KHpoliticalinnuendohere:

If Clinton manages to "steal" the nomination from Obama, I'd actually just be happy if we don't have city-destroying riots.

mercadia:

c12k, That was racist.

(Pssst! He didn't say anything about race.....I won't divulge my ethnicity, but a politikal power-grab such as a Clinton nomination.....well, it wouldn't compel me to be positive about my lot.....and I'll certainly have a role model who'll do anything to get ahead....and it's only one window pane between me and that plasma TV I've wanted since Bill slept with that intern....)

You don't think it's racist to assume there will be rioting if Obama doesn't win the nomination? Really? Turning the legal results of a primary election into the next Rodney King? That's pretty racist.

But feel free to riot. That would be *awesome.* Rioting because you don't understand how the democratic primary system works would be the perfect end to make you look as immature, cultish, and as irrational as so many people already think you are. DO IT!

And grab be a flat-screen while you're at it. I could really use one.

artandsoul,

So the think you like the most about Obama is his desire to sit down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

I think that pretty much says it all.

When the stakes are as high as they are today, and the waring parties sink further into attack mode, having an open mind is considered a liability. Lack of tolerance is applauded by leaders of the mob as civility evaporates. Here on the Fray, and every other political board or forum it's the same sad story. "Expecting more or less is not pathalogical, but dumb".

Displaying any kind of doubt or uncertainty is considered a sign of cowardice or worse still; treachery. Zealots willing to do or say what more thoughtful individuals refuse are carrying the day. Bolder, ruder and louder are the new measures of party loyalty and patriotism. These conditions are not unique to this campaign or this time in history. We are trapped in a quagmire of our own making. And it's not simply the war that we can blame for these conditions. In desperate times, Brutes hungry for some desperate victory, will always chose the sledge hammer over the key.

Merc,

I'm just sayin' that there are a few assumptions you seem to have made that are wrong in my mind, even if one can be argued by one ethnicity's voting trend.

1. Black people aren't the only ones who are ardent supporters of Obama.

2. Black people aren't the only people who kinda hate Hillary.

3. Black people aren't the only people who riot.

I do understand how the primary system works, and that superdelegates can, within party rules, render months of populace primaries and caucuses irrelevant. I also understand that it is exactly that kind of approach to governmental representation that has so many people upset with our state of the union. And, to throw another point in there sans-research, I'm willing to bet that the best indicator of "willingness to publicly protest" isn't skin-pigmentation, it's more likely to be AGE group.

I'll see what I can do about the plasma screen, the store down the street has mostly LCDs.... :)

KH,

1. That is very true.
2. That is also true.
3. That is also true.

But rioting? Because of this? Why? We've had situations like this before and no one has rioted. This is just a primary election and the results, whatever they are, will be perfectly within bounds, reasonable, and justifiable. So...rioting? Give me a break. Protests? Sure, I guess. But I have a lot of experience with young people. They tend to get worked up over things, they tend to follow trends, and then they tend to abandon them. They tend to bore easily.

I would be surprised if they find the energy to protest something like this. People barely even protested the war, and I would say that that is a much bigger deal than this.

So, when I said that the claim that we would have riots was racist...that's because it really did seem racist.

KH,

In regards to a plasma screen versus an LCD, either one would work. My television is reaaaaaally old and very heavy.

I think our best chance of success as a country relies on young people breaking that mold, and that requires someone who inspires bold, numbers-backed activism.

But I was a little jumpy on riots versus protests, I should've specified better or explained my deep-seeded, rebelious hope that my generation would be a bit less timid about getting there voice out. BushCo has really incentivized our complacency. I hate it.

But really, what's the difference between "rioting" and "protesting" to the majority of people? The newspaper's front page picture might be the same, but the operative word is up to the editor.

*Wanna do some pre-rioting with me? I'm going around to all the local stores and replacing their retail wares with signs, streamers, and sparklers - that way, if riots do bust out, the mobs natural inclination will be to confusedly reconvene outside as a peaceful protest.

Rioting and violent demonstrationd would not be successful in this case--what is being protested is not an injustice. It's not a war. It's not a murder. It would mainly be labeled as some huffy and immature children having a hissy-fit because they didn't get their way. It would not be good, would not help Obama, and it will not help the Democratic party.

But I'm never against a peaceful protest--everyone has the right to make their voice heard.

I really hate to agree with mercadia on any point since my candidate hasn't sent me my talking points in a dream as of yet. but mercadia is right about how riots and or protests will look to the majority of the people.

History has shown it. We had one and a half terms of Nixon because of the protests and riot outside the convention in '68. Sure, it didn't help the case that the new arrivals to the party were completely disenfranchised when Humphrey, without winning a single primary, was handed the nomination by the guys in the back room. It proved that without unity, the Demo party is just another lost cause. It also proves that we can't win the old way either.

We have a lot of experience on how not to get elected. Lets try to a new experience for a change.

I believe that the hardcore liberals and anti-republicans will switch to Obama, but some of them are so put off by him that they will switch sides. Both sides have always had their core group, but it is the moderates that decide any election and I believe that many of those that support Clinton would switch sides as well. I just don’t see all 50% of the Democratic Party that supports Clinton supporting Obama. He just has too much dirty laundry to worry about and he has the leanest resume of any presidential candidate throughout the history of the United States. The questions of his love of country and patriotism are huge red flags.

I agree, without the Clinton votes Obama cannot win.

While the Democrats are notoriously vicious, I believe that they have been even more so this election. Each candidate has such easy to spot weaknesses that just beg for the vindictive among us to attack. I haven’t been turned off by this, but rather I’m encouraged by it considering the fact that I do not believe that either candidate is qualified for the job.

In the end I am hoping that there will not be enough time for the Dems to get it together and McCain comes along and trounces them. That would make a beautiful picture.

Cassandra

Considering Obama’s history I would say that many of them will in fact vote for McCain. While not perfect, he is easily the more qualified candidate and unlike Obama, his loyalty and love of country have never been in doubt.

The difference between billary Clinton then and now is that in 92 Bradley wasn’t completely evil, while the same cannot be said of Obama.

In order to have a little unity & healing pow wow they would have to dance with the devil. Do you think they’ll be willing to do that?

Cassandra

I do not believe that Obama could some up with something better than McCain considering his personal beliefs. He’s just not wired to think any differently. In many ways he has been programmed and cannot exceed that programming.

Cassandra

That’s a nice thought, but these are liberal Democrats we’re talking about. If they get angry enough they will riot and logically they will destroy their own neighborhoods.

Cassandra

Where did he/she mention race? I assumed they were talking about liberal Democrats.

Cassandra