|
Edited on Tue Feb-05-08 12:04 PM by TornadoTN
I'm getting pretty confused by some of the logic in here, so I'm going to attempt to relieve some of this confusion by asking some questions.
Hypothetical (because I don't know where they stand on this crucial issue)
1.Barack Obama supports kittens. He loves kittens because he's always had an affinity for them. He also likes puppies but not as much as kittens.
2.Hillary Clinton supports puppies. She loves puppies because she's always loved puppies. She also likes kittens, but not as much as puppies.
If I had to choose a candidate based on these two statements, I would choose Obama because I prefer kittens over puppies. Not taking anything away from puppies, but to me I can associate my own love of kittens with Obama. Therefore, he gets my vote.
NOW - I come onto DU and post that I support Obama because of his love for kittens. Then all hell is unleashed upon me because:
1. I am somehow afraid of someone who supports puppies 2. By supporting someone who loves kittens I am trampling the rights and progress of puppy lovers everywhere. 3. Someone who supports kittens is not man enough to be called a man. (This was a real argument used against me in another thread)
How did we get to this point? We're both on the same side but we have some fundamental differences of opinion. At the end of the day, we all want to be working towards the same goal. Yet somehow by expressing support for one candidate it is automatically implied that we are afraid of "women" (or puppies, as it were) or outright blasted for being sexist. I support Obama, however, the genitals he was born with (or without) play no role into my decision to vote for (or against) him. I understand Hillary supporters are proud to have a strong woman to be running as their candidate, just as we are proud to have a strong man running as ours. But why is it automatically assumed that we Obama supporters are somehow sexist against Hillary just because we aren't voting for her? It makes me shake my head in disbelief.
|