Reply #48: Non-sequitur

[ihavenobias]

Offensive? I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "who are you to tell me how to respond and what to respond to". Honestly, it's as if you're responding to a completely different post.

No really, did you read my full post or did you just skim it for keywords? My WHOLE POINT was that *I* find it totally ridiculous that someone would not vote for someone primarily because of their gender or skin color (I also find it ridiculous that some people *would* vote for someone primarily because of their gender, skin color, accent or any other superficial factor).

But once again, simply acknowledging the fact that we *do* in fact have plenty of racism and sexism (and superficial judgment) in America (that is not likely to magically disappear during elections) does not equate with "giving in" to those things. Your comment reminds me of conservatives who (absurdly) say that discussing contraception is akin to promoting promiscuity.

Edwards has the best populist message of the top tier (top tier based on funding and polling BTW) candidates, and it's not even close. Populism has broad appeal and used to be the bread and butter of the party before the wave of DLC, corporate democrats took over. THAT is why he *should* be the most electable and is why *I* find him to be electable. I was also simply pointing out that unfortunately, there are stupid reasons why he also electable, the superficial reasons I went over.

If you disagree with this general point, explain all the people that voted for our current fool of a president because he seemed like a good guy to "have a beer with".