In other words, JK is a troll, stop feeding them.

Even I don’t get into arguments with this person, why they fuck are you guys?

Exactly. And I can’t bring myself not to vote for someone who doesn’t look like they would be a good president. So, she’s lost my vote (Yes, she had it originally but… She. Lost It.).

All qualities that don’t spell “good President.”

In essence, she is a colossal hypocrite.

Which is why I find I can’t really vote for her should she get the nomination. Not because out of any bitterness or spite over her beating Obama, the petulant kindergarten-level reason given by far, far too many on both sides.

But because her own behavior throughout this campaign, once things started going against her, have demonstrated time and time again a fundamental lack of judgment, significant unawareness of her own hypocrisy and, most of all, a profound lack of interest in the greater good.

There are PLENTY of white, middle-class and working-class men and women who support Obama. I know dozens myself. I think you’re fooling yourself.

“More specifically, playing the delegate game and in the process, largely writing off (or flipping the bird at) the core backbone of this party.”

So what you are saying, TK, is that you are mad because Obama is a far more competent politician, leader, and campaigner than Clinton. He was aware of what it took to win, and did, while Clinton tried to just waltz in.
Bye bye. This middle class white guy supports Obama.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent’s position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted.[2]

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training.[citation needed] In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it[3].[not in citation given] Such a target is, naturally, immobile and does not fight back, and is not as realistic to test skill against compared to a live and armed opponent. It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.[citation needed]

i haven’t had my full fix of coffee yet this morning

Look, the time to campaign and ACTUALLY WIN THE FUCKING PRIMARY IS OVER.

IT’S OVER. GET OVER IT. OBAMA HAS/IS GONNA WIN THE PRIMARY. HE BEAT CLINTON FAIR AND SQUARE. DEAL WITH IT.

Since you obviously took the most time to respond, I’ll try to reply to you directly. Frankly, I could care less what the rest of you think of me–your responses are largely the reason why the Democratic party willl lose people like me this time around.

1.) To paraprhase Paul Begala…Obama’s core constituency consists entirely of college educated whites, students, blacks, and aother assorted liberal fruitcakes.

If you’re relying on students and blacks turning out in record numbers, and making the difference this November, think again. Just ask John Kerry, or Al Gore on that one. Obama has Mike Dukakis written all over him.

Obama himself, and his “associates” have said enough, and done quite enough to piss off hard-working working class voters, like myself, who happen to be white. Do people recall his elitist comments in PA about people turning to religion, guns, etc? Heck, I don’t even own a gun, and the last time I went to church was when someone died, but that comment still pissed me off because it displayed a true lack of appreciation for what THOSE voters have historically brought to the table. They show up to vote, in other words.

2.) On Obama being an empty suit. This has been clearly demonstrated by a few things.

One, was his dismal performances against Hillary Clinton in the debates. Particularly the last few. There’s no substance there, just a heaping doses of fuzzy idealism. I realize you all get goose pimples when you hear the man talk, but when it comes time to make the hard decisions, simply “hoping” it were true won’t get it done.

The other, is his lack of any meaningful record in the Senate. I took some time to take a look at what he’s sponsored, and there just isn’t much there that would lead me to believe that he’s either ready, or capable of being Presient of the free world.

A few other thoughts…

On his questionable associations. They won’t go away, and they shouldn’t. We read today that he’s “resigned” from his church. Too little, too late, I’m afraid. Damage done.

Gallup released a poll (I believe it was this week)that showed that if Obama wins the nomination, one-third of us Clinton voters are going for the old guy. I heard (but can’t find reference to) another Gallup poll released this week that showed that in many of the key battleground states, Clinton fares CONSIDERABLY better than Obama vs. McCain.

On a personal level. 4 years ago I thought Obama was the guy. Now, I simply don’t trust, or like him much. Not because of what he stands for as a Democrat (we all want the war to end) BUT because of his actions as a candidate. More specifically, playing the delegate game and in the process, largely writing off (or flipping the bird at) the core backbone of this party.

As for you OW, stop emailing me notes about “scary black preachers,” OK? You’re kind of a weird dude…but we’ll give you credit for keeping at it for so long.

JK

I sympathize with you and understand where you’re coming from. JK is not my favorite person either.

It’s possible that I’m a little sensitive. I have read so many derogatory remarks about Clinton (also not my favorite person) that focus on her gender (irrelevant, in my opinion) rather than her horrible lack of leadership and faulty morals. After hearing cunt, whore, twat and bitch thrown about so often it’s becomes easy to take offense.

Vanessa

I didn’t mean anything sexist with my statement… substitute “asshole” or any number of other insults there that don’t have a sexist connotation. I also thought (think) that JK is a man. I’m sorry, you’re right, probably not my finest comment.

I still maintain that JK is a complete horse’s ass. I don’t think that insults are a bad thing here, because JK has consistently shown himself to be incapable or unwilling to debate in a reasonable fashion. If people want to have a reasonable conversation about the merits of the presidential candidates, and be taken seriously, and be respected, then they cannot write patent idiocies up for the whole world to see.