--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: <snip> > *Should* it never happen again? Sure. > > Will it? Of course. > > *Should* race never have been an issue > with Obama? Sure. > > Was it? Of course.
Nope, non sequitur, sorry. Obama was not the subject of racist attacks in the mainstream media and the lefty blogs, or from prominent Democrats. No comparison. > He was a strong enough candidate to > transcend race, and thus set the stage for > race not being an issue in a presidential > election ever again. > > Hillary was *not* a strong enough candidate > to transcend her gender, and thus she did > not do the same for women. Nope. Racism hasn't been acceptable as a public position in this society for quite some time before this election. If that hadn't been the case, Obama could never have won. Sexism, however, is still acceptable as a public position. No comparison. Were there any racist attacks on Obama and his supporters on FFL? Nope. Were there any sexist attacks on Hillary and her supporters on FFL? Scores. A lot of them from you. No comparison. > All women who have entered politics have > had to face this. The ones who are in office > don't whine about the sexism they encountered > the way you are doing. Hell, the *losers* -- > often because of sexism -- don't whine about > it the way you are doing. We aren't in office, nor did we lose an election. They aren't in a position to make a stink about what happened; we are. <snip> > Winning helps. When a woman candidate for > president comes along who is strong enough > to transcend gender the way that Obama > transcended race, *that* will help. For that to happen, sexism must first, like racism, become no longer publicly acceptable. That isn't the case now. It's *especially* not the case with you. > And I'll probably vote for her. Your not supporting Hillary didn't have a thing to do with her not being "strong enough to transcend gender." It had to do with *your* not being strong enough to transcend gender.
