Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
See how well you can see Sarah from your house, by taking our trivia quiz.
Why there could be a silver lining in a failed climate treaty.
I've subcribed to Newsweek for years. I will not renew. I buy a news Mag. for objective reporting,Fineman,Alter and Wolffes love affair with Obama on print and MSNBC has soured me on all of them.They all belong on Fox,come to think of it maybe Fox is more fair and balanced than them
I don't think Obama supporters are considing Clinton supporters racist just because they won't go Obama. Problem is, it is easy to point or visualize a lot of Obama's faults. Also, these faults are faults of other people; not the candidate himself. Then, did you do the same for the candidate you did choose? Interrogate their background? Search for their faults? I guess what we are looking at is, if you did then you know the dirt trial that leads up to the Clintons door... Unlike Obama that may have some questionable friends, Bill and Hillary Clinton has a lot of dead friends! Not only that but, they have dirt trails of their own (and this goes beyond shadey associates). Hillary is being accused of campaign fraud for her senate run. She's been accused of stealing posessions from the White House. These are not crimes of friends; these are deeds done by the candidate herself! That makes it a little different than Obama. In fact, he can look like a saint in many instances against the dirt of some others. Of course, this would bring question as to why anyone would support a criminal type candidate?
Has nothing to do with color or gender... We can fantasize that Obama may have dirt but, to date, it isn't true. There IS no fantasizing about Hillary; there is dirt there and it's hard dirt so there IS a bit of a difference. However, people choose who they choose... To me, it's like marrying a criminal while they are still in prison. Some people can do that without a problem; my morals just seem to make me snare at the idea.... Its just difference.. and there is no problem with people being different or having a difference of opinion; that is what makes America beautiful and what it is..
I wouldn't consider it a "racist" remark; probably more of an exaggeration. And you are right; there are more accomplished minorities than Barack Obama. However, he is the "new kid on the block" sort of speak that happens to be multi-racial and, the candidate for "change."
To my understanding, historically minority voters tend to favor "change" candidates. It didn't matter what color they were (i.e., Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, etc), they seem to put their buck on the new guy. Fortunately or Unfortunately (depending on how you look at it), the new guy happens to be a multi-racial candidate in this campaign..!! The turnout numbers for the primaries may be larger than past records but, does that change the overall view that there would be a good chance that Democratic minority voters would favor a new, for change candidate?
From this particular view point, I don't see anything happening out side of tradition... The difference is in the concept of "change." The "change" candidate in this campaign just happens to be Barack Obama. I am no political whiz but, being around since the Kennedy era, I could even see this trend.. Kennedy was the Democratic candidate for hope and change as well as Carter and Clinton. All of which carried the majority of minority votes! That is, for the majority of minorities that DID vote... Based on trends alone would have laid out the possibility that Barack, being the current day voice for "hope and change" would get the majority of minority voters; no matter what color he is.. I am black but, I would have voted for him even if he was white, mexican, asian, spanish or whatever race because, he is the "hope and change" candidate. His message is to challenge political and economical change....
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.
Discuss