Why are there so many mini-Roves in this forum?

[Onlooker]

It seems like many people here are antagonizing the other side with spurious arguments for or against their candidate -- Hillary's racism, Obama's homophobia, Clinton campaign's corruption, Obama campaign's playing the race card, Obama being inexperienced, Hillary's first-lady experience as meaning nothing, etc. Surely, we all know what's really going since we're all at least somewhat politically involved or interested in politics. We don't need to be mini-Roves to each other.

The fact is that both Clinton and Obama are engaged in a hard-hitting battle for first place. They both have damn good skills and campaign organizations. They are both taking calculated steps to win over voters. Hillary's feminine tears were just as effective as Obama's grandstanding on race issues.

Surely, we all know that none of the Democrats are racist, sexist, or homophobic. In fact, on those types of issues, it's awfully hard to distinguish one from the other. But, all the false outrage and desperate efforts to frame the other candidate in some negative light does not ring true. Instead of trying to taunt and insult the opposition, why not make the case for your candidate. Is s/he more electable? Does s/he have important differences with her opponents on issues? Does s/he have better skills or experience? Etc.

It's time to stop trying to act like politicians and frame each other in a bad light and instead make the case for why one candidate is better than another. I can understand political dishonesty and game playing on the part of national candidate who struggle to create awkward coalitions, but this should not happen here. It serves no purpose except to get people angry. It does not win votes. It does not win respect.

A little honesty please. If you think your candidate is better than someone else's, say why rather than drum up arguments that are worthy of Swiftboaters and KKKarl Rove.

[sandnsea]

1. Like suggesting blacks vote on race?

That kind of race card?

Oh yeah, that was the Clintons. Again.

So where did all the shit in your post come from?

Oh yeah, the Clintons.

[Onlooker]

3. It comes from both sides

C'mon, do you think Obama is embracing "recovered" gays because he's homophobic? No, he's doing it because it's politically wise in the opinion of his campaign. Do you think the Obama campaign believes that Andrew Cuomo is a racist because he used shuck and jive? No, they did it for political reasons, just as Hillary shed a convenient tear and "opened up" in NH. They are playing games, not to win over the people who are politically involved (and have already made up our minds) but to win over those who are undecided. She shit came from both sides, and even Edwards, when he questioned Hillary's strength after she shed tears, knows how to play the game.

[sandnsea]

4. Oh yeah, adding a gay minister

was "code" to appeal to the homophobes. :eyes:

And pointing out "shuck and jive", one of a string of racial slurs, was the Obama campaigns fault.

No, all this shit came from the Clinton campaign and Clinton backers.

[Onlooker]

5. You really don't see it?

He had Donnie McClurkin and then threw in a white gay pastor to appease the gays, and now he's apparently welcoming the support of another homophobe, Kirbyjon Caldwell. I just see Obama is playing politics, just as the Clintons are. I support Obama, but only because I think he has a better chance of winning then does Hillary. Politically, he's 99% the same and his campaign is just as corrupt, with him saying Reagan was more significant than Clinton and that the Republicans had more ideas than the Democrats for the last 15 years. Can your really not see that he's pandering? Both sides do it. It's the unfortunate nature of American politics, and has been since our first elections.

[2rth2pwr]

2. ___