Ed, > I think that that explanation is very insulting. It > smacks of a sense of entitlement, as if Clinton were > somehow "owed" victory, and that Obama's biggest > affront was winning.
That argument has been used on both sides, as if the fact that Obama was seen as the first 'viable' African-American candidate for president meant that he should win so that we could become a post-racial society. The fact that he is not qualified for the job apparently does not enter into the equation. Given a choice between an unqualified African American candidate and a qualified white candidate whose opinions are unpopular about some issues, there are a lot of people that will still pick the white guy. In that respect, it is about qualifications. Kristyne _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
