Home
Refresh   Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ;
Add to My Group
May 13, 2008 at 11:56:22

View Ratings | Rate It

Hillary Clinton, John McCain and the "Stupid" Vote

by Dave Lindorff     Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com


Tell A Friend

By Dave Lindorff

I want to be clear here from the start: there is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Stupidity is a lack of intelligence. But even here, there are subsets. Some ignorance results from a lack of access to knowledge, while some is the result of a laziness or unwillingness to learn. Some stupidity is the result of some genetic or nutritional deficiency or perhaps of some abuse or lack of care or attention during early childhood, while some is the result of mental laziness or a willful desire not to think.

Having lived in Asia and traveled widely in the remoter areas of rural China, and in Laos and other desperately poor countries, I have had an opportunity to see people who are truly ignorant about many things, but who are anything but stupid. In a remote part of Anhui Province, back in the spring of 1992, for example, I visited a small village that had been completely inundated and destroyed a year earlier by an epic flood, which completely destroyed their rice fields and washed away their mud brick, dirt-floored homes. They had, in less than a year, rebuilt the town, and were preparing to plant a new rice crop. They were also, using nothing but their hands and wheelbarrows, building a massive levee that would keep the river at bay the next time around. The villagers had never seen an American in their lives, had no televisions or phones, and in most cases had never been farther than the next village, but they knew how to survive disasters that would have killed the average American.

They were also intensely interested in learning whatever they could from two visitors from halfway around the world. The whole village quickly crowded around me and my traveling companion, another American, peppering us with questions about America. We were invited into the home of a village elder, and served a delicious meal, which we ate among wandering chickens and rabbits in a dirt-floored room, as half the village peeked in through the window openings. Significantly, the thing they were proudest of, and which they brought us to see, was their new school.

I mention this because I am trying to imagine how the average American community would respond to a surprise visit by a couple of Chinese peasants from that village. I suspect that far from surrounding them and peppering them with questions about China, there would be calls to the local police to pick up to wandering vagrants. Instead of trying to communicate, and perhaps learn lessons about how to make gardens grow during a drought, local Americans would be studiously avoiding the visitors. An invitation to have dinner in a local home seems particularly unlikely.

When I lived in a small town in upstate New York for a few years back in the 1980s, I found myself briefly the president of the local little public library, which was wholly supported by donations. One year, we tried to get a donation of $1000 from the local Lions Club, which had an annual carnival and donated the proceeds to worthy projects (ours was an expansion of the building to accommodate books which at the time were sitting in piled up boxes for lack of shelf space). The president of the Lions, a local businessman, responded to our request saying, “What do we need a library for? I haven’t read a book in years!” (My fellow library board member, a local businesswoman herself, responded, “I’m no surprised to hear that, but I am surprised that you’d be willing to say it publicly.”) I also remember overhearing, in the local supermarket checkout line, a cashier talking to her friend. She said, “I wish my daughter would drop out of high school and get a job. I mean, she’s 16 already, and what does she need a high school diploma for? She can work a cash register without one.”

All this brings me to Hillary Clinton’s proud assertion that she is the candidate of the uneducated white worker. It is of course, precisely why she’s likely to win the West Virginia primary today by a lopsided 75:25 or maybe a 60:40 margin. One news program I watched about the West Virginia primary yesterday included an interview with a Clinton supporter, in that state, an older woman who said she couldn’t vote for Obama “because he’s a Muslim.” The reporter responded, “Well, for the record, you know he says he’s a Christian.” The woman replied, “Well I don’t believe him.” In West Virginia, one in four residents doesn’t have a high school diploma. That compares to one in five nationally. I’m guessing this woman was one of that one in four. Only one in seven West Virginians holds a bachelor’s degree, compared with one in four nationally.

Now taken by itself, this isn’t to say West Virginians are stupid, or at least any stupider than the average American. (And don’t get me wrong. I love West Virginia-- particularly its brilliant musical heritage and the musicians and artists of the region who carry on those traditions, and its gutsy labor union history, which played such a key role in the development of the American labor movement.) In large part, it is rather a reflection on the state’s relatively low average income, a legacy of historically low expenditures on education, and a general lack of opportunity. Moreover, I’m certain that many of those West Virginians who never completed high school are smarter than your average college grad, in the same way that the Chinese peasants I met in rural Anhui were smarter than many much better educated Americans. But I’m also certain that a lot of West Virginians without high school diplomas, like other Americans without an education, are woefully ignorant, and vulnerable to manipulation by candidates who appeal to their baser instincts and fears, as Clinton has been doing in her sinking campaign. It is why states like West Virginia have, election after election, backed candidates like George Bush whose policies manifestly work against their own interests.

A depressingly large number of Americans, not just in West Virginia, but also across the land from Maine to California, including my own state of Pennsylvania, fall into this willfully stupid category. They are content to get their information from television programs that offer no facts—just propaganda and ratings-boosting rants. They don’t read newspapers. They reject facts that conflict with their prejudices. They’ll believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim. They’ll believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11. They’ll believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago. They’ll believe the moon landings were faked in a Hollywood studio.

Certainly one cohort of voters that is keeping the leaky Clinton dirigible airborne is women, particularly older women, for whom her candidacy is a feminist milestone. That is understandable. But the other cohort, which Clinton has referred to as “working, hard working, white Americans,” and as “whites…who had not completed college,” is hardly something she or any candidate should be bragging about.

And yet that is what she is doing: bragging that she’s got a lock on the stupid, racist white vote.

She should be leaving that for John McCain.
_____________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback edition. His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

 

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net

Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Book Recommendations for "2008 Election Presidential Primary"
Missouri a player in primaries.(presidential elections, 2008): An article from: St. Louis Journalism Review
by Terry Jones

$9.95

Number of pages: 3
Publisher: Thomson Gale

Polls and elections: how did the primary vote forecasts fare in 2008?: An article from: Presidential Studies Quarterly
by Wayne P. Steger

$9.95

Number of pages: 25
Publisher: Center for the Study of the Presidency

LADY IN SHINING ARMOR
by RAMESH MALAYAPPAN

$0.99

Number of pages:
Publisher:

View All Book Recommendations

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

FACEBOOK      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      NETSCAPE      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
29 comments


Thanks, although very sad.

A terrific article.  Precisely on point! But how sad for the country!

by Nathan Nahm (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 138 comments [60 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 1:11:59 PM

Recommend  (0+)

You know your country's in trouble when a leading candidate

is openly soliciting the votes of ignorant racists. You know your country's in big trouble when this "leading candidate" openly claims she's entitled to the delegates of 2 primaries that the national party had basically invalidated in advance. Or when this same candidate was caught in a bald-faced lie about coming under "sniper fire" in Tuzla -- & just shrugs it off.

As Barbara Ehrenreich aptly put it in an article sarcastically titled Hillary's Gift to Women, "...But by running a racially-tinged campaign, lying about her foreign policy experience, and repeatedly seeming to favor McCain over her Democratic opponent, Clinton didn’t just break through the “glass floor,” she set a new low for floors in general...Hillary Clinton smashed the myth of innate female moral superiority in the worst possible way — by demonstrating female moral inferiority..."

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 1:13:43 PM

Recommend  (0+)

MIND DEGRADING EXPERIENCE

The word 'Stupid' comes from the Latin: Stuprum, defined as "Degraded, Defiled.

Our murder for hire specialists in the corporate, political, media and religious  worlds are working hard every day doing all that they can  to "Make them Stupid and Keep them Stupid."

That is why they need eternal war. Nothing more degrading or defiling than war.

The criminal classes strategy is to "Diminish what they are so that you may take what they have."

It is all part of our nuclear war fighting elites plan for us.

Oh, by the way; our nuclear war fighting elite are finished. They are hoping against hope that you all are too stupid to figure it out.

Who are you? Why you all are the LIVING DEAD. You  are going to figure it out. It is only a matter of time now.

 

The next large government outlays the people make are  going to be used to  construct mental health facilities to place our nuclear war fighitng elite into. For Good.

 

Our nuclear war fighting elites days of subjecting the people to a steady stream of Mind Degrading experiences. is coming to an end. Thankfully.

They knew these days would come and that is why they built underground shelters for themselves and nuclear weapons for us. They continue at this moment to try to get them exploding over our heads. Somebody up there must love us.

They are finished.  

.

.

by Patrick (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 519 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 4:00:28 PM

Recommend  (0+)

Reply: WTF?

Could you try that again, more coherently? What is the "nuclear war fighting elite?"

by camanokat (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 81 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 4:31:13 PM

Recommend  (0+)

Stupid and racist?

You spend a thousand words attempting to support your allegation of stupidity on the part of Hillary supporters and not a single one touching upon why we should also believe they're racist.  Do you have any particular reason we should accept your conclusion?  I mean the 'racist' one. Or can we really expect much in the way of reasoned discourse when you so easily jump to the conclusion that a woman is uneducated because she does not believe what a politician has to say?  I mean, really:  how many politicians do you know that wouldn't downright lie about something - anything even - to get elected?  And just to set the record straight, I do not believe Obama is a Muslim not that it would make any difference if he was.  But getting back to the question I really wanted to ask:  What exactly was your point of going through that thousand words to explain why ignorant people are not necessarily stupid only to essentially lump them all together in the last few sentences?

by Joe Reeser (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 6:28:51 PM

Recommend  (0+)

Reply: Why they're racist?

a) Clinton's whole pitch was pointing out how black Obama was, focussing on his black preacher, focusing on their being "white"

b) polls showed that in PA, 22 percent of voters said they voted on the basis of race. Since only 14 percent of the population is black, and since not all of them or probably even half of them voted for Obama BECAUSE he was black, that would mean at least 15 percent of white pennsylvanians voted for Hillary BECAUSE Obama was black. 

by Dave Lindorff (438 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 193 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 7:17:34 PM

Recommend  (0+)

Reply: Why they are racist

This election is really getting ugly.  The Obama campaign is just as bad but they are more covert.  I don't like Hillary that much but the Obama supporters are sure making her look good.  At least she wants to hear my voice.  Which is alot more then I can say for Obama.

by beccy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments) on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 9:03:55 PM

Recommend  (0+)

Reply: No, the Obama campaign isn't "just as bad"

The only people I hear say that are rabid Clinton supporters. No one who is independant says things like that.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 8:45:11 AM

Recommend  (0+)

Reply: Dave

I concur with Joe Reeser: you negated your long explanation by the last paragraph. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are ignorant of the racism and sexism that oozes from your "Obama Good, Clinton Bad' rants. It's a shame, really, because I usually enjoy your pieces on other subjects. You and your Obama lovin' cohorts across the blogs can be shocking reading, usually because you are indulging in exactly what you accuse Clinton of. These pieces are rants against Clinton to build up Obama.

I have yet to see one article detailing concretely what is so much more compelling about Obama as opposed to Clinton and why you support him so fanatically. Really. It's quite the turn off for reading your dem primary pieces. I hope you take to heart what I am telling you because I have no motive other than being a woman. I support neither dem candidate, certainly not the repub candidate and haven't made up my mind definitively between McKinney and Nader. But writers like you, Robert Parry, Brent Budowsky. etc. are not doing your candidate any favors by using this tactic. Also, you are losing me as a reader and promoter of your work.

 

by NettieMae (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 37 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 12:41:17 AM

Recommend  (0+)

Reply: You give no evidence of your claim

I have not seen Obama's campaign say anything racist or anything untruthful about Clinton. In fact, they've been pretty good about not digging into her corrupt past--for example the legal records "found" in her White House safe (once heer legal liability was gone) after she had claimed they were missing, here  remarkable  killing in cattle futures, courtesy of a friend on the COMEX, the  outrageous pardons, etc.  If I'd been running against her, I'd have raised it all as fair game. Instead, they let it lie. She and her husband Bill, on the contrary, have engaged in the worse kind of race-baiting.

I have no illusions about Obama himself being a liberal, but as I have written, neither was Roosevelt in '32. I have said that Obama at least offers the hope that he could be pushed in a liberal direction because of the mass movement his campaign has generated around his candidacy, which is exactly what happened to Roosevelt. It's a long shot, I admit, but I can say that in contrast, the two terms of Bill Clinton, were a disaster for progressives--a weakening of habeas corpus, attacks on countries without any Congressional or UN approval, an end to welfare, a focus on keeping bond-holders happy at the expense of spending on education, passage of NAFTA, etc., and a disastrous loss of control of Congress. Not to mention the whole sordid impeachment disaster. I would expect the same kind of betrayal of progressives by Hillary. She has already shown her ugly colors by voting not only for the war, but for the next one, by signing on to Joe Lieberman's wretched measure declaring the Iranian Revolutionary guard a "global terrorist" organization. Not to mention her support for a bill to make flag-burning a crime. And as for campaigning, there are two ways to go--bring out the best in people, or bring out the worst. Obama's campaign has, by and large, been doing the former. Hillary has most definitely been doing the latter.

I agree with Barbara Ehrenreich: Hillary has broken the glass ceiling in politics, but she's also lowered the floor.

 If you don't like it, don't read my columns. That's fair. But I'm telling it like I see it, which is what I do, and will continue to do.

 

by Dave Lindorff (438 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 193 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 7:41:56 AM

Recommend  (0+)

Reply: Comprehension and avoidance

Please read my comments once more.  I believe you didn't get the gist of my point.  My claim was that I was giving YOU the benefit of the doubt that YOU are ignorant of YOUR own biases which You project onto Clinton in order to build up Obama; that I have yet to see one article written by YOU which concretely lays out the wonderfulness of Obama's platform and voting record.  A long diatribe against Clinton doesn't get to my point, in fact, it avoids it.  I didn't say the Obama Campaign but am I to understand you are working for the Obama campaign?  If so, then the vitriol makes more sense, especially if you are a paid campaign worker.  

And you are correct about my reading of your work and passing it on.  So I'll mosey on down the road to more productive and enriching reading.

 

by NettieMae (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 37 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 8:51:20 AM

Recommend  (0+)

Reply: Ya just don't get it do ya...

People like Dave and Rich above are pretty suspicious of both candidates, they aren't Obama supporters.  Believe me, if Obama were to do something as despicable and disgusting as the types of things Hillary has been doing, they would be all over it. As it is, as an Obama supporter, I haven't had to do much to make my case to Dave or Rich who would be a better person in the White House, Hillary and supporters like you have done all of my work for me.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 8:58:09 AM

Recommend  (0+)

Reply: Kneejerk Sexism charges what people will remember from HRC

Five years from now, the only thing most Democratic activists will remember from Hillary's campaign are the kneejerk charges of Sexism that came anytime an individual leveled any kind of criticism at her.

I read Dave's article three times to try to figure out what was sexist about it. I still haven't found anything remotely sexist.

Contrast that with Hillary's campaign that made a flippant comparison between Jesse Jackson's performance in South Carolina and Obama's. (Gee, what is similar between the two other than that they won the state... could it be, oh, they're BOTH BLACK). Now we have Hillary and all of her surrogates saying Barack, a black man, cannot win white votes. A more blatant use of the race card I cannot imagine. Can you imagine the cries of Sexism if Barack said that Hillary could not win male voters?

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 8:54:22 AM

Recommend  (0+)

Reply: Why Obama is the better candidate for this time and place

Your quote is the perfect point Steven.

"Can you imagine the cries of Sexism if Barack said that Hillary could not win male voters?"

Nettie you want some reasons why I think Obama is a better Candidate than Hillary?  Here are some and yes they are purely my opinions, which thank God I am entitled to in this country.

1) If you watch both Hillary and Barack's speeches over the past 16 months, especially at the start, please note how many times Barack says the words "we" and how many times Hillary says the words "I". I believe in the common good and I believe that it will take a massive grass roots effort to bring this country together and try to start undoing all the damage that has been done in the past 7 and even 20 or more years. I do not believe that “I” can do this alone but rather “we” will be needed to do it.

2) Just look at how the campaigns have been run. Barack was a massive underdog at the beginning and everyone said he will NEVER be able to create an infrastructure and raise the funds neccessary to compete against Hillary. In fact the opposite has happened. Hillary’s campaign is 20 million dollars in debt and they never planned for the possibility that they would not have the nomination clinched after super Tuesday. That is very poor strategic planning …. much like our current President with his very poor planned ill-advised Iraq occupation. Barack on the other hand has created an infrastructure across the entire country in an unprecedented manner and time frame. And they have 40 million in the bank. If you want to talk about leadership qualities this is a good indication that Barack will pick very smart and qualified people to also help him guide this country in a better direction.

3) Legislative experience for Barack counting both the state and federal level is significantly greater than Hillary. In the 109th Congress, Barack cosponsored legislation to control conventional weapons and to promote greater public accountability in the use of federal funds. In the 110th Congress, he has sponsored legislation regarding lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel.

I could go on but I think you are getting the picture. Don’t be intellectually uncurious. Do some research for yourself with an open mind and you will be surprised to find that the propaganda that we are being feed that Barack has no experience and doesn’t know what he is doing is just that propaganda.

by E. Nelson (40 articles, 8 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 511 comments [57 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 10:29:56 AM

Recommend  (0+)

Reply: How's this?

"I have yet to see one article detailing concretely what is so much more compelling about Obama as opposed to Clinton"

Obama opposed the war.  Clinton supported it.

Good enough?

by Gregg Gordon (26 articles, 47 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 199 comments) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 9:16:40 AM

Recommend  (0+)

Reply: No, actually, it isn't.

It's quite easy for Obama to say that he would not have voted for the use of military force in Iraq.  He was not in the Senate at the time and did not have the choice to make.  Had Hillary not been in the Senate at the time she would be saying the same thing.  See how that works?

by Joe Reeser (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 7:13:26 PM

Recommend  (0+)

Reply: You made two points...

The first being, "Clinton's whole pitch was pointing out how black Obama was...."  To that I say, "So what?"  That may make Clinton a bigot but it doesn't make anyone in WV a racist.

Your second point is that, "polls showed that in PA, 22 percent of voters said they voted on the basis of race."  I have no idea what you believe that portends for West Virginia.

According to the early results from the West Virginia AP exit polls, "One in four Clinton voters and about one in 10 Obama voters said race was an important factor in their vote."  It seems to me that bigots support both candidates but that's hardly surprising to me.  Maybe it is for you.

And yes, I've seen the paroxysm of "logic" which tries to explain that Blacks cannot be racist for voting because of race but Whites are.  What a load of horse manure.  A bigot is a bigot.  It doesn't matter what color their skin happens to be.

by Joe Reeser (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 6:37:44 PM

Recommend  (0+)

Bitter West Virginians?

Take care Dave conjuring up stereotypic pictures of those uneducated, rascist, West Virginians makes you sound kind of elitist. 

by vidiot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 300 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 9:43:02 PM

Recommend  (0+)

They Publicly admit that they are racist.

I don't know whether I should be horrified or just plain sad for the fact that Republicans have been able to effectively dismantle our educational system. West Virigina is proof positive of that.

The exit polling from West Viriginia tonight is horrifying. 1 in 3 people said publicly that race played a role in their vote. West Viriginia is second only to Mississippi for this infamous honor. If wanting to judge a man or women by his or her character and not by the color of their skin is considered elitist then sign me up and call me elitist all you want.

After tonight  I don't know which is worst being a racist and at least being smart enough to not admit it in public or being a racist and being too ignorant to know not to admit it in public.

This quote that I heard from a West Viriginia voter when asked who he voted for outside the polling place sums up my complete and utter sadness tonight..... he said, "I voted for the coloured man because I don't think a woman is suitable to be president".

Excellent piece Dave. I pray when my adopted African- American nephew is my age that this type of conversation would be considered unfathomable.

by E. Nelson (40 articles, 8 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 511 comments [57 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 11:24:48 PM

Recommend  (0+)

Voting Preferences

To be sure there are woefully politically ignorant people in the US.  I do not think that undereducated people have a monopoly on being politically ignorant by any means. There are so called intelligent people who are dumber than a brick wall when it comes to politics.  I would say that 90% of the electorate are sheep.  They pretty much follow the crowd without thinking about who the candidate is, what their qualifications are, what they believe in, what experiences they have had that qualify them for the office they are seeking, and what their core political philosophies are.  If you listed the things these people have done or not have done, what they truly believe, etc. not one intelligent person would vote for them. 

Senator Obama has done nothing.  He has had zero accomplishments. and zero experience  He asks that you accept that he can do the job without showing you any proof in his past that he is capable of doing the job.  His basic political philosophies, if known, would repulse the average American.  Yet he does well in polls and in primaries.  Why?  Total ignorance. 

Same with Senator Clinton.  She has had almost a criminal past.  She probably should be in prison instead of on the campaign trail.  Yet there are people who appear to adore her.  They refuse to read and understand what this person has done in the past and what kind of person does what she has done.  Again total ignorance. 

And don't get me started on Senator McCain.  He might even be worse that either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton.

The American public is basically politically ignorant and are easily led around by anyone who knows that.   Take a candidate who can follow a good script and look the part and you have a winner.  All successful political consultants like Rove, Morris, Carville, etc. know that.  They understand the ignorant and lazy American public and will have a canidate do what needs to be done to appeal to these ignorant people.   My daughter is a successful politician.  I tell her all the time that it doesn't matter how hard you work, how honest you are, what you accomplish, etc.  What matters is your script.  Say the right thing at the right time and you can get elected to anything.   Figure out what appealing things to say and say it , just like the Obamas, Clintons, and McCains.

Side note: Raise your hand if you think Bush is dumb.  If your hand is up, welcome to the DUMBEST AMERICANS CLUB.   You are part of the 90% of Americans who are totally politically ignorant.   This may shock you, President Bush is not dumb.  He may do some politically ignorant things sometimes but he is far from dumb.  If you think he is dumb then you have been manipulated.  You also probably have no idea why President Clinton was impeached.  Or why Al Gore preaches about global warming. Shame on you, but you, unfortunately, are not alone and, even more unfortunately, that makes you feel good.

by Mad Jayhawk (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 1:48:37 AM

Recommend  (0+)

not all West Virginians are stupid....

Though Ive been reading OPED for a couple years now, this was the first article that triggered me to register and post a response. I was born in West Virginia and lived there until I was 7. My single mother received her degree from Marshall University and accepted an offer to work in Tampa Florida. She took it. I have since graduated from the University of Florida with a BA in History, as well as an AA in Journalism, and with few options have left the country. I now write for a logistics magazine in Dubai. But I digress...

As the rest of my family still resides in West Virginia, and this was my birthplace, I take pride in the state, though acknowledge it's faults. However, the real issue shouldn't be Clinton's voting base or Obama's religion, but rather DIEBOLD and the electronic voting machines.

IMHO, the elections are nothing more than an illusion of choice. Anyone willing to study it should look into what took place in Florida in 2000, and Cleveland Ohio in 2004. The elections were hijacked. The media has long since forgotten about it, though it remains undeniably worthy of public interest. Greg Palast's ARMED MADHOUSE discusses what happened in some detail and is highly recommended.

Sadly, as much as everyone likes to discuss politics and 'change', you shouldn't expect it through our current electoral process. Someone else (Military Industrial Complex?) is pulling the strings.

Empires dont just hand over the keys.

Funny video...

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks%20

Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

 -Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Paul Stevens commenting on the 2000 election ruling.

by Casey Mac (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 5:46:43 AM

Recommend  (0+)

Reply: I don't think Dave was suggesting that WV'ians are stupid

nor was he suggesting people from any other state were necessarily stupid. He said that one candidate in particular was pandering to the stupid and the racist, and he is right.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 8:47:48 AM

Recommend  (0+)

George Bush isn't stupid just intellectually uncurious

Mad Jayhawk sound like a neonut ideologue is sheeps clothing. I bet you believe in the 1% doctrine as the unwavering and intellectually uncurious rationale for the war on terror.

Tell me why you and your friends don't apply this ideology to the war on Global Climate change? Actually the 1% doctrine should have been applied to Climate Change 30 years ago because now scientists believe that Global Climate change is a clear and present danger by a 10 to 1 margin. Oh yeah I forgot their is no financial benefit in it for the oil companies and the millitary industrial complex now is there?

Only false prophets pick and choose what they want to believe in when it best suits their purposes.

 

Welcome to the discussion I look forward to it. 

by E. Nelson (40 articles, 8 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 511 comments [57 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 8:17:33 AM

Recommend  (0+)

Accomplishments

Line up the voting records of Obama against that of Hillary and one can clearly see a difference.  As to lies....I am reminded that in court,  a defendant or plaintiff that can be shown to lie about any one thing can be assumed to be lying about just about every thing else.  These two issues alone make my choice clear, even though I would rather be voting for one of those who are no longer running.  At the end of the day, it is also clear who has the 'Elvis'. (Thanks, Molly) Without some Elvis, there is no chance at all.

 Ignorance is sometimes REFUSAL to consider all information available.  Republicans are generally best at this, but the rest of us sometimes hide from the truth.  To me, Truth is ALL the information....anything else is just BS.

by Roger (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 9:18:22 AM

Recommend  (0+)

Dave, you are actually asserting

Blacks in PA, who made up 14% of the 22% who voted for race, did not vote on the basis of race?  Are you suggesting that the Black vote, from North Philly, for example, was more cerebral in their thoughts regarding the candidates?  If you are, can you explain, to me, how Obama's policy issues differ from Hillary's so dramatically to the inner city black vote?

I do agree with one point you made, however..

Some ignorance results from a lack of access to knowledge, while some is the result of a laziness or unwillingness to learn.

Yes, like the voters who continue to vote republican and democrat thinking that they are the only choices out there and that republicans or democrats will solve everyone's problems despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary....

So, to be clear here, you are suggesting that the uneducated people of West Virginia are racist because they voted for the white woman, but the uneducated black vote was NOT racist when it went for the BLACK candidate at the rate of 92%

I keep scratching my head wondering how you can arrive at your conclusions, particularly without evidence that this is indeed the case.

Ciao, CZ

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 9:27:50 AM

Recommend  (0+)

Reply: That is correct

So, to be clear here, you are suggesting that the uneducated people of West Virginia are racist because they voted for the white woman, but the uneducated black vote was NOT racist when it went for the BLACK candidate at the rate of 92%

When a minority votes for someone of their minority class that has never held that level of office before, it is not considered a racist or religionist or orientationist vote. I'll explain why

The point of the evils of sexism or racism or religionism, etc., is more than just a preference issue. It is a systematic effort to deny opportunity, rights, education, pursuit of happiness, etc. A black person who votes for a black candidate who has never held that level of office before is not attempting to deny white people the ability to be President. A gay person voting for what I hope someday soon will be the first gay President is not attempting to deny straight people the ability to be President. That is a level already achieved.

HOWEVER, a white male voting against a woman or black person BECAUSE they are a woman or black man are voting to continue to deny the ability of that minority class from achieving that level of office. The reverse is also true. I would rail against blacks in Africa voting against a white person because they were white if in that country blacks have had a lock on that particular level of office.

A vote to break a glass ceiling is something considerably different than a vote to deny someone else something. I would expect once the first woman and black person finally become President that you will see a rapid diminishment of women and blacks voting for someone because of race or gender.

 

 

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 10:16:49 AM

Recommend  (0+)

Reply: You make a persuasive argument

I was just going to say that Mississippi voters were in my mind just as racist even though it was significantly more blacks than whites who said they voted based on race. But now after reading your agrument against that Steven I am rethinking my opinion.

 Thanks for that enlightening post and regardless of where one comes done on whether blacks voting for a black candidate is less racist than whites voting for a white candidate the whole point Dave made with his oped piece was that Hillary and her surrogates are the ones making the more polarizing comments (out of their own mouths).

 No one has shown me one single quote from Barack or a surrogate that could be construed as racial polarizing or sexist. And please don't spout off about the 20 second clip out of 2000 minutes of sermons from Rev. Wright 3 years before anyone of us even knew Barack would be running for president as your evidence.

by E. Nelson (40 articles, 8 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 511 comments [57 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 11:08:42 AM

Recommend  (0+)

Hydrogen and stupidity

Like you, I've been irritated in the past at the enormous number of stupid people around... until one day I suddenly had the thought that "hey, supposing it's me that's stupid, and I never realised."  Ever had that thought Dave?  Maybe you should start now, and look at Hillary with fresh eyes and not the blinkered view that's been apparent in your written work. Einstein said " the most common things in the Universe are hydrogen and stupidity."

 

by Leonard Morley (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 4:27:28 PM

Recommend  (0+)

Reply: As I said to Nettiemae above...

Ya just don't get it do ya...

People like Dave and Rich above are pretty suspicious of both candidates, they aren't Obama supporters.  Believe me, if Obama were to do something as despicable and disgusting as the types of things Hillary has been doing, they would be all over it. As it is, as an Obama supporter, I haven't had to do much to make my case to Dave or Rich who would be a better person in the White House, Hillary and supporters like you have done all of my work for me.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 5:43:29 PM

Recommend  (0+)

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment


 

Most Popular Articles
in the Last 2 Days
(by Recommend Emails)

Health Insurance Exec Whistleblower Wendell Potter Testifies Before Congress by Wendell Potter

REPORTING FROM HONDURAS: Hondurans Call Out for Help from the International Community by Medea Benjamin

Most Americans stupid as a box of rocks as to overpopulation: On American sustainability--Anatomy of Societal Collapse by Frosty Wooldridge

North Korea – Impending Missile Launch May Require US Military Action by Steven Leser

Bush's 4th of July Celebration Posted by Darla

Italy to Declare Independence from U.S. Military by David Swanson

Cynthia McKinney and the Spirit of Humanity Crew are captured and detained by the Israel Navy by Cynthia McKinney

USA's Role In the Honduran Coup -- and How We Must Fix It by Mary Shaw

Does North Korea Really Pose a Grave Threat to the Security of the US? by Nathan Nahm

Women's Friendships Lift Moods, Save Lives by Elayne Clift

Go To Top 50 Most Popular

 

Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews

Powered by Populum