To answer the question in your first sentence, yes. To answer the affirmation in your second sentence, it's because you are a white male.

Tipping Sacred Cows

Do you really think people are so shallow they'd vote for someone just because they were the same sex or race?  Hell, I don't fell compelled to vote for someone because they are white or male.

Unfortunately, there are tons of people like that out there. I am in a city now where during the last election cycle the office of mayor was open. One member of a minority group ran for it and there were people on the train every day, the radio, letters in the paper, etc talking about how great it would be if "one of us" finally got elected to the office. I heard that line at least twice as much as any reasonable discussion about any single issue. It is sad. Not surprisingly, he won as mayor. I am not saying he won 100% of his outward appearance, but when you can lock up a large bloc of people who will vote just for that one shallow reason...
Yeah.

Nihilists! I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

I keep saying letting everyone vote is a bad idea and no one listens to me....

I agree, white people shouldn't be allowed to vote. They're sketchy.

Tipping Sacred Cows

I think it's process and that part of racial progress includes these biases up to a point. Until Kennedy was elected President, irish catholic was as much a subset of the population as a lot of other minorities, probably most akin to Mexicans today. There were still plenty of jobs irish catholics couldn't get. Once "one of us" became President, the next generation finally let go and moved on. People don't even think twice about it now. It will take having a black president or a woman president or an American President of Mexican descent before people in those subsets can begin to move past the issue as a group. That's a racist thing to say in many senses but if you step back and look at the history of racial integration in multiple societies, it's very true.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

A while ago there was this kerfuffle in Canada about Indian immigrants taking over local chapters of federal parties to make sure that only people of Indian descent could be nominated as candidates for federal elections. For some reason, the fact that immigrants of British descent had been doing the same thing for generations didn't come up in the debate.

If you want to win, you can't play by someone else's rules, you have to make your own.

Tipping Sacred Cows

Are we talking about Chris Rock or Dennis Kucinich?

Nihilists! I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

Chris Rock I saw. He was standing in line at the gumbo pot wearing sunglasses, facial hair, and a tweed english driver style hat. It was pretty funny because he was obviously trying to slip in and slip out but his voice when he ordered was unmistakable and he was the only person I could hear order from where I was sitting..

But to stay on track, his joke went that you could never have a white president and a black VP until there was at least one black president first because what black person wouldn't just go kill the president so that we'd have our first black president.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

   I've come toward the conservative side of late

   Geez, would have never guessed that, from the blog links in your Saudi terror bust sub :)

   I've also started to listen to conservative arguments a little more closely in the last five years, though I still think they're relativists posing as absolutists more often than not. This whole "leadership" thing, though, is one thing I can't do. Partially out of experience: there are folks I've worked with for five years now, and I still don't know how they'd react in a crisis or under pressure. Damn straight I'm going to hesitate to make the same judgment from people I see only in more or less managed public appearances. Even now, some of the New Right still praise W for his "leadership"-- the term seems more like shorthand for "I like this person." (You may be an exception, so no offense intended. Just speaking my mind.)
    If I were to pick one thing to judge a politician, it would be past performance, in style as well as policy. Hillary, for instance, would probably be a decent president. Confronted with a rather hostile conservative upstate New York, she didn't try to win by maximizing her base in New York City- though that would have been a winning strategy- but she took the effort to sell her campaign to folks who were probably never going to vote for her. If the success of a presidency (and the nation as a whole) benefits from the majority listening to minority party*, then this is a very positive sign. Has Obama even been around long enough in politics to have a track record? I dunno; sure seems like he's selling a biography more than anything else, though.
   For the same reason a McCain presidency wouldn't bother me too much, at least in potential, for much the same reason. He'll never get out of the primaries, though, so the point is moot.

    *And Republicans sure look as if they're doing everything possible to remain in the minority for at least four more years.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

When I do look strictly at policy, I think Clinton is the more appealing choice for me. She's got vastly more experience than Obama, particularly in previously being a part of the executive branch and in her effectiveness in the Senate. She literally took the Senate by storm and gets things done that it usually takes Senators 20 years of establishing themselves to do.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

She literally took the Senate by storm...

Sorry, but that's one of my pet peeves, when someone uses the word "literally" figuratively. (Or was there an actual meteorological storm of some sort?)

yeah, it's one of my pet peeves, too, actually. don't know why I did it.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's