Hillary’s campaign is now being run by Karl Rove, the devil himself.

I am white, progressive, lifetime Dem. I will vote for any Republican before I vote for Hillary.

And if anyone has a soul, they will too.

How about if you answer this one.

As to that question, let me clarify. If you had simply wanted to start a discussion about race in the primaries you might have asked, “How do you guys think Obama’s race will play in the primaries?” (which is closer to the hypothetical Favre question)

You would got a lot more tempered responses.

But you didn’t ask that. You asked “Do you think Democratic voters are ready to elect a black candidate?” The very nature and phrasing of the question implies that there is a possibility that Dem voters are not ready to elect a black candidate. People responded to the loaded nature of the question a response you knew you were going to get and then acted all huffy about it when you got it.

No shit Sherlock. And my question did exactly that. It was designed to include some discussion about race. But that’s not what you just accused me of. First you claimed I said Hillary’s win was the result of racist Democratic voters. Then you said I was “implying” something wit the question I asked. Now you’re saying that asking a question a certain way is done to include discussion about that particular factor (be it Brett Favre’s age or Barack Obama’s race), and you’re right. Like I said, there doesn’t seem to be any problem with asking, “Is America ready for a Black President?” but you have your panties in a wad because I had the gall to ask, “Is the Democratic Party ready to nominate a Black President?”

That’s exactly what you did in the other thread. When people stated plainly that yes, the democratic party is ready to nominate a balck candidate, you accused them of being afraid to discuss race.

Wrong yet again. Nobody plainly stated anything like that (the thread is right here) Point me to where ONE person said, “Yes the Democratic party is ready to nominate a Black President” You won’t find it because it isn’t there. I said people were afraid to talk about it because all they (and you) were doing were questioning my motives for asking and using deflection (”Look at the GOP!!”) as a way of avoiding it.

What kills me is the way so many are tip-toeing around what Hillary and her campaign have been doing – again, whether directly or indirectly. Who do you think they’re trying to appeal to with these racially tinged comments anyway? Does it mean I think she’s a racist? Not at all. But her self-interest trumps everything else.

That said, and understanding that the Democratic Party is made up of a portion of those same Americans, I have no doubt that there are racists in the democratic party, that is people whose claim to democratic party values may stop when it comes to race.

Do I think that this portion of the democratic voters is enough to derail Obama’s candidacy? No, not by a long shot. There is no need in my mind to even ask the question.

Even if Clinton gets the nomination, I think anyone would be hard pressed to suggest that it came down to race as the deciding factor.

If you think I’m wrong, tell me why. Or else just say you don’t know and shut the fuck up.

If you asked, “Do you think the Green Bay can beat the Giants?” you leave open any number of avenues of discussion including everything from statistical match-ups to homefield advantage etc. etc.

If you rephrased the question: ‘Do you think Brett Favre’s age will be a factor in the game against the Giants?” You have radically limited the range of answers to a include some discussion of age.

If someone answers the question, “I don’t think Favre’s age has anything to do with it,” would you immediately respond, “Well you’re just afraid to talk about age”?

That’s exactly what you did in the other thread. When people stated plainly that yes, the democratic party is ready to nominate a balck candidate, you accused them of being afraid to discuss race. Then you changed the question but presented this new question in such a context as to all but eliminate every factor but race as a possible answer.

As a hack you are completely transparent.

Let’s rephrase your sports example to better illustrate the point. It’s one thing to ask “Can the Giants beat the Packers in Green Bay next week?” It’s quite another to ask, “Can Team A beat Team B if Team B has a black quarter back?”

One is a simple question. The other is loaded and highly charged. A person asking the second question is either totally naive or they are trying to elicit a certain charged response.

Your second paragraph basically says it all. You want to tag some portion of the Democratic voting base as racist. Simple as that but you don’t have the courage to come out and say what you think.

I’ve answered your question quite plainly: Yes, the Democratic Party is ready to nominate a black candidate. You refuse to answer either way your own question. You simply want to imply something without having the guts to state it.

It’s funny. People can ask all day long, “Is America ready to elect a Black President?” and it’s merely a question that is put forth to spur a discussion. Ask, “Is the Democratic party ready to nominate a Black President?” and suddenly it’s out of bounds and an example of “race baiting.”

No, the conventional wisdom is that Obama is the more progressive of the two. This guy is saying otherwise.

You seem unable or unwilling to take responsibility for anything you actually write.

Not at all. What I won’t do is allow people like you to take what I have written and then twist it to arrive at conclusions that are based on your own biases.

The simple and obvious answer to that question is yes, they are. I’m wondering when you’re ever going to get around to explaining why you felt there was a need to ask that question in the first place. Care to offer an explanation?

Actually, I’ve explained it plenty of times. I’m through repeating myself. Learn to read for content.

Do you think that the Democratic Party is ready to nominate a black candidate?

We’ll certainly find out, won’t we? It brings me back to the question of “Why Hillary and not Obama?” A few people I know have come straight out and told me they believe Hillary has a better chance of winning.

You asked the question “Is the Democratic party ready to nominate a black presidential candidate?”

The simple and obvious answer to that question is yes, they are. I’m wondering when you’re ever going to get around to explaining why you felt there was a need to ask that question in the first place. Care to offer an explanation?

You need to keep your accusations in line. You just claimed that I “insinuated that Hillary Clinton’s win in NH was the result of racist Dem primary voters.” I called bullshit. Now you’re saying that a question about race is “implying” something about race. I didn’t imply anything. The question was pretty clear.

It’s interesting. In that thread you were at pains to paint Obama as the paragon of progressivism because you wanted to isolate race as the reason why he didn’t win NH.

More of your bullshit. I didn’t paint Obama as anything. I merely repeated what others had been saying about him vs. Hillary with regard to their progressive bonafides.

In the quote that Oliver cites above, you have a supposed Clinton insider arguing exactly the opposite: People voted for Obama because they like idea of a black nominee but real progressives will vote for Hillary.

Gee, a Clinton insider arguing the opposite of what the conventional wisdom is. I’m stunned.

In both instances, you and this insider want to isolate race as the key factor in Obama’s fate as opposed to his actual political philosophy and politics. Why is that?

That’s the wrong question. If it’s all about actual political philosophy and politics as you say, then the Clinton campaign wouldn’t be throwing out these little barbs.

It’s interesting. In that thread you were at pains to paint Obama as the paragon of progressivism because you wanted to isolate race as the reason why he didn’t win NH. In the quote that Oliver cites above, you have a supposed Clinton insider arguing exactly the opposite: People voted for Obama because they like idea of a black nominee but real progressives will vote for Hillary.

In both instances, you and this insider want to isolate race as the key factor in Obama’s fate as opposed to his actual political philosophy and politics. Why is that?

Oh bullshit.

What’s clear is that when employing race and accusations of racism serve your political purpose, you have no qualms doing so.

My political purpose? It’s not about me. Or Karl Rove. It’s about the Clinton campaign doing anything to win even it means racial demagoguery no matter how subtle. (Her recent comment about “spade work” is a pretty good example).

To parse this a little closer, it’s neat how Rove’s sins are all “past deeds” but the Clintons’ deeds, past and present, represent an unbroken chain of evil born from deep, eternal character flaws. It’s even neater how you find the courage to drop in the phrase “allegedly done” with regards to Rove in the same thread in which you refuse to grant the Clintons’ the same benefit of the doubt: “Avedon, like Oliver said in his title, you have to look at the patterns.” There’s no damning “patterns” in Rove’s career that would allow us to skip straight to impugning the man’s character? Really? None?

I think your meaning was still clear: ‘I don’t want to talk about Rove because it doesn’t allow me to isolate the Clintons as an abomination unique to liberal political culture.’

Now you’re attacking the Clintons for hypocrisy in emulating Rove while still refusing to acknowledge that Rove was a major architect of modern ratfuck politics and Bush his most major benefactor. I suppose that’s typical.