NOT TRUE. By a wide margin.

Gee, you’re ‘beginning’ to think. Most have jumped on that assumption bandwagon eons ago.

Maybe it’s the ‘millionth’ post addressing white privilege, because its a phenomenon that so few admit to (normally it’s whites that deny it, but as is clearly evident, many non-whites are up to their necks in denial as well) Of course if you just get over whatever assumptions you feel like making and actually look at the evidence, Obama’s Canada fiasco is small potatoes compared to what the Clinton’s have done, including Hillary’s being the second largest receiver of health care contributions, yet she parades as the “true voice” for universal healthcare, of course what it really is, is universal purchasing of the health insurance industry’s product.

Time and time again, we’ve seen that black and brown folks have been held to much higher standards of morality and propriety, just look at the criminal justice system, and it’s the same thing panning out, in the electoral competition. I did in my post however, point out that this phenom is being exacerbated strongly by Obama’s own statements on “being a deviation from Washington”, etc.. etc…

Now SD, the relative correctness of your assumption is fairly irrelevant, but if you don’t think white privilege operates in female–>male assessments of worth and essence of being, (and it operates in the other direction as well, but I’m going with the direction you mentioned) then you’re pretty naive on that front as well.

This has to be the millionth post by HMF which somehow he brings up the issue of white privilege. Every little issue its the same thing over and over.

I’m beginning to think, that some desi girl you were seeing left you for some average looking white guy, and you never get over it.

Of course there’s counterexamples, which is why I said, “most likely” I’ll give you one, certain black males might not have a problem with voting for Obama, but may “never vote for a woman” regardless of who she was.

But say that every black male thought this way, (which is completely untrue) that means 50% of 12% of the population, 6%, would go against her by “misogyny”, hardly enough to have an effect.

I’d say, in the realm of electoral politics, if someone is willing to judge purely on gender, they’d be fairly likely to judge on race as well.

That’s way too simplistic–I’m not exactly up on that demographic, but I could easily come up with some counter-examples (which I don’t care to go into, b/c they’re so obvious).

However, any claim that Hillary has been a target of misogyny is pretty much groundless. Why? Because to someone who will “never vote for a woman” would most likely, “never vote for a black man” either. That’s for misogyny effecting actual votes, as for a misogynistic tint to media coverage. Again, falls short, because in Nov/Dec and even Jan, she was miss. media darling, it was only when Billary showed its ugly head that the press coverage turned south for her.

True, it’s also telling the people who are indeed considering voting against Obama because of some preconceived notion that he is muslim or has muslim ties (like the paper making gentlemen interviewed in that 60 mins segment) that, that is a viable reason to vote against him, because there is some minute possibility that it’s true.

That would make sense if Coulter possessed any humanity.

Just because she doesn’t do well with blacks and moguls?

Is this a true story or a fictional account with grotesque symbols? Just wondering if anyone knew. The ending was very nauseating yet funny.

“i take him on the basis of what he says.” “there’s nothing to base that on, as far as I know”

hmmm, that’s what you say when you think someone’s lying but you want to appear generous while maintaining the possiblility that they did it, like obama’s response in the debate as to whether he thought the Clinton camp sent out that photo (“i take her at her word”). sounded funny. you can check out the video (ohio segment) on 60min website, around 11:40 in. there’s a ray gun story that pretty cool too.