dailykos.com — In another bad sign for Hillary Clinton's sinking campaign, the blogosphere is all over her racially divisive comments to USA Today about her white support, & the verdict is not good. The broad consensus is that Hillary's comments are clearly deepening rifts in the Democratic party & hurting the party's chances in the fall. Are ya listening supers?
May 8, 2008 View in Crawl 4
bignerdMay 10, 2008
you guys can spin what she said any way you want, but in the context that she said it(please watch or listen to the video), she was being very divisive... Not necessarily racist but divisive!
lolinyerfaceMay 10, 2008
Damn! I read that as Osama Supporter, damn hillary and her anti-obamaspam! ;)
ceeayyMay 16, 2008
Who says that "blacks won't vote with her"? Where did you get that?The truth is that MOST people won't vote for her, otherwise she would have the popular vote. Right?As for... "f_ _ k the democratic party"... You shouldn't have an allegiance to ANY party. Think for yourself. No politician should get a free ride because of their association with a group.
ceeayyMay 16, 2008
"The "races" and "nationalities" are all mixed up these days. The real question is why is Obama considered black? Isn't that offensive to his white mother? The same with Tiger Woods, his mom is Thai. Obama and Tiger cannot be black, they are mixed." -enzomediciRace is not real and nationality is very simple. The nation in which you are born and swear allegiance to is your nationality.Here is a simple visual test about your understanding of race. <a class="user" href="http://www.pbs.org/race/002_SortingPeople/002_01-sort.htm">http://www.pbs.org/race/002_SortingPeople/002_01-s ...</a>This is from the PBS website as well.====1977Government defines race/ethnic categoriesIn response to civil rights legislation, the federal Office of Management and Budget issues Directive 15, creating standard government race and ethnic categories for the first time. The categories are meant to aid agencies, but they are arbitrary, inconsistent, and based on varying assumptions.For example, "Black" is defined as a "racial group" but "white" is not. "Hispanic" reflects Spanish colonization and excludes non-Spanish parts of Central and South America"American Indian or Alaskan Native" requires "cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition" - a condition of no other category.The categories are amended in 1996, and "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander" is added.=====If race were as simple as genetics and biology, those categories make no sense.The truth is that the traits that you see are more about location & the mixing of traits within that region and have nothing to do with the idea that humans are broken into subspecies. We are all "mongrels" and no human group has been isolated long enough to evolve into a genetically distinct race. The visibly different traits are independent of each other.Green eyes do not belong to any one "race". Blue eyes are not specific to any one race. Brown eyes are not specific to any one race. Just because you have blue eyes does not mean that you will have blond hair. Having green eyes does not mean that you will have red hair. Having dark skin pigmentation doesn't mean that you will have brown eyes. If you follow all of that to its logical conclusion, no one trait is specific to any one "race". If that's so then what traits REALLY make up a race?