Dumb people who support a candidate because of the candidate's race or gender

[brentspeak]

are a disgrace to this nation.

The threads floated around about possible second ballot candidates like Edwards or Gore automatically attract the most repellent, loathsome types: 1) zealots who don't like the idea of "another white man" as the Democratic nominee; and 2) RW trolls, posing as liberal zealots, trying to shoot down talk of successful candidates.

on edit: same goes for those who oppose a candidate because of the candidate's race or gender

[slackmaster]

1. Supporting a candidate because of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. is no different than...

...Opposing another candidate because of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

:kick:

[AndyA]

5. That's what I've always thought as well.

Voting FOR someone because of their ethnicity or gender is no better than NOT voting for someone for those same reasons.

I want the best candidate for the job. I don't care if they're male/female, black/white, gay/straight, Christian/another religion or no religion, or anything else.

I just want someone who's HONEST, will protect the Constitution, our rights and liberties, and put AMERICA, its people and its jobs FIRST.

No biggie...but there doesn't seem to be anyone running who fits this. :shrug:

[tblue]

2. A lot of people will vote for McCain because of his race and/or gender

Personally, I don't care if our veep nominee is a purple hermaphrodite.

[Uben]

4. I beg to differ.....

....I draw the line at purple hermaphradites!

[cali]

3. you're clueless.

utterly and completely clueless. I'm not supporting Obama because of his race. I'm supporting him because I think he's a good candidate. And it's painfully obvious that installing someone like Edwards who's a loser- sorry, but it's true- over someone who's fought and won 35x the number of states that Edwards won, is just absurd.

The idiots are those that think the harebrained scheme of undemocratically installing a nominee after millions have voted, is an idea that will lead to winning.

The nominee who walks out of a contentious brokered convention is fatally wounded.

[Uben]

6. It's only contentious to the opposition

The other half of America may think it is the wise thing to do. You do not hold the rights to wisdom. And, if the SDs were to tap Clinton for the job, it would be because they thought she had the best chance to win the election. Who doesn't have a clue? In order to win a primary outright, you have to get the requisite number of delegates. If Obama does not get that amount, he has no claim to the nomination. Period!

[cali]

10. Guess what? I'm OK with the SDs deciding to go for Cllinton and

obviously I'll vote for her. Do try and figure out what I'm talking about. Clue: It's the idea of installing a nominee who hasn't earned a single vote. That ain't Hill.

[Uben]

11. Please except my apology

I was clueless! Sorry.

[cali]

12. no problem

whatever one thinks of hill or barack, they've both busted their asses working for the nomination.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. He's clueless?

You seem to describe yourself as exactly NOT the type of person he's talking about:

"I'm not supporting Obama because of his race. I'm supporting him because I think he's a good candidate."

And then go on to talk about things not even close to being addressed in the post. So WTF are you talking about, anyway??

[davsand]

8. This entire Primary has seen terms like Sexism and Racism thrown about.

Right here in GDP on good old DU!

Instead of talking about substantive subjects like health care, the economy,Iraq/Iran and the price of gas we are worried about the discussions of Hil as a lesbian and Rev Wright as an angry black man. IT ISN'T ONE CAMP OR THE OTHER offended by "compromise" candidate threads, it is the MILLIONS of Dem voters who have made a choice already that have a right to scream at the idea of a group of "selected" party leaders shitting on a few million voters.

I voted for a candidate that appeared on my ballot, not Gore or anyone else that some pundit wants to advance at the expense of my vote.

It might make you real unhappy to hear this but there really ARE bigots and sexist turds in the Dem party. I refuse to let them piss on my ballot because they don't have the candidate THEY want.

You are 100% correct, REAL Dems don't choose a candidate based on gender or color. REAL Dems don't piss on votes cast to advance a personal agenda either.


:argh:



Laura

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. Can we extend that to any single issue voter?

If all you care about is any one issue, you're a moron. Plain and simple.