There was an interesting poster at Hillary's recent Pennsylvania rally playing the gender card

[Cali_Democrat]

The sign read..."Pennsylvania Women for Hillary."

What if Obama supporters displayed a sign saying..."Pennsylvania Blacks for Obama?"

The Corporate Media and Hillary supporters would go ballistic saying Obama is playing the race card blah blah blah.

Recently, Hillary referred to herself as Paulette Revere talking about how she's warning the country about the coming economic collapse.

What if Obama referred to himself as the Black Paul Revere? Again, the Corporate Media and Hillary supporters would go crazy.

Also, think about the current Reverend Wright situation. We have white preachers saying 9/11 was the result of gays. When a black preacher like Wright says 9/11 was the result of US foreign policy, he's branded as a bigot and an America hater. The sad thing about that is that Wright was right.

There is an insane double standard in the corporate media and the consciousness of many Americans. Black politicians are forced to walk on thin ice and watch their every step. Otherwise, they will be called black power racists and America haters. White politicians and preachers can get away with much more. That's what makes Obama run for President all the more impressive.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[democrattotheend]

2. To be fair, there are "Women for Obama" signs too

Most candidates have "Women for" signs. And I think DemStore.com does have an "African Americans for Obama" button, along with "Asian Americans for Obama", "Latinos for Obama", etc.

[JVS]

3. That's the difference between pandering to 52% and 12%

[TheDonkey]

4. Demographically based signs are fine

There are women for Obama signs and many women wave them at events. I'm not sure if there are African American for Obama or Clinton signs but there are also Spanish language signs which of course are targeted at one group.

[Cha]

5. I have a better idea!

Brilliant Pennsylvanians for Obama!

[MadBadger]

6. BTW, I disagree with you completely

Latinos for Obama
Latinos for Hillary
Women for Obama
Women for Hillary
etc
etc

[Forkboy]

7. I don't see a thing wrong with that.

[babylonsister]

8. The 'deal' has always been that Hillary can use the gender card,

Obama cannot use the race card, but to his credit, he never wanted to.

Obama is winning on his integrity, charisma, and my faith in him. Not so bad! :thumbsup:

[Cali_Democrat]

10. Exactly

Obama doesn't want to play the race card. Hillary wants to play the gender card.

[Maddy McCall]

9. So what? There have been "women for Obama" signs, too.

Damn those women! For supporting candidates!! And voting!

:eyes:

You're really determined to stir some shit tonight, eh? Since your thread about organizing disruption of Free Republic didn't go so well, you're trying this now.

You're an easy one to spot...you really are.

[Cali_Democrat]

11. I can't criticize Hillary at all huh

Did you used to work in the Politburo for the former Soviet Union?

[Maddy McCall]

Sure you can. But your "criticism" is always contrived crap.

[Cali_Democrat]

17. I'm criticizing our Corporate Media and insane double standards

I'm sorry if your offended.

[Bongo Prophet]

48. This is just a testpost to see if it says "responds to original" when I am responding to yours

Since your post hit the glitch, it is unnumbered. If it says I responded to the OP, then that is one side effect. Weird database error.


Edit to add-- interesting that it says I am responding to original, but the thread tree shows it as responding correctly. hmm.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maddy McCall]

23. Why on earth do you think I was replying to you.

I was replying to the OP, who INDEED did try to organize a disruption of Free Republic tonight.

Geez, get over yourself.

Follow the replies. I've not even replied to you once tonight. Indeed, I've not replied to you in a loooong time.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cali_Democrat]

29. Why are you so concerned about Free Republic?

Hmmmmm

[Name removed]

31. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bongo Prophet]

42. Please take note that the post in question is missing a post number - a glitch.

This happens when the software gets posts at the exact same time, and can mess up the reply message. I am not SURE what Babylonsister sees in her
"My DU" when this happens, but it does occur from time to time.

Mistakes happen, whether by glitch or just reading too fast, but i thought to pass that along.

[niceypoo]

12. This is a pitiful thread...

Seriously....

More sexist crap


A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smear_campaign">smear campaign is an intentional, premeditated effort to undermine an individual's or group's reputation, credibility, and character. "Mud slinging", like negative campaigning, most often targets government officials, politicians, political candidates, and other public figures. However, private persons or groups may also become targets of smear campaigns perpetrated in schools, companies, institutions, families, and other social groups.

Smear tactics differ from normal discourse or debate in that they do not bear upon the issues or arguments in question. A smear is a simple attempt to malign a group or an individual and to attempt to undermine their credibility.

Smears often consist of ad hominem attacks in the form of unverifiable rumors and are often distortions, half-truths, or even outright lies; smear campaigns are often propagated by gossip spreading. Even when the facts behind a smear are shown to lack proper foundation, the tactic is often effective because the target's reputation is tarnished before the truth is known.

Smears are also effective in diverting attention away from the matter in question and onto the individual or group. The target of the smear is typically forced to defend his reputation rather than focus on the previous issue.

Smear tactics are considered by many to be a low, disingenuous form of discourse; they are nevertheless very common.

[Cali_Democrat]

15. This is not a sexist post

I'm simply highlighting the double standard that exists in America.

[niceypoo]

20. Yes it is.....oh and by the way....

You should have done 35 seconds of research first.....




http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/01/at_least_a_20_million_third_qu.html">Obama at a "Women for Obama" fundraiser last month

http://women.barackobama.com/page/content/WFOhome">Or this one from OBAMAS WEBSITE: Welcome to Women for Obama

[jobycom]

25. If it's not, it's close.

It echoes all those who complain about Black History Month or Affirmative Action by saying that black people would get mad if white people tried to have their own history month, or tried to give preferential treatment to white people.

[niceypoo]

27. Obama has it ON HIS WEBSITE

Next time look beyond the caption

[jobycom]

35. Me? nt

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftstreet]

14. Dogs barking, can't fly without umbrella n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

16. LOL!

Are you for real?

Silliest, stupidest complaint I've seen here in awhile.

[Maddy McCall]

21. You missed this one, by the same author:

"you have to realize that gays don't make up much of the electorate in the United States. So it doesn't really matter if they're offended by this because they can't really sway the vote either way. If it comes to voting Republican or Democrat, they'll vote Democrat."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5388966#5389472

[jobycom]

38. Holy dog. nt

[emilyg]

41. Yikes!.

[jobycom]

18. Here's the website for African Americans for Obama

Tell them if it offends you, I guess. I don't think most people would raise any fuss about it. At least not anyone likely to vote Democrat. I've seen a lot of signs in central Texas that are race-specific for one candidate or the other.

http://africanamericans.barackobama.com/page/content/afamhome

[Cali_Democrat]

22. There's a big difference

Hillary acknowledged the sign and said she liked it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKY8J_FYlbM&eurl=http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x113018

Much different that people who create a website.

What if Obama acknowledged a sign at a rally that said, "Pennsylvania Blacks for Obama?"

[Maddy McCall]

24. Like I said above, "contrived crap."

You are so inconsistent.

[Cali_Democrat]

32. What if Obama referred to himself as the black Paul Revere?

[Maddy McCall]

33. Keep digging.

[jobycom]

37. Why would he?

Clinton wasn't saying she was a Paul Revere for women. She was just saying she was like Paul Revere, then shifting the name to apply to a woman. Since "Paul" isn't race-specific, but is gender-specific, it's a problem Obama wouldn't have.

[niceypoo]

26. Welcome to Women for Obama

http://women.barackobama.com/page/content/WFOhome">FROM HIS WEBSITE

Hypocracy does strange things to a persons IQ

[jobycom]

34. Good on her. Toni Morrison claimed Obama would be the next African American president.

I heard no one complain.

Racism and sexism are evils in this country. Why try to pit one against the other?

[charlie]

36. The Obama campaign participated

in the AAFO's launch event in Nevada. You're really making a big deal out of nothing.

[boppers]

39. Women for ... XXXX

Okay folks. This is not rocket surgery.

If you vote for Hillary because she's a woman, it's sexist.
If you vote for Obama because he's black, it's racist.

Simple. As. That.

I'm voting for Obama because he knows what bucket-sorting is. I'm a mathist (people who discriminate based on candidates who can think through complex math problems, and proffer solutions). :)

[SaveOurDemocracy]

40. Still stirring, eh? What is it you hope to accomplish here?

[splat]

43. There are no "cards"; it's not a game. Real historic firsts include a woman and a black

Dismiss it as a card. It's not.

[Bongo Prophet]

44. Say, Cali_Dem, why do you always seem to be trying to get us to fight each other?

To say
"Women for candidate X" is no freakin' race card, and both Obama and Clinton supporters are pretty much in agreement on that. We have enough rancor between us to be pushing for more, because that only helps one party, and I don't mean democrats.


So, while I can't tell you what to post, I gotta say - try to think of some positive posts about your candidate, some strategy points on winning in November or something. That's the best way to give something to the community and build some goodwill.

[Cali_Democrat]

45. I'm simply pointing out the double standard prevalent in the corporate media

What if Obama called himself the black Paul Revere?

Why is Wright treated differently than Jerry Falwell?

[Bongo Prophet]

49. If Obama said he was the black Paul Revere, I would laugh. But outrage? No.

Wright is treated differently than Falwell - that is unfair.
If you wanted to discuss theology, politics, race and media, I would gladly do so.

But it also is not germane to what you are trying to do here, which is not aimed at the media, but drumming up outrage on something that is clearly beneath the threshold.
This is no better than the outrage over the Obama posters, claiming they are "Stalinesque"...it is just beneath where we should be aiming WRT discourse.
Just my opinion...

[crispini]

46. Yeah, this one's just a troublemaker.

Ignored.

[anonymous171]

47. I'm not sure that is "playing the gender card."

There are more explicit examples, such as Hillary's "The boys are trying to keep me out" comment (paraphrase, can't remember the exact words.)