Graphs please!

Huckabee-Goodling 2012!

I cannot in good conscience vote for anyone but the Messiah (Obama)!!!

Of course Obama would get the most votes here. We're one of his core demographics: educated people (except for all of the ignorant "every black person must be here on affirmative action" posters)

Yes, I am asking for higher taxes on my salary because it is the right thing to do for the country.

Why not just vote Republican and donate your money to the causes with which you agree?

I wish I could pay all my money in taxes -- I am horrendously overpaid!

If you want to pay higher taxes, the Internal Revenue Code allows you to voluntarily pay more than the law says you owe. That is why Warren Buffet is a two-faced liar.

12:36 - OK, let's say I did that, and my taxes even went down a little, would the majority of those tax dollars I paid still go towards a worthless trillion dollar war???

Oh, they would? Oh, OK, thanks!

Hey 12:47 (1), does the Iraq war ($500 billion) count as the Republican way of "scaling" back?

12:53 - Get out of my country now. People like you will be burned at the stake when our people are in power.

Really.

12:53 - you are right - medicare is an "ineffective social program"

12:53 - Can you please give me your exact location? I would like to come beat you senseless.

Hey, maybe then you will qualify for medicaid!

12:53 - TANF - temporary assistance for needy families - is a Clinton program, it replace what was known as simply "welfare"

Even idiots are entitled to their own opinion, they're just not entitled to their own facts.

i cant understand why the "educated" people like lawyers can support obama. sure he can give a good speech and rally the young voters who dont even know what he stands for, but his polices are so flawed and idealistic that i cant understand how educated people can support him. Do you really think that inviting iran to the wto will stop them from building bombs? Does it make any sense at all to give an ILLEGAL immigrant a driver’s license? Give me break.

yeah, 1:02, you see, that's just retarded.

i cant understand why the "educated" people like lawyers can support obama. sure he can give a good speech and rally the young voters who dont even know what he stands for, but his polices are so flawed and idealistic that i cant understand how educated people can support him. Do you really think that inviting iran to the wto will stop them from building bombs? Does it make any sense at all to give an ILLEGAL immigrant a driver’s license? Give me break.

and this is coming from a moderate democrat

I don't think it is, sorry dude.

And, don't try to patronize me, I'm coming for you next...

1:05/1:06 - Yes, and G.W. Bush was elected twice. what's your point?

add this to 1:06's comments -

obama’s health care plan is too idealistic - even if health care is "affordable" everyone will not get it. there will always be those that would rather show up to the emergency room and free ride.

we cannot afford to have an idealist that is out of touch with reality in the white house

1:12 -

the point is that we shouldnt make the same mistake twice...i dont think thats so hard to comprehend

Bama 3L,

What you can't seem to understand is that some people are not wrapped up in their own self-interest. Sometimes what's best for society may not be best for you. Since many lawyers have a need for justice, they can look beyond themselves and do the right thing.

I am voting for McCain.

i cant understand why the "educated" people like lawyers can support obama. sure he can give a good speech and rally the young voters who dont even know what he stands for, but his polices are so flawed and idealistic that i cant understand how educated people can support him. Do you really think that inviting iran to the wto will stop them from building bombs? Does it make any sense at all to give an ILLEGAL immigrant a driver’s license? Give me break.

and this is coming from a moderate democrat

Ummmm you want to explain to us how Hillary's universal healthcare plan is NOT idealistic? Or should we reference her last attempt in 1993 as a prime example of how idealistic it really was?

With respect to drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, I though Obama's justification was quite realistic. He does not want illegal immigrants getting into hit and run accidents. How much more realistic and practical can he get?

i cant understand why the "educated" people like lawyers can support obama. sure he can give a good speech and rally the young voters who dont even know what he stands for, but his polices are so flawed and idealistic that i cant understand how educated people can support him. Do you really think that inviting iran to the wto will stop them from building bombs? Does it make any sense at all to give an ILLEGAL immigrant a driver’s license? Give me break.

and this is coming from a moderate democrat

Ummmm you want to explain to us how Hillary's universal healthcare plan is NOT idealistic? Or should we reference her last attempt in 1993 as a prime example of how idealistic it really was?

With respect to drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, I though Obama's justification was quite realistic. He does not want illegal immigrants getting into hit and run accidents. How much more realistic and practical can he get?

Anyone who supports Obama -- an illustrious group, that includes the likes of Oprah Winfrey -- is a complete f***ing idiot. His only position is that he's for some amorphous concept of "change" and that he's a "uniter." Newsflash idiots: "change" isn't an actual policy and he's not uniting anybody. Republicans in Congress will never work with a Democratic president and vice versa. Washington has never "changed" and never will. And for those of you who are buying into Obama's BS and also happen to be Bush haters, answer this: Who's the last president who came to Washington promising to "change the culture" and claiming to be "a uniter, not a divider"? That's right D-bags, GEORGE W. BUSH. At least now you have the truth.

1:21...didn't they teach you how to be two-faced yet... saying the right thing and then doing what is best for you is the hallmark of a good lawyer. obviously one should work in public interest in law school and profess a desire to help the indigent so that they may collect a $160k salary and then cry that it is not liveable.

2:16,

If you would bother to look at his website, Obama lays out all of his policies in detail. Just because he doesn't spend hours boring audiences with his policies, that doesn't mean he doesn't have any. What he does have is an intangible asset of being able to inspire people to come together to potentially solve problems, unlike the junior senator from NY who's all about the fight. For all of those Clinton supporters who bash Obama's policies, I don't get it. Clinton and Obama agree on about 95% of the issues, so if his position is suspect, then so is hers.

2:27,

He doesn't "spend hours boring audiences with his policies" because he's not conversant with the details of his own positions, having only been elected to the senate in 2004 and having spent the majority of the time since then running for President. You are, however, correct in saying that his audiences would be quickly "bored" since the latte sippers and U. of Vermont students that support him don't really care about policy -- they all already have health insurance and drivers licenses. They just want "change."

2:08/2:11

Do you really think an illegal immigrant will stop if they get in an accident just because they have a license? They will still be ILLEGAL and will flee - licenses wont solve anything. Its just a band-aid for something that needs stitches. We need to fix illegal immigration, not make it worse.

and dont assume people who bash obama agree entirely with Clinton - maybe the dems need to go with a pragmatist like macain?

and in response to others - while Hillary's universal healthcare is idealistic - it is more realistic to force everyone to be insured (like auto) than to think that everyone will willingly buy insurance. You think everyone would have auto if it wasn’t mandated? Yeah, universal healthcare is a nice thing for the dems to latch onto and say they care about people, but it will also help everyone else who is supporting those without healthcare right now

I am so sick of the liberal weenies blaming the US for terrorist acts against us - and I am willing to bet that the majority of you Obamaites think that our policies/attitude/success WHATEVER earned us the wrath of the insane radical muslims (didn't say ALL muslims, just the insane readical ones, so CHILLAX) who want us dead -
Say what you will, but G W Bush kept our asses safe over here since 9/11. Like Lincolin, who was vilified in his time,
history will validate G W as well.

2:16/2:27

How many "latte sippers" and U of Vermont students are there in Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Utah? Also, Obama has more time as an elected official and has passed more legislation than Clinton.

02:36 PM, HE IS CONVERSANT ON HIS OWN POLICIES; JUST TAKE A LOOK AT HIS TWO MOST RECENT DEBATES WHERE HE LAID OUT IN PAINSTAKING DETAIL HIS POSITION ON IMPORTANT ISSUES LIKE HEALTHCARE, THE WAR IN IRAQ, THE ECONOMY, ETC.

AND TO THE POINT THAT 1:06 ET AL MAKES, I.E., TALKING TO OUR ENEMIES IS A WASTE OF TIME, WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE US DO -- PURSUE THE ALTERNATIVE SHOOT-FIRST-ASK-QUESTIONS-LATER-WEAPONS-OF-MASS-DISTORTION-BUSH-POLICY?

JUST BECAUSE YOU SPEAK TO YOUR SO-CALLED ENEMIES DOESN'T MAKE YOU WEAK. AND DIPLOMACY DOESN'T REMOVE THE MILITARY OPTION TO PROTECT OURSELVES AND ALLIES. BUT THIS COWBOY DIPLOMACY THAT WE'VE SEEN OVER THE LAST 8 YEARS HAS DONE NOTHING BUT MADE US LESS SAFE; ALL THE WHILE THE ARCHITECTS OF 9/11 LAUGH AT US FROM HILLSIDES IN PAKISTAN.

3:31,

Sounds like you're one of them.

why is it that when mccain wins blue/purple states, conservatives say that he is not winning in gop country (as if him winning georgia in the general election would be in doubt), but when obama wins utah, alabama, and louisiana, it shows that he can appeal to white folks?...as if he'd ever have a chance to win those states in the general election. the media never questions that most of obama's wins are in states where democrats cannot win.

as for romney and so-called conseravtives...last time i checked, mccain beat romney in most, if not, all of the southern states (even though he came in 2nd to huckabee at times).

You knew about the taxes when you started to work. If you don't like the taxes, go somewhere else. Take a little personal responsibility, people.

"CAPS MAN", you aren't smart enough or entertaining enough to be a recurring ATL character. Sorry.

CAPS MAN -- people are laughing at you, not with you. (That should be a familiar feeling for a supporter of Barack HUSSEIN Obama).

I love the Dem line that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have somehow made us "less safe." How, exactly, do you figure? GWB has managed to keep this country attack-less since 9/11, a feat that nobody, and I mean NOBODY, would have predicted in the immediate aftermath of that day. This notion that we are somehow "more vulnerable" now than before we started finding, killing, and aggressively interrogating terrorists is pure Clinton/Obama nonsense.

I'm voting for neither of them. John McCain -- you've become my man.

4:36,

I believe you are mistaken. The Dems argue that Iraq made us less safe, not Afghanistan. The reason they are correct is the fact that by going into Iraq, we've neglected Afghanistan and the real terrorist threat. Even the Bush administration doesn't claim that there were terrorists in Iraq before we got there. Moreover, we have helped fuel resentment against America by invading a soverign nation that didn't attack us. This had led to a significant increase in the recruitment of anti-American terrorist forces. More enemies = less safe.

"For all of those Clinton supporters who bash Obama's policies, I don't get it. Clinton and Obama agree on about 95% of the issues, so if his position is suspect, then so is hers."

The same could be said, double, for Obama supporters. Half of you spend at least as much time hating Clinton as you do supporting Obama. Totally irrational lot.

I wish I could vote for McCain, because both of the Dem candidates will only add to my already-infuriatingly-high tax burden (and no, it's not because I have a problem with legitimate social programs, it's because I have a problem with bureaucratic waste, illegal warfare, and corporate welfare, which is where at least half of my money is currently going) -- especially Obama, who, although I agree he is incredibly smart, charismatic, and likeable -- is a borderline socialist. Nothing wrong with socialists as people, I just don't particularly want them running my country.

So that leaves Clinton. She'll tax and spend, but not as much as Obama, and she'll take a moderated approach to the war and won't stomp all over my civil liberties. Sounds about as close to "halfway decent" as I'm likely to get this cycle.

4:56: And she won't win. And that's why Obama supporters don't want her to be the nominee. Welcome to yesterday.

4:48

my only problem with your sentiment is that it seems America is damned if we do, damned if we don't with respect to intervention in world affairs. i have come to the conclusion that intervention must occur only when we have vital interests at stake (to include WMD, oil, etc). we should no longer act to "bring democracy" to people who'd rather blow themselves up and kills cartoonists. it's obvious they don't want democracy (which is more than voting) and that while i believe all people deserve freedom and democracy, some are just not ready to handle it.

Bravo. 4:56, BRAVO. The real problem with Obama supporters is that they're weird freaks, disturbingly reminiscent of Deaniacs. These social outcasts suddenly feel validated because numb-skull Hollywood types are supporting their candidate. Really quite pathetic.

4:56,

The issue that many Obama supporters have with Clinton is not her policies but her persona. First, she and her husband are completely lacking in integrity and sincerity. She lies so effortlessly that I can't trust a word she says. Second, she's too combative. If you go into every situation looking for a fight, you'll find one. Obama can fight if need be, but he'd rather find an amicable solution. I was so sick of the partisanship during President Clinton's term that I left the democratic party and became a liberal independent. If Clinton is this year's democratic nominee, I'm voting for McCain. While I disagree with him on a lot of his policies, I do respect him and believe that he will at least listen to the other side.

I'm voting for Obama, because the Clintons' left a bad taste in my mouth . . .

5:01

I don't think it's a case of damned if we don't, damned if we do. What we have to do is position ourselves to lead other nations in policing the world against terrorists. Part of being a good leader is getting others to follow. Under Bush, we unilaterally decided worldly matters and villified those who didn't fall in line. After 9-11, we had so much support around the world but Bush squandered it by trying to ram Iraq down everybody's throat. What I like about Sen Obama is that he appears to get it. Sen Clinton's refusal to meet with our adversaries it too Bush for me.

Bama 3L, "ever increasing"? You have no idea what you are talking about.

5:19, you're a complete moron. Everything Obama does is a lie. First of all, every single career choice he's made has been designed to further his political ambitions. He didn't work as a community organizer because he cares about poor people. He did it so he could say he did it when he ran for office. Same goes for his record of voting "present" on controversial issues in the state senate -- he did that so he wouldn't have to explain himself when he ran for U.S. Senate. He's just another politician you dumb ass. But of couse, since you're so naive, you've fallen for his "change" message, hook, line and sinker. BTW, if Obama get's the dem nod, I'll be voting for McCain. At least he's honest, and has some relevant experience. (Sorry Obamaniacs -- living abroad and being half-black doesn't count).

5:19, you're a complete moron. Everything Obama does is a lie. First of all, every single career choice he's made has been designed to further his political ambitions. He didn't work as a community organizer because he cares about poor people. He did it so he could say he did it when he ran for office. Same goes for his record of voting "present" on controversial issues in the state senate -- he did that so he wouldn't have to explain himself when he ran for U.S. Senate. He's just another politician you dumb ass. But of course, since you're so naive, you've fallen for his "change" message, hook, line and sinker. BTW, if Obama get's the dem nod, I'll be voting for McCain. At least he's honest, and has some relevant experience. (Sorry Obamaniacs -- living abroad and being half-black doesn't count).

5:31: You missed a lot in the last 8 years. The "honest" McCain you're talking about is gone.

5:31

It is you who are the moron. If you do your research, you'll find that the reason Obama ran for office in Chicago was that he couldn't get enough done as a mere community organizer. As for his "present" votes, many of them were due to technicalities in the legislation that made it unconstitutional. As a constitutional scholar, he couldn't vote for something that was unconstitutional, even if he agreed with the spirit of the law. Obviously, you've been drinking the Clinton kool aid. I don't mind you voting for McCain. He's a standup guy when he not pandering to the religious right.

And you have the nerve to talk about Obama's politican aspirations. Hillary Clinton started running for president as soon as Bill got elected. In fact, the only reason she's still married to his lying, cheating ass is because she knows she needs him to get elected.

Bama 3L: http://tpcprod.urban.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

Quite the hardship we're enduring these days.

5:41 -- None of the legislation that Obama voted "present" on because it was "unconstitutional" and which was subsequently passed, was ever struck down. What do you think about that? D-BAG.

5:19, you're not voting for Clinton because you don't like her personality? Gee, my bad, I thought this was an election for the President of the United States of America, not a high school prom.

She's "combative"? She "lack[s] [] integrity and sincerity"? Um. Unlike McCain? Unlike EVERY FUCKING POLITICIAN??

News flash, genius: Obama doesn't appear to fight as much because NO ONE IS ATTACKING HIM. But I guess Clinton should just sit there and take it when people attack her, huh? That's what "nice girls" do.

And what the fuck is up with attributing anything her husband did to her? Last I checked, spouses are two whole separate and different persons, ever since they gave women the right to own property, anyway.

Admit it: you're not voting for Clinton because she is a woman. Before, you simply planned not to vote. But now that there's another viable Democrat, you get to hide behind "oh, I'm voting FOR another candidate, it's not that I'm a sexist pig! And look! He's black! I'm enlightened!!"

05:41 PM, TRUER WORDS WERE NEVER SPOKEN.

ALSO, FUNNY HOW HILLARY REFUSED TO ACCEPT DAVID SHUSTER'S APOLOGY FOR HIS BADLY-CHOSEN "PIMPED OUT" COMMENT RE: THE CLINTONS SENDING CHELSEA OUT TO MAKE CALLS ON BEHALF OF THE CAMPAIGN. (SEE http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/02/11/david-shuster-and-the-utility-of-umbrage.aspx).

FOR BILL CLINTON THOUGH, WHO CONSTANTLY LIED TO HER AND VOTERS ABOUT HIS CHEATING THROUGHOUT HIS TIME AS GOV. OF ARK AND PRES, OPEN ARMS.

I GUESS WOODWARD WAS RIGHT -- IT IS A MARRIAGE OF POLITICAL CONVENIENCE/EXPEDIENCE.

Bama 3L: Do you have a principled reason for why taxes on the highest earners should be proportionately lower? Or why 35% is too high? Or an explanation for how we're going to pay for government (Republican or Democrat) with less tax revenue?

CAPS MAN, please stop. You're giving Obama supporters a bad name and you're not at all entertaining. You really bring nothing to the table besides capital letters and no one likes those.

6:17

Obama supporters already have a bad name. Don't blame CAPS MAN for that -- he's just one mindless douche among many.

Bama 3L: Ok, but let's be realistic. You're not getting what you want, or anything close to it. While the Republican Party gives lip service to being the party of small government, it doesn't spend like it. Even when the GOP controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency it didn't cut spending. In fact, it increased spending.

So here's a realistic question: If you are presented with a choice between: (1) big government that we pay for through taxes; or (2) big government we do pay for through debt, which do you choose?

Bama 3L: And to respond to your point about keeping government "confiscation" of your income to a minimum, that doesn't really answer why a graduated income tax is not appropriate, or why taxes should be less than 35%. It's just that taxes should be at a minimum. I don't think either party will disagree with that principle, it just depends on what each party sees as the role of government. But keeping taxes to a minimum doesn't answer either of my earlier questions.

I think CAPS MAN makes really good points. Besides being a Hillary or McCain supporter, what points of his do disagree?

CAPS MAN (aka "Caps Fan"), nice try. We're still not buying it.

Bama 3L: If that's your answer, then why don't you finance the difference between your current income and the level of income you believe you're entitled to with debt? Everyone wins.

Whoops, that should read "your current income after taxes", not "your current income".

HEY, SCREW YOU 07:11 PM. THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT CAPS FANS!

Interesting you would show up now, CAPS MAN, so soon after a post by "Caps Fan". A new low.

I think everyone should have basic health care. I think if we as a society can't provide that, we should be taxing those who are buying a third house a little more.

I love the Caps! They beat the Rangers in OT! OV for Prez!

Do I think health care is a "right"... no. I think it's something we as a society should provide, but I'm not sure any individual has any entitlement to it.

5:58,

Are you retarded? Why is that every time someone doesn't like Sen Clinton, they get accused of being sexist? Look, I would love to have a woman president, just not that woman. She is a phony just like her husband. And the reason why people always lump the two of them together is because she always says "when Bill and I" did this. She wants to take credit for his administration but not the blame.

As far as personality goes, you're an idiot if you don't think that matters. Just look at Bush. He thinks he knows everything and doesn't need to play nice with anybody. As a result, we don't have any friends anymore, except for England and that's just because Blair was Bush's bitch. A president has to be a negotiator to get shit done and you can't negotiate when you come into a situation with scores to settle. Face it, she is not the best candidate and that's why the voters are choosing Obama. The only reason she's in the lead is because of the superdelegates who support the establishment candidate. Tomorrow, her ass is going down in DC, MD, and VA.

Well, let's push your belief a little: why are you entitled to what you have? Why is someone who did not have the natural advantages you had stuck with his lot while you reap the benefit of the birth lottery?

Well, you didn't choose or earn the right to be born to parents who were in a position to provide for you. The fact that you were born into a situation with parents who could support you and with enough natural wherewithall to get where you are was not meritocratic, and it was not the result of your choice. It was luck. So, do you deserve the fruits of that luck? And why does someone who was not as lucky deserve his lot?

McCain will beat Obama by a landslide in the general. Seriously, it won't even be close. McCain will take all the southern states Obama won (for reasons more articulately provided above), and he'll also win Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and, yes, California.

Because-newsflash to the secular elites: (who make up but a loud, annoying minority of the party)--hispanics and poor whites hate your candidate (for reasons that should be obvious) and will not vote for him. They'll either not vote at all, or they'll vote for McCain, who isn't distasteful enough to repel them like Romney, Giuliani, or Huckabee would have been.

You latte liberals need to pull your heads out of your asses and realize how incredibly racist America still is (and how it's only going to get more racist toward blacks as the number of hispanics grows). Black president (even if he's not really black)? Not in our lifetime. Probably not ever, given the changing demographics of USA.

8:24: Fine, so what's your alternative? Hillary? You don't think many of the people who will not vote for Obama because of the color his skin will not vote for Hillary because of her gender? Also, Obama is not starting out with 47% of the country hating his guts because of the country's prior exposure to him. So, great, Obama will lose. What's your alternative, smart guy?

8:24 has just succinctly stated everything anyone needs to know about the democratic nominating contest this cycle. If it makes you latte-sipping east coast liberals feel good to vote for a black guy and bandy about meaningless phrases like "change" and "work across the aisle," then so be it. But you've got a nasty shock if you think the next president is going to be a Newport puffing former coke user who doesn't have any substantive policies to speak of.

9:14, you mean like GWB?

Hey 8:30 -- Why do you hate Hillary so much? By "exposure" I'm sure you must mean the years of prosperity the first Clinton administration brought? Some people sure have short memories (yeah, I mean you 8:30).

Oh, and just to set the record straight, I hate Obama because he has no experience and is a policy lightweight. I hate him because all the experience he does have was calculated so that it would sound good in a stump speech (e.g., "I was a community organizer instead of joining a law firm"). I hate him because he's managed to convince the worst element of the democratic party (limousine liberals and dumb, idealistic college kids) to blindly follow him based on his hollow promises of "change." I hate him because . . .

9:20 -- no, I mean Obama. There's no proof, only unsubstantiated allegations, that President Bush ever used drugs. And he would never smoke Newports. C'mon!!

Yeah, Hillary. Or else just vote for McCain. There are a bunch of substantive reasons not to like Obama anyway (to the extent he even has substance).

Hispanics and poor whites of both genders will (and have) voted for her. And the blacks and elites of both genders will have no choice but to vote for her (McCain is repulsive enough to them--unlike to poor whites and hispanics--to get them to do so).

Sexism doesn't even begin to approach racism as a negative force in this country, for reasons that should be obvious. And I don't think the numbers thus far indicate that there's any sexism going on w/ respect to Hillary losing votes.

Now, I'm not saying Hillary will win. It would be close, and McCain could (and probably will) prevail. But 60-70% of the voting public won't be able to go through with putting a black man in office. You may scoff at that number out there on the coast, but November will be a painful lesson for you.

If Obama gets the nod, it's McCain in a landslide.

9:22: I don't hate Hillary. I want a Democrat to win. I think Obama is much more electable than Hillary. I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.

And I'm not ungrateful for the Clinton presidency. I am saying that Republicans and even some Democrats despise Hillary so much from those years that you're writing off almost 50% of potential voters right off the bat. Obama at least has a chance to win over some of those moderates. Obama has a more realistica chance of winning. Clinton will almost certainly fail.

9:31 -- Maybe I went a bit over the top there. But let's be reasonable for a second. Moderates aren't going to vote for a black guy in large numbers. You're seriously kidding yourself if you really think that. They're much more likely to vote for McCain, who, incidentally, is much closer to being a "moderate" than Obama is. The southern states Obama has won were won based on his support in the African American democratic activist community. But in the general, the proportion of AA voters that actually show up to vote will be much lower, and they'll be dwarfed by the number of conservative, white voters who'll all be supporting McCain.

Since I'm about to resort to polls it probably means I'm losing this argument, but polls show that Obama beats McCain by a sizeable margin in a head-to-head matchup, whereas Hillary is about even (or a little behind). I understand your point about the country not being ready for Obama, but if you give people an opportunity to vote for two people who are incredibly similar, what incentive do they have to vote for Hillary over McCain? People are frustrated. They are ready for something different. Obama represents that, Hillary much less so.

Democrats since Bill Clinton have made the mistake of going to directly to the middle in order to get moderate votes. That hasn't worked. It seems like a particularly bad idea to do that in this political landscape where the country is so fed up.

Um, no, 5:19, seems to me you're the retard. Where did I accuse everyone who's not voting for Hillary of sexism? I only accused YOU of sexism because the reasons YOU gave for why YOU are not voting for Hillary are sexist.

Her "personality"? She's too "combative"? Dude, if you honestly don't get how these words are code for sexism, then you seriously need a women's studies class.

(waits for sexist diatribe about how women's studies classes are a waste of resources and how we uppity women should be grateful that our kind-hearted male benefactors saw fit to give us the right to vote and everything and how we should stop noticing sexism -- I'd gladly stop noticing it if it would go the fuck away already)

"Sexism doesn't even begin to approach racism as a negative force in this country, for reasons that should be obvious."

Spoken like a clueless male...

5:58/10:53

So am I sexist because I also think that Bush's personality makes him a lousy president, as I stated previously? How about her not being trustworthy? Am I sexist because I think she is a habitual liar? Am I sexist because I think she's phony? I could go on, but I don't want to be too sexist.

Ummm...new polls dropped on CNN yesterday. Obama beats McCain 46-40 head-to-head. There's a decent-size margin of error, but for those who think McCain will stomp him...this contradicts that sentiment.

Furthermore, the guy has no Bradley effect whatsoever...first time that has been seen in a national election.

"Sexism doesn't even begin to approach racism as a negative force in this country, for reasons that should be obvious."

Spoken like a clueless male...
-----------------------

Sexism and racism both have negative effects. However, the negative effects of sexism are somewhat mitigated by numbers. Since women constitute at least 50% of the population and blacks only make up about 12%, it only makes since that collectively women have a better chance of overcoming discrimination. If women stick together, they are a majority. If blacks stick together, they are merely the second largest minority. And before you jump in and make some silly comment about me being sexist, I am a black women who has experienced both sexism and racism. Today I voted for Obama because I believe he is the better candidate and I think he has a better chance in beating John McCain.

Oops, that should be "only makes sense.."

I love how this conversation has devolved into why the Democratic Primary doesn't really matter, because McCain will beat either Barabama or HillClint.

Wasn't this supposed to be the Democrats' year??? A woman, a (sort-of) African-American. GOP fatigue.

Yet, in the final analysis, there is a VERY good chance the GOP is keeping the WH. Kind of funny, really.

PS -- Please don't correct typos, etc. in subsequent posts. We don't know who you are, and we don't care if you make mistakes. But it's annoying when you try to fix them.

Actually, what's annoying is when some smug smuck attempts to dismiss a well reasoned response by pointing out that someone put a comma in the wrong place.

9:57, first off, even if you are a woman, that doesn't mean you aren't sexist (just like even if you're black, that doesn't mean you aren't racist).

The notion that sexism is less of a problem because there are more women than black people is laughable -- women are among the WORST sexists. If black people were as self-destructive as women, they'd be fifteen times worse of than they are now. The problem is that while racism is systemic and institutional, sexism is intimately woven into the culture. Basic human rites of passage are dripping with sexism. It's so insidious most people aren't even able to recognize it.

When an average enlightened progressive sees a black person walking toward him on the sidewalk in a bad neighborhood, and feels nervous, he recognizes that feeling for what it is -- racism -- and immediately feels guilty. When that same progressive walks past a "gentleman's" club, he doesn't feel that same tinge of recognition that something "off" is at work. The vast, vast, VAST majority of people simply accept at face value the notion that the reproductive differences between men and women mean anything more than the simple fact that women carry babies and men fertilize them. Hardly anyone would be willing to (publicly, at least) accept the notion that the color of your skin has the same effect (even though medical science has proven that blacks, whites, Asians, Hispanics, etc., have statistically significant differences w/r/t how their bodies respond to certain organisms, which genetic diseases they are more prone to, life expectancy, etc. -- which is not to say that this should mean anything more than what it simply, straightforwardly means, but rather to point out that people look at physical differences between races and acknowledge that these differences are only physical, while they look at physical differences between men and women and insist these differences have a meaning beyond the bare physical).

Imagine if there were a generally-accepted custom (again, even by progressives) that if you marry a black person you have to buy him or her an expensive trinket first. Or if that if you wanted to marry or even date a black person, you first ask his or her parents. Or that if you marry a black person, the black spouse should be in charge of cleaning, cooking, childrearing, etc., while the white spouse goes off and has a career. Or that black people should be pretty for white people to look at and enjoy, while white people only need to worry about their personality and/or money. Or that there's nothing that should give us pause about clubs in which black people perform demeaning acts for white people's enjoyment, when virtually no such clubs exist where white people perform for black people.

I could go on and on. As a woman, you ought to recognize that this shit happens constantly. But, given your earlier response, it's doubtful you're cognizant of the depths of sexism -- which is probably why, as a woman, you're unwilling to acknowledge it (which begs the question how on earth you think we women are all supposed to be able to band together and fight sexism -- in fact, it's MUCH easier for a smaller group to rally around an idea than a larger one).

So will everyone please stop pretending that racism is worse than sexism? It's fucking ridiculous. They're both bad in completely different ways. You can't compare them. Anyone who tries to demeans *every* victim of discrimination.

Bama 3L (7:40)

You said: "My point was that the use of debt acts as a check on the future growth of government. It's not ideal, but it's what we're stuck with now. The alternative is the Democrats guarantee of another massive entitlement program (socialized medicine) that will never go away."

So, in your opinion, Democrats spending but balancing budget = waste, but Republicans spending while running up huge deficit = useful check on spending. Moron.

But I genuinely give you credit for being honest enough to admit the purely self-interested basis for your political views.

11:05: All good points that you should prepare to be berated for. Feminism's out of fashion, don't you know that?

11:40, hahaha, boy do I ever.

11:05,

Spare me the lecture. I never said that sexism wasn't or was less of a problem. What I said was that the effects of sexism are somewhat mitigated by numbers. This post is about Clinton v. Obama. My point is that women banding together can have a greater impact than blacks banding together. It's simple mathematics.

This does not in any way diminish the fact that sexism exists in America or the world for that matter. Of course sexism exists. It's written into every religion and so many customs.

Regarding your analysis of race, it is clear that you are not black and have no idea of the dynamics of being black in a majority white society. You give "enlightened progressives" way too much credit. Let us not forget that this country was founded on the notion that all men (not women) were created equal, and yet blacks were treated like property, which must mean that they were not men. The fact that every time a black person is mentioned on ATL the convo ends up in a discussion about affirmative action only illustrates the point. But alas, I too could go on and on but what would be the point. I deal with sexism and racism the same way. I know it exists and yet I overcome and hope to knock down doors so those that follow me will have an easier time with their journey.

9:57, now you're being sophistic. Sexism isn't "less" of a problem but it's "mitigated"? You are splitting hairs. That's not a meaningful distinction. There's no point in saying it unless you're trying to say that, on some level, racism is worse. If you aren't saying that, then why make the point at all?

Perhaps I do give enlightened progressives too much credit -- and I acknowledge (as I always have and always do, though I guess you have no way of knowing that) that, as a white person, I don't know and can't know what it's like to be black. But, um, where, exactly, in my comment did I analyze race? In case it wasn't obvious, I was trying to demonstrate sexism by substituing race for sex -- I think that most people would agree that the practices I mentioned would be racist -- yet they happen all the time in our society and not too many people acknowledge that they're sexist (in fact, many so-called "sex positive feminists" try to argue that stripping for men's pleasure is empowering, which is a load of bullshit and an attempt to co-opt the language of feminism to put it to the service of entrenched sexism. Most feminists -- even legitimate feminists -- still change their last names when they marry, give their children their husband's name, and wear engagement rings).

I agree the affirmative action discussions are disgusting (and I frequently point out what douchebags the racist fucks who make the argument are). Equally disgusting are the constant sexist remarks -- any time Lat posts a picture of a young, attractive woman, we're confronted with a bevy of comments discussing the relative hotness of the woman in question and how skanky she must be for existing and having the audacity to pose for pictures not covered in a burka. Hell, look at the post right above this one -- you have law partners who think it's acceptable to suggest that female associates are slutty flirts if they don't dress the way that he thinks they should, and from the comments it's clear that plenty of ATL readers agree with him.

So what's your point? Why'd you make the original remark if not to suggest that racism is worse than sexism?

11:05,

My comments are in reference to the topic of this posting which is about Obama v. Clinton. In this election, the effects of society's sexism can be mitigated by the female vote which is over 50% of democratic voters. Racism (against blacks), however, is less likely to be overcome since blacks make up only 12% of the population. I'm not talking about curing society's ills. I'm only talking about how discrimination can affect the democratic nominee. If he wins the black vote and she wins the female vote, she wins. That's all I'm saying. If you're taking anything else away from it, then you're reading more into it than I intended.

9:57, your comments echo those of "journalists" who have posed the incredibly offensive and asinine question to black women: how do you choose between Clinton and Obama? Ummm, how about choosing the candidate who best represents your values (I'm not suggesting you have not done this -- I'm suggesting that posing this question along these lines is counterproductive)? The MSM wants to make this into a race vs. gender showdown, and people like you seem perfectly happy to let them. You yourself note that you voted for Obama and not for Clinton. So what on earth makes you think Clinton has a snowball's chance in hell at securing the "female vote"? How on earth could you possibly think that women and/or blacks are a monolithic voting bloc that's easy to tap into? At least with respect to women, the statistics PROVE that this is not the case.

Assuming people vote on the basis of race and gender (for the candidate most resembling them in one of these characteristics) is both racist AND sexist. Not to mention the notion that women can overcome sexism simply with sheer numbers is demonstrably false, given the fact that, um, we *haven't done it*.

The only thing that gets anything done in this country is money. And guess who has the most of that? (Hint: they're neither black NOR female). And guess who's going to keep it if we spend our time sniping at each other, as this election has made abundantly clear many of us are all too willing to do?

11:05

Wow. I'm begining to think that you are intentionally missing my point. You keep coming up with these arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. I never stated that any group was monolithic. I never stated that every woman WILL vote for Clinton or every black WILL vote for Obama. I never justified voting for someone because of race/gender. The only single assertion I made was that collectively women COULD (if they so chose) vote for Clinton simply because she's a woman (which is stupid) and they would have enough strength in numbers to elect her. Whereas collectively blacks CANNOT do the same because the numbers don't work out that way. For the third (and final) time, that's all I'm saying. Please stop reading more into this because while you may be making good points, you're preaching to the choir. Sexism is bad and so is racism. I know. I've been living it for 36 years and I don't need a reminder.

Lol, 9:57. Okay. You meant your statement to say only *exactly* what it said and precisely nothing more. Here's our abridged conversation:

You: "Women could defeat sexism if they all worked together to do it."

Me: "Ohhhkay... and your point is...?"

You: "Nothing."

Me: "Because it sounds like you're saying that sexism would be easy to get rid of."

You: "I was not! Geez, I was just making a statement. It doesn't have to have a point."

So either you blurted out a non sequitur, or you're backtracking.

In which case, I'll see your non sequitur, and raise you a nonsense remark.

Blue squirrels drive Jeep Cherokees to the moon, where they grow cranberry seeds and sprinkle them into the ocean.