyhow i see a black/female/any other ethnicity as prime minister here in canada before america ever gets close to the same with their president, you guys(i mean your country as a whole) did kinda elect bush 2 terms in a row?!?!
Ah, we already had a female PM. Not that she lasted long. But still...
I totally forgot about that! but there's the proof. Canada for president!
Comments
I'd like to see a breakdown of the Latino vote by tax bracket/income.
This is from that same Washington.edu study of the 2004 election
Income:
25K Kerry 59.5% Bush 29.6%
25-49K Kerry 63.5% Bush 28.3%
50K Kerry 62% Bush 33.7%
Well, read that shit, dude. It's all there!
There's very, very little difference between poor vs. middle class Latinos when it comes to Democratic support.
It varies between 66% to 67.4% Democratic partisanship.
In 2004, the class spread didn't change dramatically either. Latinos earning more than $50K were the most likely to vote for Bush but it was still 33.7% to Kerry's 63.5%. Compare that with Latinos earning less than $25K: Bush: 29.6% vs. Kerry: 59.5%
Reagan did well amongst Latinos - the best of any U.S. president since the 1970s - but even he couldn't command a majority. Carter still pulled an edge in 1980 with 56% Latino support.
LATINOS VOTE DEMOCRATIC. That's how it's been for a long ass time and it's why many Republicans are willing to adopt a harsh, anti-immigrant posture: they figure the Latino vote is already lost for why bother courting? Bush was one of the few GOP leaders to really try to reverse this and even he couldn't convince a majority of them IN ANY DEMOGRAPHIC (save for non-Catholics) to give him over 50% of the vote in 2004, a year he otherwise dominated.
The non-Catholic thing is intriguing to me - I'm assuming it's some Born Again Recognize Born Again thing with Bush.
With 2% reporting GA Obama 53% Clinton 41%
schitt really? is this a nat'l phenomenon? 90% seems extremely high.
hahaha maybe later dude. I want my info spoon-fed to me dammit!
really I was just looking for X factors. as you well know when you factor in age/income these whole "X community votes X" versus "Y community votes Y" comparisons often get complicated, e.g. maybe community X is by-and-large older or poorer than community Y.
Someone may have posted this before but I think its appropriate.
Aw, man, you bailed before it really got good and crazy. You didn't get to the part where E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind are revealed to be thinly fictionalized documentaries and where JFK's driver is the one who shot him. And then it gets even nuttier from there.
I first heard about this whole Obama/CFR thing over the weekend--and it came from a pretty left-wing dude, at that, who claimed Obama's CFR alliance made him the guy who would create the North American Union and install the Amero as our currency and complete the massive superhighway linking Mexico and Canada, therefore rendering him unworthy of being voted for (his candidate of choice is Ron Paul). Kinda weird.
I just voted for Obama but dude, miss me with that bullshit. Seriously.
is this the sticker that was being distributed at your polling station?
I much prefer the communist one.
If you can't see the humor in that...
you need to stop WRITING son
Tell you the truth, I don't see the humor.
I think it's time to kill the 'ho thing. And Clinton ain't no 'ho.
You don't have to gargle the Kool-Aid...chugging it from a fountain is good enough.
And yeah, presidential candidates do bring on foreign policy advisors...that typically become cabinet members when said candidate wins.
I found dozens of websites that treat the Brzezenski appointment as fact...some potentially nutjob, others seemingly on the level.
But whatever, I'm not here to do your homework for you, especially not on your how-can-I-be-down-with-the-big-dogs terms...time will tell whether dudes are in league with each other or not.
McCain has the whole chipmunk thing going. Storing up nuts.
Of course Hillary Clinton isn't a ho.
Oh well, I tried.
Council On Foreign Relations does not exist
Skull & Bones is a nice Christian fraternity.
The American Union is a dream concocted by loonies with nothing better to worry about.
There is no microchip in your passports. The Real ID act did not pass.
The word of the day is change.
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html
Goodbye To All That (#2) by Robin Morgan
During my decades in civil-rights, anti-war, and contemporary women???s movements, I???ve avoided writing another specific ???Goodbye . . .??? But not since the suffrage struggle have two communities???joint conscience-keepers of this country???been so set in competition, as the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls. So.
Goodbye to the double standard . . .
???Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who???s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.
???She???s ???ambitious??? but he shows ???fire in the belly.??? (Ever had labor pains?)
???When a sexist idiot screamed ???Iron my shirt!??? at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted ???Shine my shoes!??? at BO, it would???ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.
???Young political Kennedys???Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.???all endorsed Hillary. Senator Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort ???See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.??? (Personally, I???m unimpressed with Caroline???s longing for the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe???s suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.)
Goodbye to the toxic viciousness . . .
Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary???s ???thick ankles.??? Nixon-trickster Roger Stone???s new Hillary-hating 527 group, ???Citizens United Not Timid??? (check the capital letters). John McCain answering ???How do we beat the bitch?" with ???Excellent question!??? Would he have dared reply similarly to ???How do we beat the black bastard???? For shame.
Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged???and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.
Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan ???If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!??? Shame.
Goodbye to Comedy Central???s ???Southpark??? featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC???s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.
Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not ???Clinton hating,??? not ???Hillary hating.??? This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage???as citizens, voters, Americans?
Goodbye to the news-coverage target-practice . . .
The women???s movement and Media Matters wrung an apology from MSNBC???s Chris Matthews for relentless misogynistic comments (www.womensmediacenter.com). But what about NBC???s Tim Russert???s continual sexist asides and his all-white-male panels pontificating on race and gender? Or CNN???s Tony Harris chuckling at ???the chromosome thing??? while interviewing a woman from The White House Project? And that???s not even mentioning Fox News.
Goodbye to pretending the black community is entirely male and all women are white . . .
Surprise! Women exist in all opinions, pigmentations, ethnicities, abilities, sexual preferences, and ages???not only African American and European American but Latina and Native American, Asian American and Pacific Islanders, Arab American and???hey, every group, because a group wouldn???t exist if we hadn???t given birth to it. A few non-racist countries may exist???but sexism is everywhere. No matter how many ways a woman breaks free from other discriminations, she remains a female human being in a world still so patriarchal that it???s the ???norm.???
So why should all women not be as justly proud of our womanhood and the centuries, even millennia, of struggle that got us this far, as black Americans, women and men, are justly proud of their struggles?
Goodbye to a campaign where he has to pass as white (which whites???especially wealthy ones???adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and women demanded of her, and then found unforgivable). If she were blackor he were female we wouldn???t be having such problems, and I for one would be in heaven. But at present such a candidate wouldn???t stand a chance???even if she shared Condi Rice???s Bush-defending politics.
I was celebrating the pivotal power at last focused on African American women deciding on which of two candidates to bestow their vote???until a number of Hillary-supporting black feminists told me they???re being called ???race traitors.???
So goodbye to conversations about this nation???s deepest scar???slavery???which fail to acknowledge that labor- and sexual-slavery exist today in the U.S. and elsewhere on this planet, and the majority of those enslaved are women.
Women have endured sex/race/ethnic/religious hatred, rape and battery, invasion of spirit and flesh, forced pregnancy; being the majority of the poor, the illiterate, the disabled, of refugees, caregivers, the HIV/AIDS afflicted, the powerless. We have survived invisibility, ridicule, religious fundamentalisms, polygamy, teargas, forced feedings, jails, asylums, sati, purdah, female genital mutilation, witch burnings, stonings, and attempted gynocides. We have tried reason, persuasion, reassurances, and being extra-qualified, only to learn it never was about qualifications after all. We know that at this historical moment women experience the world differently from men???though not all the same as one another???and can govern differently, from Elizabeth Tudor to Michele Bachelet and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.
We remember when Shirley Chisholm and Patricia Schroeder ran for this high office and barely got past the gate???they showed too much passion, raised too little cash, were joke fodder. Goodbye to all that. (And goodbye to some feminists so famished for a female president they were even willing to abandon women???s rights in backing Elizabeth Dole.)
Goodbye, goodbye to . . .
???blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys???though unlike them, he got reported on). Let???s get real. If he hadn???t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.
???an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so that it???s ???cooler??? to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.
???the notion that it???s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance.
Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts ???entitled??? when she???s worked intensely at everything she???s done???including being a nose-to-the-grindstone, first-rate senator from my state.
Goodbye to her b eing exploited as a Rorschach test by women who reduce her to a blank screen on which they project their own fears, failures, fantasies.
Goodbye to the phrase ???polarizing figure??? to describe someone who embodies the transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to make in this one. It was the women???s movement that quipped, ???We are becoming the men we wanted to marry.??? She heard us, and she has.
Goodbye to some women letting history pass by while wringing their hands, because Hillary isn???t as ???likeable??? as they???ve been warned they must be, or because she didn???t leave him, couldn???t ???control??? him, kept her family together and raised a smart, sane daughter. (Think of the blame if Chelsea had ever acted in the alcoholic, neurotic manner of the Bush twins!) Goodbye to some women pouting because she didn???t bake cookies or she did, sniping because she learned the rules and then bent or broke them. Grow the hell up. She is not running for Ms.-perfect-pure-queen-icon of the feminist movement. She???s running to be president of the United States.
Goodbye to the shocking American ignorance of our own and other countries??? history. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir rose through party ranks and war, positioning themselves as proto-male leaders. Almost all other female heads of government so far have been related to men of power???granddaughters, daughters, sisters, wives, widows: Gandhi, Bandaranike, Bhutto, Aquino, Chamorro, Wazed, Macapagal-Arroyo, Johnson Sirleaf, Bachelet, Kirchner, and more. Even in our ???land of opportunity,??? it???s mostly the first pathway ???in??? permitted to women: Representatives Doris Matsui and Mary Bono and Sala Burton; Senator Jean Carnahan . . . far too many to list here.
California is the looming question mark here.
I am still pissed at a few friends who did not get their acts together and register.
damn girl! you talk too much
I'm an old guy and I was never down with all "pimps", "hoes", "niggas" "ghay" and "gangstas" you young people celebrate.
But I'm not mad... at you.
I need that old guy greamlin from the other site.
Ah, we already had a female PM. Not that she lasted long. But still...
(laughter)
JUAN WILLIAMS (National Public Radio correspondent and Fox News contributor): Not me!
HUME: Bill, for the record, I like white women.
KRISTOL: I know, I shouldn't have said that.
I totally forgot about that! but there's the proof. Canada for president!