Reply #16: My distinction with Clinton, et. al.

[KSinTX]

I need to step back a moment to get to my previous statement. Fear is what politicians use to divide the American people and we allow it. George Bush, in his attempt to 'one up' Daddy, took us into Baghdad - not because there was a security rationale for it, but because Americans were afraid. Using that fear, he has managed to strip basic freedoms from us - with our permission (based on a lack of outcry). He didn't hate us or believe Americans were "less than human" just thought we were stupid, which on some level we were.

http://www.adl.org/hate-patrol/racism.asp
Racism - It may be defined as the hatred of one person by another -- or the belief that another person is less than human -- because of skin color, language, customs, place of birth or any factor that supposedly reveals the basic nature of that person.

Clinton isn't advocating that people hate others or that they debase them for their color. She is seeking to justify her continued candidacy. To date she has undermined people of color, people who caucus, people who find guns abhorent, people who are activists, people who aren't religious and people who are educated. Basically, she is being dismissive of a number of groups. That is not the same as calling for hatred of them.

I don't feel she is responsible for our fears. If we fear war, if we fear being broke, if we fear death, if we fear people who don't look like us, those are our fears to bear. If she can appeal to them, then in the political arena, they are fair game. She is not advocating them, simply exploiting them.

Look, that she has sunk her campaign to these depths speaks volumes to me. I am merely a means to an end for her and she will slice and dice me however she can to get what she wants. She may personally be a closet racist or, heck, despise people who've served in the military for example, but her advocacy on the trail does not indicate a public play to racism nor to anti- or pro-veteran.