Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton and White Voters

By Darryl Fears
Hillary Clinton said today that white voters "were supporting me," and that she was staying in the Democratic primary regardless of seemingly insurmountable odds against her winning it and growing calls to quit.

"I have a broader base to build a winning coalition on," Clinton told USA Today, citing Associated Press reports saying that Barack Obama's white support is shrinking.

Party faithful and pundits have been saying Clinton has no shot at capturing the nomination since Tuesday, when she lost big to Obama in North Carolina and barely beat him, by slightly more than a point, in Indiana.

Claiming to own the white, blue-collar vote appears to be a last, desperate effort by Clinton to persuade superdelegates to select her, said Andra Gillespie, an assistant professor of political science at Emory University in Atlanta.

The problem is that Clinton trails in the popular vote and the delegate count and has suffered a string of losses in the caucuses and primaries while winning most large states. Throughout the contest, Clinton, who is white, has been favored by white women and white blue-collar voters, especially those who did not attend college. Obama, meanwhile, has received about 90 percent of the black vote.

Clinton's gambit might split the party, Gillespie said, but Obama's historic run was bound to expose racial fissures that have long existed among Democrats.

"This is the first time you've had a black candidate who has a legitimate shot at the nomination," Gillespie said. "Having this first in an election was going to reveal these cleavages."

In another clear sign that the party is dividing along race, a pair of Democratic strategists engaged in an emotional exchange on national television. Donna Brazile, a black Democratic superdelegate who has remained neutral in the race, lashed out at Paul Begala, a white supporter of Clinton, as they commented on the race for CNN as votes were counted Tuesday night.

Begala said that Obama appealed only to the white elite. "We can't win with eggheads and African Americans," he said. Brazile ripped into him: "You insult every black blue-collar Democrat by saying that. So stop the divisions. Stop trying to split us into these groups, Paul."

In an interview with Time magazine, black novelist Toni Morrison said that those who think she called Clinton's husband, former president Bill Clinton, the first black president years ago, misunderstood her.

To clarify, Morrison said she felt that Clinton was treated like any black man on the street during the Monica Lewisky sex scandal in 1998, convicted before being proven guilty. "I have no idea what his real instincts are, in terms of race," Morrison declared.

Clinton's reputation among white Americans extended to his wife when the race to the nomination began. But after Obama won the Iowa caucuses, African Americans rushed to lift his historic bid. When the former president called Obama's opposition to the Iraq war a "fairy tale," and belittled his victory in South Carolina as a feat also achieved by another black candidate, Jesse Jackson Jr., black people fully rejected on both Clintons.

The black activist Web site, ColorofChange.org, has circulated a petition threatening "serious consequences" if Clinton somehow succeeds at obtaining the Democratic nomination.

By Web Politics Editor  |  May 8, 2008; 6:37 PM ET
Categories:  The Debate Rages On...  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Picks Up Bonior Endorsement
Next: Clinton's End Game

Comments

OK Mr. Begala,we know who the African Americans are,but tell me,whom do you consider to be eggheads?

The Clntons know that Hispanics are the new majority minority,so they have abandoned their African Americans friends ,they feel they no longer need them.

Watch out Paul,there may come a day when they feel they no longer need you and Carville...then they will throw you two under the bus.

Posted by: Justin | May 26, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

If you use the word Black or White when referring to people, you are opening the door of racism.

When you blame someone for something based on the color of their skin, you are most certainly racist.

When you want someone to act a certain way based on the the color of their skin, you are racist.

Posted by: DaveM | May 20, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

"One Nation Angrily-Divided with Liberty for All"; it seams - if many comments are a reliable indicator.

The overarching trend seems to insightfully suggest that Senator Obama will attract upwards of ninety percent of votes cast by likely Black citizens in the 2008 presidential election.

Much of this "dedicated" support is likely explained by a display of pent-up pride in the wake of a political phenomenon that has been "a long time coming."

There are atavistic (ancestral) undercurrents that steer a "minority" - within a huge universal census group - to reach for more focused visibility; Obama helps. This is derived from a minority group that has a sense of sociological invisibility. Because of this sense of invisibility (to the dominant census group) minorities, at times, "band together" (bloc) to enhance chances of being more loudly heard; more clearly seen; more equitably accommodated; and more civilly recognized by a civil society - of those of civil decorum.

This should help explain why 'narrow-focus' groups, as the Congressional Black Caucus, are formed and tolerated by the "Majority Caucus" - that has the broadest focus on serving the causes and needs of the most prominent; the most powerful. Why name and announce the formation and function of a "White Congressional Caucus?" If you already own it - there is no need to advertise it.

By the way - in spite of "Jim Crow," the "Codes," "Reconstruction" and a "rally-round Obama" clarion call - Black Americans, in the entirety of presidential elections, have cast their ballots for a White male candidate - one hundred percent of them - one hundred percent of the time; now that's some bias!

Posted by: scribbler1 | May 13, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Hillary has 11.4 million reason to saty in the race. If she can find enough poorly educated elderly racist white women to fund her reimbursement, I say let her have it!

Posted by: Njean | May 11, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

I am white, started out as very pro-Hillary - and no longer am, for reasons that many others have stated here.
I now support, and voted for, Obama. And I am absolutely sickened by the bigoted, racist, ignorant, and twisted trash that Hillary supporters have posted here.

The nomination contest was "colorless" until the Clinton camp started a race war.
Blacks were Bill's most loyal supporters, through and after his White House problems. But the Clintons lost them, and their support for Hillary, when they demeaned Obama - portraying him as a "Jesse Jackson," a joke, a losing cause, or a less-than-adult. Even those who'd supported Hillary were floored by the disrespect.
Once she lost blacks, her campaign became a race war - raising or implying race issues at every chance, encouraging slurs, trying to marginalize Obama as a black-only candidate, painting him as a creepy-mysterious "other" or cult figure, implying that his supporters were mind-controlled morons, and desperately pitching herself to blue-collar whites, via *any* means necessary.

Thanks to Hillary, issues took a backseat to race, ad-hominem attacks and slurs - because she didn't expect real competition, and couldn't raise real issues (since her platform is barely discernible from Obama's).

I saw these spin tactics firsthand - because, until I switched, I belonged to several official and unofficial Hillary-supporter lists. So I *know* where the dirt was coming from - from HRC's camp, not from the GOP.
The Obama camp has *not* used these sleazebag tactics - and I've really looked for them with a gimlet eye, after my HRC-sleaze experience.

Since the remaining primaries are in mostly-white states, Hillary has pulled out all of the "race" stops. Her slogan might as well be "Help Make White History."
It's obvious to all, and disgusting.

But her supporters' comments - like many of those here - are *more* disturbing. They're using this campaign as an excuse to vent every last bit of vicious anti-black hatred, and to gain votes via divisiveness - setting white vs. black, older vs. younger, "class" vs. "class."

Hillary has alienated the Dem base via her nuke-Iran comments, misspeaks, shadiness, and her campaign's racialism, right-wing mode, and insults to Obama voters - implying that these Democrats are sexist, not white enough, not "hard-working," or are a hypnotizable, overeducated Establishment elite. That's laughable, since HRC is a wealthy double-Ivy longtime Dem.-Establishment honcho, and relies on big donors - whereas Obama's support comes mostly from small-fry.

Out of desperation, she has narrowcast herself out of the party. The slice she's appealing to will most likely vote for McCain - regardless of who the Dem nominee is.
The "big-state" wins she crows about are hardly jaw-dropping. Even Pre-Desperation, she squeaked by with just 51% in Calif., 54% in NJ (which might well go GOP anyway) ... and 57% in NY, which is *not* the mega-win you'd expect in a senator's home-state, and in a two-person field. (In contrast, Obama won nearly 65% in Illinois.)
And from February until this past week, the Far Right was urging Republicans to vote for Hillary - viewing her as the weaker candidate. Many of her wins have been less than overwhelming - and a chunk of her "votes" undoubtedly came from Repubs who'd never vote Democratic in November.

And despite her win-at-any-cost divisiveness and the Bill-and-Hill power machine, she's still far behind by any measure - delegates, popular vote, states won - even *if* Fla. or Fla-Mich were included.

Hillary is not qualified, does not have majority support, and her ongoing antics and personality-switches have turned off many Democrats who voted for her in early primaries.
She isn't good for the party, or the U.S. - or even for her "base"-at-the-moment, since she's unprincipled, and switches horses, backtracks on agreements, and reshapes her reality at will.

Her campaign has become some sort of obsessive-compulsive disorder. It has brought out the worst in her and in her supporters - who have mindlessly reamed the Democraic voters, grassrootsers and donors who are *essential* to nomination, much less in winning a GOP-Dem. contest.
It's no wonder that she's far behind, has to keep lending herself money, and is tanking in the integrity ratings.

Posted by: exHillaryFan | May 10, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

If you're a racist you know it. You can redeem yourself from the sin of your confederate fathers by voting for Obama. He will inspire you to find yourself, be a better person, elevate your life to higher political and economic conditions and shed your obsession with mere skin color. worse, skin color of other people. How trivial is that? You will feel lighter spiritually and emerge from decay and conservatism to fulfill your Democratic destiny.

Posted by: Jude | May 10, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Just wanted some help here. Obama has a white Mother (An American and whose grant parents also while fought for America), and a black father from Kenya. Where do we place him, African-American, mixed race (black-white) or what? I have seen nowhere in this op oped where people talk of his white mother and white parents to re-enforce his true Americanism, but his color to question his patriotism? people should wake up and distinguish between leaders who use ignorance of voters to further their hateful agenda, and which does not help the ordinary Americans.

Posted by: geo | May 10, 2008 6:53 AM | Report abuse

I have heard that Senator Clinton, although on "life support," still has a political pulse but she would have to pull-off the equivalent miracle of "drawing to an inside straight" to rise as the standard bearer for the Democratic Party. That miracle, fragmenting, though it is apt to be, would have to come in the reincarnation of "late conversion 'super-delegates.'"

That is "doable" - and it would be legitimate. The "roll your own" notion of the obligation of a "super delegate" takes on a form and meaning that best suits personal preference. The very concept of supernumeraries is to build-in 'jam-busters.' If they were intended to vote to reflect the will expressed by the size of the popular vote the number (of 'extras') would have been allocated based on the size of the popular vote. Many of the "supers" do not have a constituency; are not directly tied to a state or to a district.

An aside: whether the Democratic nominee is Senator Clinton or Senator Obama and even if one of them should be elected president - the real power (political clout) as a group or class - will not be held by women (of all colors); not by Blacks (of all shades); not by Latinos: not by Native Americans; not by Oriental Americans; not by Arab Americans; not by 'blue-collar' workers (of all colors). The White male of substantial financial means and grandfathered "legacy" - is the Alpha American - and will continue to be the dominant force in American politics and its culture for millenia. Translation: a woman president - whether Senator Clinton or a sociologically Black male president- Senator Obama, is not and will not be a threat to the normal order of things; have no fear!


Posted by: scribbler1 | May 10, 2008 1:58 AM | Report abuse

The call from Hillary is out of desperation. She appears to be arrogant on this call. The stats will speak to her that theree are more mixed folks with color than as she calls them white folks. Many of us are hard working folks in the working class of America. Many of whom,hil is calling blue collar. She is appealing to women to come to her side, but when it comes to issues, Hil runs out to be like the man. What's up with this. The Primary is nearly over. She now has other issues to contend with. She appears in denial and exausted. We don't need to sling anymore mud. Tell her... it's over.

Posted by: mamamay | May 9, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

the real racist is Obama and Micheel ,in America just use the race card for blacks and you can get anything job, houses, money,crimmal justice , that is why they can threaten white,s with violence if Obma don,t get the job, it will be from now on that any black who chooses to run for public office will just use the race card and the white people will just shut up or face violence that is the future model for America P/S commercial jobs too for blacks

Posted by: Raul | May 9, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

I should fall to my knees and pray that our Democratic party is not comprised completely of utter morons like the authors of most of the above posts, but that might be a whopper of a request even for an omnipotent and omniscient God . . . Most of you people should just shut the hell up and do what I tell you now: vote for the Democratic nominee in November, whoever it is.

All of the shrill partisan vitriol accusing either Obama and Clinton of pandering to the darkest racist or sexist recesses of our souls obscures the danger posed by the most insidious "ism" of all: Bush-McCain Republicanism. EITHER Clinton or Obama will better represent the interests of white, black, brown, male, female, highly- or less-educated, young, old, boomers, beer-drinkin'- or latte-sipping, bowlers or golfers, white- or blue-collar wearin' folks, nearly everybody except possibly the corporate suits and far-right Neanderthals.

Get over yourselves, get beyond the parochial interests of your particular racial, ethnic, socio-economic, or some other damned irrelevant demographic and ELECT A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT in November. Still offended by either BHO or HRC or their surrogates?? Don't like Jeremiah Wright? Forget him, he doesn't matter. Sickened by Billary's win-at-any-cost tactics?? Who cares????? Grow up and just throw out the Republican plutocrats in November, or you will quickly and sadly discover that all these horrible insults you've suffered at the hands of your Democrat primary opponents will pale into utter insignificance by comparison to the national injury we will suffer with another four or eight years of the Republicans.

Can't rely on either Obama or Clinton to UNIFY rather than divide us Democrats? THEN be a unifier yourself . . . Can't manage that? Then at least shut the hell up.

Posted by: old white male democrat in W.Va. | May 9, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

His gang of black, white-hating supporters and white trash-talking surrogates who have been smearing and sneering at Clinton for so long can try to get him elected without her supporters.
This why HRC will NOT be elected. Racist to the core.

on the ads on tv:
While McCain has condemned the ad as not having a place in the political discourse Hillary Clinton, great champion for civil rights that she claims to be, has declined to comment on the ad and its appropriateness or inappropriateness in the political arena.

It turns out that Hillary will not fight against incivility and racial stigmatizing if it will benefit her on Election Day. Is this a surprise.
When Bill shakes that finger he has no defense and is lying. "I did not have sex with that woman."
her base is broad--we know--your jackets can't hide it.

Posted by: Katerina Deligiannis | May 9, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Sadly there is a lot of identity politics in the process. Race, gender and age are very apparent.

Hillary's base in not broader based on race. It's broader in the Democratic party based on gender and age. The party is about 54% women and she lost the nominating process. That is because young women voted for Obama and they narrowed the gender gap and created an age gap (which Obama wins handily).

The gender gap is erased in the general as Indy and GOP bring the balance back to 50/50. DEMS have not carried a majority of the "white vote" since I can remember.

If it was truly race Obama would not have won IA, WY, NE, KS, AK, CT, VT, MN, WA, WI, ID and throw in MT, SD, ND.

I agree that Obama's AA base "would have" supported Clinton if Obama were not running or doing well. They supported her as a majority before he won IA. But now that he has defeated her fair and square they would not support her if the nomination is handed to her.

For AAs, that would be like spitting in the face of the entire civil rights legacy that promised the "idea" that someone like Obama woould have a shot based on the vote. Not the superdelegate runoff election.

AAs support DEMS first and foremost because of the civil rights legacy. Kill that thru Clinton (and you would) and you throw out a 90/10 baby with the bathwater just to get Clinton and "maybe" have an easier time with McCain.

The 90/10 vote is linked to the very reason Obama cannot be denied the nomination. The AA views on guns, abortion, school choice, school prayer, gay marriage and other social issues are not all that different from the population as a whole. While basically more liberal and progressive the AA vote without civil rights would be no where near 90/10. AT 90/10 it delivers 10 net points to DEMS in places like WI (milwaukee), MO (st Loius), PA (philly), Ohio (cleve), etc throught a number of close states. Without the 90/10 the DEMS lose every time. It's not the 12% it's the 90/10 that matters so much.

Ironically, tHe best thing Obama has is the 90/10. It's underestimated in importance in the above states. (it is also important in IL, MD, NY, MI etc.) The reason its underestimated though is that his 90/10 will probably be 95/5 AND the AA turnout will be historic. So will the youth vote which will also be lopsided for Obama.

Of course he can win. It might not appear apparent but I beleive he WILL win.

If Obama gets robbed the AA vote will be nowhere near 90/10 ever again. That's the end of the story for superdelegates whether Obama actually beats McCain or not. In my opinion the question is now moot becasue its the party more than '08 election at this point. HIllary is done.

The DEMS will implode forever if they snub the vote and the AA vote in particular. THey'd lose not only this election but the 90/10 for the next 4 or 5 and they know it.

It's just over for Hillary in this cycle.

Now America gets to decide if it can elect an AA with limited overall experience in Washington and no executive governance. McCAin will look bad as he promises more Iraq, more of the same tax policy, and more borrow and spend.

If Obama were not Black he'd probably win in a landslide. But we'll see how it plays out. Unfortunately for the DEMS they have to trade risking 08 for certain defeat in 2012, 16 and 20 as AA split their vote.

The AA vote is powerful beyond conventional comprehension in the general. While only 12% of the population its much more of the vote for DEMS. 90/10 is a lot of points with a somewhat evenly divided white vote. Obama just proved that.

Whites are split more like 52 GOP, 48 DEM. The question is what will that split actaully be with Obama on top? I think it will be better than people believe unless actual DEMvoting DEMS vote on race. indy voters cannot really stomach McSame when all is said and done.

But the answer is simply we'll see 'cause Hillary is done.

The irony is the Hillary plea on race is that it solidifies the above argument. Race has become the only actual underlying rationale for taking it away from Obama. Becasue of the 90/10 it cannot be the reason and thus cannot be done.

It would kill the party. ....For a long long time.

just a reality check

Posted by: Reality Check | May 9, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

It's too bad if some people are partisan to the gender their soul is living in or the race when unity is so simple. Giving the respect you want and forgiving the unconsciousness of the past and making room at the head table for everyone. The Clintons have closely and carefully cultivated the African American voters in the past. Clinton was even called the First Black President. That's how congenial their values were across racial lines. So here is another departure for Clinton. Trouble is, a LOT of people aren't making decisions by race or gender but by values, by what they want in a leader, by who they want representing them to the world and by who they want balancing the federal budget. The old way is to divide people and get them doing battle. The new way is to inspire people and get them doing work, constructive work, making the world a better place for all. Not just some who need to fear some others and be selfish. For all. Can hardly wait.

Posted by: Gaias Child | May 9, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Why does our superficial media (a redundant phrase) continue to ignore the numerous mostly-white states that Obama has handily won? Are they that starved for simplistic, salacious and divisive memes to sell their papers with? Just pitiful.

Posted by: Mark | May 9, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Clinton as all too many elitists believes that working people in places such as WV & KY are ignorant racists.
I'm a New Yorker, (a real one born & bred) but I've lived in other places in the US & the world. I know that NY elitists sense of superiority is erroneous. I know that working people in the South & Midwest are often in a real sense less racist & bigoted than the PC NY DC crowd.
As a "white" New Yorker I apologize to the people in other states whom our junior senator has defamed. She is not one of us. She was forced upon us and won only because of weak opposition. She does not represent us but please forgive us for imposing her on the rest of the country.

Posted by: Miriam | May 9, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

How did Obama explained away his racism
Obama explained that he meant to say she his grandmother was a typical 'white person,' all of whom have an inbred fear of others. His later remarks about bitter, unemployed white folk clinging to their guns and religion and nervously eyeing strangers and free trade deals simply exacerbated his earlier remarks.
So it is not just what Wright has said, it is also what Obama has said and not said. To be "Catholic," Obama's own sins of commission and omission explain why many do not trust him.
You do not have to be older or white or less educated or less affluent to find such remarks disturbing -- unless you also believe that "down-scale" white folk are even more of a problem in this country than "rich white" folk.
In reality, the history of racism and discrimination in this country is much more complex than Obama's self-serving speeches suggests; not only have Asians and Latinos experienced it, so have many whites - unless, of course, you believe that the social and economic segmentation of this country occurred "naturally."

Posted by: Obama the real racist | May 9, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

If you have to be upset, why don't you get upset with some of these voters who vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. And why you are at it, why arn't you upset with 10 to 15% of these voters who are voting for Obama just because he is Obama?

Lets face it, if people voted the issues, this would be a different race.

Posted by: Al Kuhn | May 9, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

If you have to be upset, why don't you get upset with some of these voters who vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. And why you are at it, why arn't you upset with 10 to 15% of these voters who are voting for Obama just because he is Obama?

Lets face it, if people voted the issues, this would be a different race.

Posted by: Al Kuhn | May 9, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't Hillary know what happens to those who "stay too long at the fair"?

Posted by: lionladypa | May 9, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

I am a 65 year old white lady who had been supporting Hillary both morally and financially. So far I had donated to her campaign the sum of $1200 but NOT ANY MORE. It appears to me Hillary and her campaign do not like or love America. They are in this election for themselves and to repay her lobyists some favors. That disturbs me a lot! What she says and does are two different things. She has no intergrity, no moral values left for a president to rule a nation. She is a liar and addicted to it! She is a destroyer and keen on it with pleasure! She is a divider and desperate to accomplish it!It is about time someone drag her out off this race. She is a symbol of shame and disgrace for descent American women. She says and does anything to win a nomination! But that aint gonna happen, not this time around! Are people not seeing that the more she hates and bends on destroying OBAMA the more this young man is favored! The blind (Hillary/Bill) leading the blind(her supporters) are all ending to a ditch of self-destruction. We talk about peace, she is on about another war to obliterate a whole nation "Iran". There is already damage on us beyond our boundaries. When African American had all this while been voting for white politicians, no one called it a "race card being played on me"! Now they vote for a Black, it is called a race card played on me? THIS IS A PATHETIC POLITICAL GIMMICK! WE AMERICANS ARE NOT RACIST! THOSE WHO ARE ARE NOT AMERICANS! My cash goes to Obama! My support goes to Obama! He is desperate to unite us and heal our wound globally! MAY ALL THOSE WHO RISE UP AGAINST HIM FALL! MAY ALL THOSE WHO ACCUSE HIM PROVED TO BE WRONG! GOD BLESS AMERICA AND GOD BLESS OBAMA 08. I AM DONATING HIM $1700

Posted by: jane | May 9, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

so hillary-richard mellon-scaife-rupert murdoch-rush limbaugh-rodham-von clinton voted for THE WAR.

BUSHCLINTONBUSHCLINTONBUSHCLINTONUSHCLINTONEXECUTIVEPOWERBUSHCLINTONBUSHCLINTONBUSHCLINTONEXECUTIVEPOOWERBUSHCLINTONBUSHCLINTONDICTATORSHIP....

Posted by: jeff | May 9, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Oh Lord, give me a hammer to hit my head with.

Will this woman stop at nothing? Doesn't she know she's turning into a stereotype before our very eyes?

I can't wait to see how her fence-mending project goes. Her spokesperson on NBC election night was a shrill harpy.

Posted by: tony the pitiful copywriter | May 9, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

IN RESPONSE TO: "Ok, and what about all the sexist comments seen right here. "cover her up, her slip is showing"- how acceptable would it be to make references to Obama's skin color? Stop the double standard."

That's bull. VERY few of the anti-Hillary comments here have been "sexist." Almost ALL of the anti-Hill comments here object to her tactics -- NOT to her gender.
In contrast, the anti-Obama comments include swill like:
-- "Would someone give no-name a hankie to get the brown off [Obama's] nose. It has been up Obama's a** so long he is a non-thinker."
-- "obamas kabinet: Rev Wright as white haus chaplain ... the honorable Rev. Farrakhan as press secretary."
-- The Democratic leadership is trying to nominate Obama "just because he's black"
-- "I am not voting for Obama and the only people I know supporting him are blacks at work ... The blacks can have the party."

In fact: Pro-Hillaryites have produced all of the ugly, divisive "racial" posts here. These include racial insults, scare-warnings of black insurrection, and the implication that Obama is some sort of vapid "boy" who's being supported only by irrational black mobs, abetted by liberal-guilt whites.
I'd expect this "vote white" sewage from Limbaugh ditto-heada -- not from Democrats.

And the "If Hill doesn't win, I'm voting for McCain" comments just tell me one thing: Those people CANNOT be Democrats, or feminists, or pro-blue-collar. What kind of Democrat or feminist would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade and continue the Iraq war? How are blue-collar whites helped by tabling health coverage forever, promoting NAFTA, and continuing GWB's disastrous policies?
Hence, the "vote McCain" crew either are GOP Fifth Columnists, misguided airheads, or part of some desperate HillCult.

This is one lifetime-Democrat, middle-aged white woman who voted for Obama.
I campaigned and fundraised for Bill C in '92 and '96. I initially leaned toward Hillary in this campaign.
But I am a rationalist, and these are serious times. I concluded that she just wasn't qualified: She was running on Bill's experience, had no elective experience prior to her custom-made Senate job, and no "theme" or plan at all, other than "Here I am, I deserve it." She further lost me via her divisiveness, dishonesty, and never-ending attacks.
Most of my friends/coworkers (male and female) also went with Obama -- though we're supposed to be Hillary's "base."
And I assumed that my whole mostly-white blue-collar neighborhood would be wildly pro-Hill. Turns out that many people are NOT -- and she even has turned off people who _voted_ for her in the primary (some of whom now display Obama rally and yard signs, and have donated to O.).

Hillary fans: We've caught on to Hillary's spin tactics:
She tries to mask her own unique faults by projecting them onto Obama.
She attacks first, and endlessly -- and then claims to be a "victim."
She will do anything to win, has no principles, and will throw anyone under the wheels.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Please vote Hillary, my fellow Aemricans. Then, in 2016, vote for Laura Bush.
Then, in 2024, vote for Chelsea Clinton.
Then, in 2032, vote for Jenna. Or Barbara. Whichever one is the smartest.

If you love your country, you'll just do it and never ask why.

Posted by: N.W.O. | May 9, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

One more thing: I hate how politicians take advantage of less educated people by manipulating image in the media. Mrs. Clinton has a very pro-gun control record, she is pro-life, and hers and Mr. Obama's proposals are very similar, except one could say her universal health care plan is even more "liberal" than his. Mr. Obama was raised by a single mom who was on food stamps at one point, and he has lived the American dream by moving up in the world through hard work and taking advantage of opportunities afforded him. How does she get to claim the "regular gal" vote? Because she's denying her own priviledge and voting history and talking with that ridiculous redneck twang in the back of a pick-up truck, and the media covers it without critical examination of it. I respect that Mr. Obama seems to have a core personality and calm demeanor that does not change based on pandering for votes. If he loses, he loses with integrity and grace. What more could a person hope for? If he wins, America gains an intelligent, thoughtful, graceful and, yes, imperfect, president who can model civility and integrity (for a change). After six years of an administration who tries to change the perception of the facts by claiming ownership of reality and presented themselves as "compassionate conservatives," "not nation builders," etc., in 2000, I'm ready for some consistency and integrity. You can say what you want about "elites" but anyone with any education can see through these lies.

Posted by: bethechange1 | May 9, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Okay, I officially peeled my "I miss Bill" bumper sticker (from the Clinton Library) off my car. I am completely sick of the Clintons and their win-at-any-cost strategy that is starting to look not only futile, but self-centered and destructive. There is no doubt that there are white people who will never vote for a black male. However, Al Gore and John Kerry did not win the group that Hillary is pandering to either - she could focus on the perception of social class or the gun/religion cultural issues, but to focus on race is unforgiveable. She and her campaign are opening the pandora's box for republicans and bigots, and it is sad that this is coming from another democrat, especially since she has no chance of winning at this point (except in her own mind). I think the Clintons are hurting their own legacy at this point. I was a fan, I am no more. One more point: if she really thinks that those "hardworking, uneducated, white" voters would vote for a woman in the fall over a conservative white male - she's dreaming. Think about it in reverse - what if Obama was a white male, unable to win, but putting forth the idea that certain uneducated males wouldn't vote for a woman. That would be equally dispicable.

Posted by: bethechange1 | May 9, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Okay, I officially peeled my "I miss Bill" bumper sticker (from the Clinton Library) off my car. I am completely sick of the Clintons and their win-at-any-cost strategy that is starting to look not only futile, but self-centered and destructive. There is no doubt that there are white people who will never vote for a black male. However, Al Gore and John Kerry did not win the group that Hillary is pandering to either - she could focus on the perception of social class or the gun/religion cultural issues, but to focus on race is unforgiveable. She and her campaign are opening the pandora's box for republicans and bigots, and it is sad that this is coming from another democrat, especially since she has no chance of winning at this point (except in her own mind). I think the Clintons are hurting their own legacy at this point. I was a fan, I am no more. One more point: if she really thinks that those "hardworking, uneducated, white" voters would vote for a woman in the fall over a conservative white male - she's dreaming. Think about it in reverse - what if Obama was a white male, unable to win, but putting forth the idea that certain uneducated males wouldn't vote for a woman. That would be equally dispicable.

Posted by: bethechange1 | May 9, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Okay, I officially peeled my "I miss Bill" bumper sticker (from the Clinton Library) off my car. I am completely sick of the Clintons and their win-at-any-cost strategy that is starting to look not only futile, but self-centered and destructive. There is no doubt that there are white people who will never vote for a black male. However, Al Gore and John Kerry did not win the group that Hillary is pandering to either - she could focus on the perception of social class or the gun/religion cultural issues, but to focus on race is unforgiveable. She and her campaign are opening the pandora's box for republicans and bigots, and it is sad that this is coming from another democrat, especially since she has no chance of winning at this point (except in her own mind). I think the Clintons are hurting their own legacy at this point. I was a fan, I am no more. One more point: if she really thinks that those "hardworking, uneducated, white" voters would vote for a woman in the fall over a conservative white male - she's dreaming. Think about it in reverse - what if Obama was a white male, unable to win, but putting forth the idea that certain uneducated males wouldn't vote for a woman. That would be equally dispicable.

Posted by: bethechange1 | May 9, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

If any other politician or corporate executive in the country had used these words, they would be castigated. But the Clintons seem to get a pass. My hope is that this entire campaign is revisited if she runs for re-election to the Senate in New York.

Because playing the race card as part of her do and say anything to win values is Racist. She does not deserve to hold any political office with such values.Politics will get cleaner when the electorate starts expecting more from their representatives, and throw them out if they cannot live up to higher standards. You get the government you deserve

Posted by: PatrickNYC | May 9, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

If there's a Clinton on the ballot, deciding who to vote for will be as easy as ABC - Anybody But Clinton, the racist beach.

She may have the white/ignorant redneck vote sewed up, and her classmates and their stupid cow friends will vote for her, but who wants THOSE people choosing our leaders? We did that 8 years ago!

I don't believe that after her recent comments, anyone else will be voting for her. She's a poison pill for the Democrats - the whole party.

I also find it HIGHLY amusing that she thinks that white middle class men would vote for her!!! ROTFLMBO!!!

Posted by: Nofluer | May 9, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

There is no way to wiggle Hilly out of her statement. There is no way to cut her any slack. It was her words and her words alone. SHE actually used the words WHITE PEOPLE ARE VOTING FOR ME. She said the code word "WHITE". She can't make it any clearer where she stands. How can she possibly identify with me? She can write a $5,000,000 check, yet I can't find 5 cents under the sofa cushions. She doesn't even have a poor past to relate to. She started her campaign wth an ad showing her surrounded by fine furniture and things. What are these hard working people going to get for their votes, other than the privilege of voting for a White woman? It's all about her. It is just wrong to use people and play on their fears and emotions as Hilly is trying to do. Voters are Jurors. These voters will set aside all of this mess, fears and weigh the evidence of WHAT'S best and not WHO'S best for them and this Country. The person who possesses the ability to make the What's Best for this Country happen will be the person voted into office. Who that person is will not matter by November.
Hilly will be shocked when these people turn on her for fronting them through race-baiting. They'll show her who's the dumb@ss.

Posted by: livefreeor | May 9, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Honestly, I do not understand why so many people are up in arms about blacks supporting Obama, when they supported Billary until HE showed his true colors in SC. Thanks to Bill, Hillary lost her black pass. But pro-black is NOT anti-white.

I don't see anyone screaming its racist, sexist, and ageist that Hillary has the support of white woman over 65!

BTW, blacks are not stupid. Prior to Iowa, most blacks didn't support Obama because they felt he was unelectable, so why waste a vote? That's why blacks didn't support Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. But after Iowa, Obama proved he was electable and after SC, Clinton proved she didn't deserve the support of blacks.

Posted by: tired of the drama | May 9, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Sometimes the truth is just that, the truth.

Posted by: LTCSTAN | May 9, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

mr united - you are full of it - jews are not for obama - many are for mccain due to obama's stupid notion that he will speak to the prez of iran - give me a break- zero experience - I'm for clinton and will vote mccain - obama is pulling the sheets over all of your eyes - wake up america

Posted by: lisa | May 9, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Don't tell anybody but most of Barack Obama's supporters and voters are of the lighter persuasion (white).
This includes republicans and independents.

Republicans that voted for Hillary starting with Texas and Ohio, will vote republican in November.

Jews prefer Obama 61% to 38% over McCain,
according to a recent Gallup poll

Posted by: Mr. Unite Us | May 9, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Don't tell anybody but most of Barack Obama's supporters and voters are of the lighter persuasion (white).
This includes republicans and independents.

Republicans that voted for Hillary starting with Texas and Ohio, will vote Republican in December.


Posted by: Mr. Unite Us | May 9, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

No question Clinton's comment were intended to be racially polarizing.

Now do you think those refuse to vote for Obama because of skin tone, would be more likely to vote for Clinton or McCain in the general election.

Clinton's naive assumption is that they will vote her.


Posted by: Mr. Unite Us | May 9, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Aspergirl: Or so you call yourself. I am a black male who is not at all angry at white females who support Clinton. I do, however, get angry at females (white or black) who like you feel that just because Clinton is a female she should be crowned President. Likewise I did not vote for Obama simply because of his skin color. As a matter of fact I was a Clinton supporter until the S.C. statements made by Bill; followed by the Geraldine Ferraro statement. Aspergirl it appears that it is you who have a psychological problem with black men. I bet you are one of those white women who automatically clutch your purse whenever you see a black man approaching. I could respect you if you were at least honest with yourself and with others about your latent racism. For years and years blacks have consistently voted Democratic - and guess what all of the candidates were white males. So to say that because Obama is getting 80+% of the black vote is an example of black racism is preposterous. Have you ever considered the notion that blacks, young people, educated people, etc. are supporting Obama because of his charisma, policy, freshness, and yes lack of Washington experience. I wish I could say that I pity you; but I don't. I revile you because you do not appear to have the intellectual ability to disagree with the other candidate without resorting to base uneducated vitriol.

Posted by: Jimmy | May 9, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Donna, fat lot of good you did Al Gore - go away.

Posted by: jtool
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are absolutely about Brazile. She screwed him over in 2004 when he would have beat George W. in a landslide.

I'll tell you one thing...had that been Hillary in 2000, she would have fought George W et al. until "the last dog died" and she will do it in 2008.

I am so proud of her....she is the class of the field.

Posted by: Hillary Simply the Best | May 9, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

So if 90% of Black Americans vote for a White man that's o.k. But if 90% of Black Americans vote for a Black man then that's racist?

Does that mean that the 90% of Jews that voted for Lieberman are anti-Christian?

Does that mean the 95% of Mormons that voted for Romney are anti-nonMormons?

Does that mean the women that vote for Hillary hate men?

Those that have hatred in their hearts are need to assume hatred in others to justify their own hatred.


Posted by: Mr. Unite Us | May 9, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

WHEN WILL PARTY RESTORE ORDER TO DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

How degrading for the Clinton Klan to drag the Democratic party into the pit of racism.

Hillary, Bill, Paul, Mannie, James Carville, Terry, Rush, Hannity, Bill O...and the rest of their brown shirt biggies must be stopped.

Reject fear and anger...choose dreams and hope. Live Free!

Posted by: Ricky Galileo | May 9, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

dpmd: My latest :Exactly was directed to you and showed up several posts later. I can only say again by looking at the EC map I can see NO WAY for him to win. The Repubs that changed their Registration and voted for him in their effort to stop Hillary along with those that voted for him in the X-Over states will go back and vote for McCain in the GE, and in the Red states there is NO WAY again that he can win. This has been, and continues to be the FALSE information being put for by The Media and his other supporters.

Posted by: lylepink | May 9, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

I bet all the geezers who talk down Obama are ancient and have no "myspace" nor have they even heard of it. Obama will be the president, more! he will be the president for the world. Unless you're a total fool to engage in self flagellation you'll shed your fear, vote for Obama and Uplift yourself politically and economically.

Posted by: Penny | May 8, 2008 8:58 PM
*********
haha! Sadly, I cannot tell if this is sarcasm, or an Obama supporters actual opinion.

Posted by: Echo2 | May 9, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

While it is true that she won less educated whites, the quote that she gave to USA Today would have made Lee Atwater cringe. Hard working whites, etc. is some race baiting at worst and a pandering gaffe at minimum. Look at the exit poles. Obama doesn't have a "white" problem. He has an over 65 problem. You decide for yourself why they are the last on board.

Posted by: End This | May 9, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

To the white blue collar people:
Hillary Clinton thinks blue collar whites are the dumbest people in the world. After selling out the middle class on health and supporting NAFTA while in the White House, she thinks you guys are so stupid that you'll turn out and vote her back into the white house. She thinks you are too stupid to figure out that the oil companies will just increase the price of gasoline to pay for the increased taxes on them during the so called gasoline tax holiday. She thinks you're too stupid to to figure out that lowering the price will increase demand and that the increased demand will increase the price. She thinks you're too stupid to know that W will never sign a bill increasing the tax on the oil companies. She thinks you're too stupid to realize that institutional racism is costly to maintain and places an unfair burden on the backs of white blue collar workers. She is hoping you're either too stupid or too afraid to face the truth.

She thinks you're too stupid to figure out the message that she and other bigots are sending to blacks : "You should be proud to be an American. Of course, you can never be president, and you can never have the best jobs, you'll always be a 2nd class citizen, you'll never get justice, and the police will shoot you down in the middle of the street. We think America is great and so should you". She thinks you're too stupid to see through that faulty logic. I can only hope that she is wrong.

Posted by: msmart2 | May 9, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Exactly, and to others like JCbile the SC comment wasn't in any way "Racist". This is being done by The Media and his supporters and it is plainly FALSE. Take another look at my QUOTE and hopefully you will be able to understand.

Posted by: lylepink | May 9, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Shawn said > May 9, 2008, 12:45

I didn't hear racists like you complaining when "these people" voted 90% for Bill. Hmmmm. I guess as long as "these people" know their place, people like you are okay with it. BTW, I'm white, middle class, 2.5 kids, etc. Idiots like you would vote for a dog if it were running against someone from another race.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

After her comments yesterday, this is one white man who does not want Hillary on the ticket, even as Obama's running mate.

As a New yorker, I may never vote for her again.

She has some major apologizing and fence-mending to do, before I would ever consider bestowing any credibility on her whatsoever.

Posted by: scootmandubious | May 9, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

The critical point about Hillary comes down to this:

If she is winning all of these different demographics...why is she not WINNING?

Posted by: Proud Egghead | May 9, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Begala's comments were contemptuous. I'd love to see somebody take the smirk of that punk's mug.

Hillary is Richard Nixon sick...

Posted by: Proud Egghead | May 9, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Meant point to race . . . not sex.

Posted by: Trey in Indy | May 9, 2008 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Stupid argument!!!!! Hillary has been winning the white vote because she wins the WHITE FEMALE vote 60% to 40% or 70% to 30% in almost every state. I know the media doesn't point to it, but with 60% of the Democratic base female, this makes her look like a much stronger candidate than she is. (only 52% of the general electorate is Female).

Now tell me with a straight face that these white women who have voted Democratic through thick and thin are all of a sudden not voting for Obama because he is Black; but they'll vote for McCain who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade???

Not going to happen, funny how everyone points to sex, but they won't point out the majority of Clinton's coalition is Female which heavily skews the statistics. In fact I believe when it comes to WHITE MALES it's a wash and I would love someone to do the statistics. So this is a false statistic that Hillary and the media are playing up.

p.s. - 15% of her voters in Indiana said they would vote for McCain over her; not a very strong coalition when you look at it that way. I would bet most were men and that makes her Female crutch even bigger.

Posted by: Trey in Indy | May 9, 2008 9:01 AM | Report abuse

For God's sake, how can anyone with an ounce of pride get up in the morning and say, "I am better because I have the support of all the dumb white crackers."

Posted by: Chief Two Dogs | May 9, 2008 8:53 AM | Report abuse

The only people screaming racism are Obama supporters and they have labled all people supporting Clinton--about half of the voters in primaries--as racist for doing so. It is the Obama side that has played the race card--Axelrod knew exactly what he was doing when he played it after New Hampshire--and then with Ferraro--and now calling all Clinton supporters racists--the press is eating it up and emphasizing that it is the white 64% voting for Clinton who are racists and not the 91% of blacks voting for Obama. I don't believe that race is as important as people think--but the extremists will keep screaming and influencing nothing...

Posted by: dpmd | May 9, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

j smith what you're saying is absolutely nuts.

Obama's difficulties getting white votes tend to be in places where:

1. the population is almost entirely white.
2. the population is largely uneducated.
3. membership in the KKK was -- and sometimes still is -- viewed as socially acceptable.

I don't know if you've ever been to Wyoming, North Dakota, Idaho, Nebraska, Washington state, Iowa, New Hampshire, or Maine -- but those states tend to be about as white as you can get. I don't get the sense many folks in those states are having any hard regrets.

Some of the old-timers though are looking for any and every excuse not to vote for a politician -- simply because of his skin color. It doesn't matter if the guy might help them out and do them a lot of good. It doesn't matter how much sense you talk to these old-timers. They seriously think a major presidential candidate has a "secret" agenda to "enslave the white race".

Those people are absolutely nuts -- and they exist in this country today!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

so much attention has been given to the race issue. I think it is overstated. Of course African Americans are going to support an African American candidate. The interesting thing in this election is why is Hilary doing so poorly among white males? Why is she doing so well among the elderly? I wish the "so called experts" would probe the white male issue more. do some scientific polls probing why white males do not support Hilary. This is a most interesting phenomenon. Do white males reject women candidates? Is it just Hilary? Why?

Posted by: Howard | May 9, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

If a Repub had said what Hillary said, he'd be crucified as a racist. If Obama had marginalized working-class whites the same way that Clinton marginalized blacks, he'd be called all kinds of a racist.

It's not about accuracy, it's about SENTIMENT. Rev. Wright was right in many respects, but he proved hmiself to be full of anti-American sentiment, and THAT is what bothered people about him (and, by association, Obama). Geraldine Ferraro was right in many respects, but her sentiments were polarizing. And she had to go. Now the candidate herself -- not her preacher, not her fundraiser, not her husband -- HILLARY CLINTON HERSELF -- has made a far more racist statement than any of them. Dems need to kick her to the curb, now, and show there is no place in the party for abject racists.

Or, they can simply concede that Dems are inherently no more friendly to blacks than Repubs, which is what I've been saying for decades.

Bottom line: if Obama was wrong for staying in Wright's church, Clinton has to be ten times wronger for uttering Wright-like racial pandering. Here's the audio, listed for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfidftLe5Z0

Posted by: gbooksdc | May 9, 2008 8:43 AM | Report abuse

"SHAME on You" Hillary, If I would have known back then what I know now, I would not have voted for Bill. Is Hillary running for the President of the United States or President of the white people! You should change your name to McClinton. Who should I vote for, Hillary or Bill? "Shame on both of you". I guess Hillary feels like the "privileged one, so the white people owe her a vote, I guess she is not concerned about Hispanics, Jews, Indians, Biracial and Blacks voting because she has the white votes. Come on people wake up stand for something because if not you will fall for anything racist Hillary says. She is dividing all Americans.

Posted by: MsG | May 9, 2008 8:38 AM | Report abuse

As far as the 90 percent vote goes, this one is a no-brainer.

Black (African-American) voters across this country have voted for candidates of all races for years.

Even in head-to-head match-ups race has never been the sole factor that determines a vote. Sharpton didn't win South Carolina in 2004 -- Edwards did; with Kerry a distant second; and Sharpton a very distant third. Sharpton got 10 percent of the vote in state where the primary electorate is close to 50 percent black, so both Edwards and Kerry were getting support from all racial groups.

What's different here is that there are some white voters who HAVE NEVER and WILL NEVER vote for a black candidate UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

The fact that a person votes for someone who has the same skin color doesn't necessarily make a person a racist.

A racist is someone who under NO CONDITIONS will ever vote for someone who does not have their skin color simply because that person does not have share the same skin color.

Posted by: JP2 | May 9, 2008 8:34 AM | Report abuse

In the early primaries obama had a lot of white support, they were paying a lot of college students to follow them around & it got a lot of the young voters who said we better get on the bandwagon before we get left out, but after they were on they found out that the wagon had some squeaky wheels just like the other campaigns maybe more. once they started taking a second look at obama they began to waffle, now his support is not as solid in all states as it was early with the white voters, in the 2 primaries just concluded I seem to remember obama having an 8 point lead in Indiana after pennsylvania & he got beat by 1 or 2 & he had a 20 point lead in north carolina & won by 14 , he lost support in both states but the press ignores that & keeps telling us how great his victory was now that makes me wonder about our fine journilists.In the case of losing support those early voters should understand you have to be careful what you wish for [YOU MIGHT GET IT].

Posted by: j smith | May 9, 2008 8:34 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton dynasty's campaign is having money trouble. To show their commitment to fight on until the bitter end, here's an idea. First, let Hillary and Bill dig down in their own deep pockets to pay off outstanding debts. They should consider what they have already loaned the campaign effort to be gifts rather than loans.

Then, set up a matching scheme whereby each dollar donated from supporters will be met with a dollar gifted from their millions.

These changes should justifiably make the dynasty's campaign look less like a family operation teetering on bankruptcy, and more like an effort strengthening Sen. Clinton's contribution to her Party's victories in replacing Bush and the Bush hugger along with their down-ticket associates.

Posted by: FirstMouse | May 9, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

"Will someone please tell me why 90+% of blacks voting for Obama is not "Racist" and 60 to 65% of whites voting for Hillary is???"
----
Well, when the Clintons insulted Blacks in South Carolina, there was only one logical explanation of why Obama is now getting 90% of the vote.

The Clintons sought to make Obama the black candidate from the beginning and unfortunately for them they have been very successful.

When this race started, blacks and their leaders looked at Obama as a wannabe. His early success and the Clintons's insult to Black voters change the tide.

Posted by: JCbile | May 9, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

The one thing clinton is leaving out or acting like she dont care about is the youth, which come in many form, and will be the big voice in the next election...so she wont win then, for sure!

Posted by: pam | May 9, 2008 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Tim -- the elites come in three classes.

1. The educated elites;
2. the moneyed elites;
3. the elites who have both money and education.

The educated elites and the educated elites with money tend to be Democrats.

The moneyed elites and trust-fund kids tend to be Republicans.

The educated elites haven't called the shots in this country in a while time.

The closest we got was probably with Bill Clinton. He was a closet educated elitist who could hide a first-rate education behind some southern charm. JFK was probably a mix of the two as well.

The Bushes would fall in the big money field -- Reagan could play the average guy, but he was after all just a Hollywood movie star and he was loaded. He had no problem dropping the top tax rate from 50 percent down to the lowest levels that we've seen since the Great Depression (Clinton kicked them back up a bit; the George. W. kicked them back down).

What you say about the other business is pretty much on the mark.

People tend to vote for politicians that they identify with (it can be based on race, gender, an accent, religious background, or some other connection).

Issues matter too though.

As a general rule, if a person is in the top .01 percent and doesn't have any sense of civic responsibility -- they should vote for the Republican 10 times out of 10.

If a person is a member of any other group; or a well-to-do person with a sense of civic pride the choice should almost always be the Democrat.

In this election year McCain is the candidate of the billionaires who want more tax shelters and corporate welfare.

Both the Dems -- Obama and Clinton -- are going to strike a much more reasonable balance.

Posted by: JP2 | May 9, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Ok, and what about all the sexist comments seen right here. "cover her up, her slip is showing"- how acceptable would it be to make references to Obama's skin color? Stop the double standard.

My main point is that Donna Brazille is a angry little hack in politics. THANK YOU DONNA FOR GUIDING GORE SO BADLY THAT HE DID NOT TAKE THE PRESIDENCY EVEN GIVEN PEACE AND A GREAT ECONONY. She knows next to nothing. She has never been neutral in this campaign- she is the one who called Bill's fairytale speech "racist"- I challenge you to find racism in that speech- but the Obama campaign used the charge of racism to drop Clinton from competitive (30-40%) in the AA vote for SC to 8-12% allowing him to claim a signficant victory after losing Nevada and NH and saving his campaign.

Donna Brazille- evil little incompetent loser.

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 8:13 AM | Report abuse

Just who is supporting Hillary? You tell me? Nearly 1/2 the Dems. are supporting her. She has no black support. Who are her supporters, please?

Posted by: Chief | May 9, 2008 7:57 AM | Report abuse

Will someone PLEASE give Ms. Hillary a crisp, white sheet so that she can cover up? It's chilly outside...and besides, her slip is showing.
=========================================

Would someone give no-name a hankie to get the brown off his nose. It has been up Obama's a** so long he is a non-thinker.

Posted by: Chief | May 9, 2008 7:50 AM | Report abuse

I am black and for years admired and supported the Clintons. Before the results in Indiana and N Carolina indicated Obama had weathered the character assassinations and self inflicted wounds from speaking about rural disconnect, I intended to hold my nose and vote for Hillary in November despite her and Bill resorting to racial polarizing comments to keep her candidacy afloat. But as of yesterday's rants from her and Wolfson, I could never bring myself to pull a lever for a Clinton again. Ok, if Chelsea ever enters politics and disdained the sins of her parents, she could earn my vote.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 7:48 AM | Report abuse

Once again, Clinton lies and distorts. It is not true white voters are simply supporting her. Nor is it true "white women" are supporting her. What is true is "white women" predominantly 50 years and over are supporting her. They are her strongest base along with seniors. But if you take white women from 21 to approximately 35, they are for Obama.

I know. Here in Howard County in Indiana, with a strong history of racism, young white women were overwhelming for Obama. Unlike older women and seniors, race does not mean anything to them. They have moved beyond race.

It is time for Hilliary to stop the racial divisiveness and seek to heal the racial wounds in America. It is time for her to be tough on the tough issues, unlike she was on voting for the war and what she is doing today to divide the country on race.

And if you do not believe she is doing this, then why did she circulate a brochure in the neighborhood's of Kokomo, Indiana,--just last week-- with a picture containing only white people on it and not one single person of color? She knows better. It is all about winning for her, not principles nor healing this country of the biggest issue that stains America--race.

Posted by: Walt | May 9, 2008 7:47 AM | Report abuse

This is the Southern Strategy of the late 60's/Early 70's GOP.
It's disgusting;

Posted by: Daniel Smith
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What is she supposed to say. Maybe "I've got the non-black working class vote" or "I"ve got the non-black and maybe one black vote working class vote" or "I've got the typical white working class vote" Are you suggesting an untruth?

Posted by: Chief | May 9, 2008 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Bill caused controversy with his statements during Hillary's campaign, but guys haven't forgotten his actions as Governor in Arkansas or in the White House.
Posted by: Marks |
============================================
How many of you good men appalled by Clinton's White House deed would have turned Monica down? Yep. None?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 7:39 AM | Report abuse

Vote Democratic in November!

Posted by: deb | May 9, 2008 7:29 AM | Report abuse

The media and Obama himself have emphasized race- but let Clinton mention race and she is labled a racist. Many months ago, Michelle Obama gave a speech about the "black man" and no one blinked an eyelash. The "it's OUR turn" comments from Michelle Obama and her supporters went unchallenged. Those types of comments are about revenge, not about who is the best qualified candidate.
The media reports that Obamas support among blacks is in the 90% range, in N.C. the media reported 91%, but Clinton is stll branded the racist for mentioning the white race--what HYPOCRITES you are!

Posted by: CR | May 9, 2008 7:22 AM | Report abuse

Let's all admit to the truth. The Deomcrats are the party of race, gender identify, sexual orientation etc.

They represent mutli-culturalism and this is the down side of that concept. The Clinton's and the democarts have always been made up of liberal closet racists. They preach about racial integration but live in segregated upscale neighborhoods.

Republicans leaders talk about sexual moarality and cheat their rearends off and the Democartics leaders talk about racial harmony and parctice raical divisiness.

He who shouts the loudest is more likely to be hiding what they are shouting about.

White liberal elitists are the nations wealthist people. They have no tolerance for the poor and less educated and that covers blacks more than whites. Soros and company (the billionaire socialists) are the hypocrits behind devisiveness in American just as are the wealthy corporations, etc.

Tim

Posted by: Tim | May 9, 2008 7:21 AM | Report abuse

When the Clinton camp was contacted about the statements they said that she was" just being factual and calling a spade a spade"

This is the Southern Strategy of the late 60's/Early 70's GOP.
It's disgusting;

Posted by: Daniel Smith | May 9, 2008 7:08 AM | Report abuse

It will be a cold day in hell when I vote for Clinton -- any Clinton -- for anything again. To take what should have been a source of pride that a woman was a credible candidate for president and turn it into a race-baiting campaign is beneath contempt. They might as well say it out loud: "West Virginia voters, you are white and Obama is black, so vote for Clinton."

I am now persuaded that Hill-Bill have one objective and only one in continuing this disgusting appeal to racism -- to so damage Obama that McCain is elected in November and Hill-Bill come back in 2012 to claim a presidential dynasty to which they feel entitled. The ballots for that campaign would be marked "Whites Only" and "Colored Only" in a throw-back to another era.

I realize there are voters who are not racist who genuinely believe that Hillary is the best (and only) candidate and I still find it hard to believe that Hill-Bill themselves hate blacks so long as black voters know their place, but it is part and parcel of Clintonian politics to do anything, say anything to "win" and address the mess later. If racism works, in Clintonian politics, use it. In this campaign, even if it doesn't work for 2008, it "accomplishes" the destruction of Obama and "clears the way" for Hill-Bill in 2012.

I could understand super-delegates holding off until the primaries end -- if Hillary had used this time to leave her campaign with dignity -- but is quite another matter to let her use such grace to race-bait as proxy for Republicans in November. She couldn't even wait one day before a USA Today interview laced with references to her whites-only base.

Super-delegates need to step in and put an end to this.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 7:04 AM | Report abuse

Will someone please tell me why 90+% of blacks voting for Obama is not "Racist" and 60 to 65% of whites voting for Hillary is??? This in its self does not meet any sensible test. Through the last 40 years, starting with Nixon in 1968, the Repubs have used the "Race Card" in every election, including 2000, when GW used it against McCain in the Primary. This time it is being used against Hillary by Obama, and he is the one doing it NOT Hillary. Remember my quote "Accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing so you will know what you are doing." The Media and others supporting him are keeping this FALSE accusation going in their effort to stop Hillary aided by Repubs that has been their strategy that I ACCURATELY Posted in January of this year.

Posted by: lylepink | May 9, 2008 7:03 AM | Report abuse

The problem with Obama is that he has been a media darling from day one.

Those of us who want to choose our candidate based on ability, historical record, work ethic and knowledge have had this unexperienced, arrogant and lazy person forced down our throats.

Not since the CLOSED societies such as the Soviet Union or in dictatorships in today's world, have we seen such HIGHHANDED TACTICS.

The problem with Obama is that he has been a media darling from day one.

Those of us who want to choose our candidate based on ability, historical record, work ethic and knowledge have had this unexperienced, arrogant and lazy person forced down our throats.

Not since the CLOSED societies such as the former Soviet Union or in the many dictatorships in today's world, have we seen such HIGHHANDED TACTICS.

I choose to exercise my right to a free choice and it will not be OBAMA.

I promise on the day that the Democratic Elite and the MEDIA nominate Obama, I will post my first, of many, contributions to the man I will support in November, John McCain. I will copy that receipt onto my posts as proof.

All of you who either support Senator Clinton or simply care about VOTERS rights, are invited to do the same.

I also urge you to write to your State Superdelegates @ congress.org and to Howard Dean at http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/chairman to express your displeasure.


Obama the DISENFRANCHISER.. West Virginia , Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana, So. Dakota, Florida and Michigan. Beg to DIFFER.

Posted by: Obama the Disenfranciser | May 9, 2008 6:46 AM | Report abuse

FIXED IT

Can't you write your own post?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 6:43 AM | Report abuse

Go Daniel! You are right on point, but Hilly is instigating a certain group to vote based on their shared skin color. Hilly doesn't want the reporter saying that they pimped Chelsea out, but she sure is pimping the "white" vote. She should be ashamed that she has labelled a group of people as too dumb to know that she is using them. That subliminal "WHITE POWER" that she is stroking is the most lowdown feat that she has come up with. She is dividing people within one race, alone. Hilly's mean spirited Me! Me! Me! attitude is venom to the Party. It doesn't matter who is President, if the troops stop fighting a baseless war and come home; that they have a better life and good mental heathcare, permanent solutions to high gas and food prices, ending homelessness and injustices, senseless taxation... Whatever, everyone benefits.

Posted by: livefreeor | May 9, 2008 6:39 AM | Report abuse


Hilary,
You should be ASHAMED, BLACKS put Bill in the office for 8 years and now you are telling WHITES to VOTE WHITE, you are disgusting and I know their are decent white folks in America are equally disgusted by your comment. Are you that desperate, what a real LOSER you turned out to be?


Obama, has NEVER told ANYONE to VOTE BLACK, unlike Hillary in her desperate attempt to get VOTES. The media and Hillary bought up and driving the race issue NOT OBAMA.

When BLACKS have VOTED FOR WHITES all their LIFE, BLACKS did not make it a RACE issue. Hit the ROAD HILLARY and DON'T COME BACK!.

Posted by: k08 | May 9, 2008 6:18 AM | Report abuse

How Obama won, and why the premise of this column is false:
92% of African-American vote;
100% of left-wing of Democratic party. This wing was especially strong in states where Democrats have not won in 20-50 years and have been long-marginalized politically (Idaho, Utah etc.). Less strong in large states where Democrats have a history of successful participation in politics.

This is the coalition Obama built. It can win a nomination in the Democratic party. It is doubtful it can be expanded beyond that in time for the election.

This column talks about Clinton's appeal to "white" voters. While they admire her, they couldn't care less about her "whiteness"- if you are a racist, a Clinton would NOT be your natural choice, and that's just dumb.

Clinton's appeal is to everyone who ISN'T (1) Black, or (2) Leftist. It's Obama's appeal which was limited, albeit to a decisive alliance of 2 blocs.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | May 9, 2008 5:54 AM | Report abuse

Hello American friends,
I have watched with interest the Democrat and Republican primaries to decide your Presidential nominees. Fascinating but expensive drama. A couple of points noticed:
1. Imagine what could have been done to help fix problems in the USA with the millions if not billions spent on these campaigns!!!!!!!!!
2. Pick the best one to lead - whatever the gender or race of the candidates, all that matters is who is the best leader.
3. Imagine the problems in your country that could have been fixed if the billion a day spent on the war in Iraq could have been spent on fixing problems in your own country.
4. Hope for change is eternal in building optimism in a society. Renewing hope in goverment amongst Americans is hugely important.
5. Candidates should think of their country 1st not their own political ambitions. It is tough to do that especially when one is surrounded by cronies who keep saying, "you can still win"!

We have the longest undefended border in the world between Canada and the U.S.A. We truly like and admire Americans and wish your country well in its leadership role and the most powerful nation. Hopefully the leader you choose will lead with dignity, humility and courage emphasizing co-operation between nations.
Best wishes in your deliberations choosing a president!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: johnny canuck | May 9, 2008 5:35 AM | Report abuse

Hillary should reject in public any voter who supports here merely because she is white. Instead, she uses those voters to help her chances. White voters who vote for a person because she is white, or who refuse to vote for Obama because he is black are ignorant sloths.

Posted by: Daniel | May 9, 2008 5:23 AM | Report abuse

AsperGirl wrote: "tom wrote: "WHAT A FREAKING MORON!" in response to my posting the quote "Obama may be manipulating the Democratic party using 8% of the electorate as leverage, but Clinton is holding all the cards to his win in the Fall. He won't get elected if she doesn't want him to be."

Sorry I understated my response to AsperGirl, but it's a family newspaper!

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 4:46 AM | Report abuse

"Letter from McCain campaign describing the negative-attack campaign tactics that we've watched Obama use against Clinton all season:
To: Interested Parties
From: Mark Salter, Senior Advisor
Re: Senator Obama's Attack Today"

AsperGirl you are a fool and a Republican, pasting that trash from the McCain camp here.

Why do you think the McCain camp suddenly picked this ridiculous fight with Obama yesterday?

Because the Post told them they were going to run the story on McCain corruption which currently occupies the top spot on the front page and is sure to stay there all day tomorrow. McCain needs some kind of diversion, some other so-called "campaign news" to draw network time away from the influence-peddling story.

And you're helping to push their stuff. That's really sad.

Posted by: B. Kaufmann | May 9, 2008 4:43 AM | Report abuse

"The Democratic leadership is not only trying to nominate a young freshman senator who is under-qualified for the job, just because he's black, but they're willing to go with a candidate who has never won a truly contested contest against a viable opponent."

You mean Hillary? Rudy Giuliani dropped out of the first race; they ran a cypher against her in the second. And THAT, my friends, is the extent of her elective experience. First Lady doesn't count!

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 4:32 AM | Report abuse

The text of the ColorofChange petition:

DNC Chair Howard Dean, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and superdelegates:

The Democratic Party is playing a dangerous game and I'm writing to ask that you bring it to an end.

It has come to my attention that elected officials and party leaders are actually considering using their status as "superdelegates" to hand the nomination to Hillary Clinton against the will of voters, an action that would disenfranchise millions.

Following this course would be a shocking attack on voting rights and democracy. It would also give your seal of approval to an "electability" strategy executed by stoking race-based fear and division among voters. We expect that from the Republicans; we fight them on it every year. But now the leadership of the Democratic Party is poised to cosign this strategy of division and disenfranchisement. This could be the worst mistake the party has ever made, yet it's being talked about as a legitimate way for this campaign to end.

The voters who have come out in record numbers to participate in the Democratic Party won't allow this to happen, and as the most visible leaders of the party, you must reject the idea that the nomination can be won with a strategy that preys on racism, sows division, and disenfranchises millions of voters.

Sincerely,

[Your name]

Not quite as Darryl Fears describes it, is it??

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 4:26 AM | Report abuse

"The black activist Web site, ColorofChange.org, has circulated a petition threatening "serious consequences" if Clinton somehow succeeds at obtaining the Democratic nomination."

Just checked the "black activist Web site" cited in the article. "Serious consequences" was not found. It's supported by Julian Bond, for God's sake; not Louis Farrakhan. Where did the Post get the weenie who wrote this blather?

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 4:17 AM | Report abuse

Incidentally, for what it's worth, the original post in "The Trail" is illiterate and poorly researched and written. The Post is paying people for this? For example, the bit about Hillary getting white support because of her husband....

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 4:04 AM | Report abuse

It is sad to see a woman who claims to be qualified and able to lead this country act like a lithium-deficient buffon! She has insulted hard working people by reducing them to a "vote". She has zero use for ANYone that she can not "use". She lost the Black votes then she flipped to the closest mass voter group. She used fear for race-baiting. Working class is just her code for "White". She looks and sounds like a fool not a fighter. There will be a strong woman president someday. She will be respected and respect by ALL people. Hilly isn't a leader. Her last days are showing what a petty person she is and will destroy a nation to stroke her ego. She can run around in circles if she wants to keep "running", but she will not take us captive with her foolishness. It's her money she can waste it if she wants to. This campaign was her job audition. She will not get a call back! The crisp white sheet should be to cover her campaign and pronounce it DOA. Cause of death political suicide: stuck foot in mouth.

Posted by: livefreeor | May 9, 2008 4:01 AM | Report abuse

I would be very happy to have a female President; it's overdue. But Hillary isn't the one, and Michelle Obama isn't running this year.

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 4:00 AM | Report abuse

"You're a verbally abusive Obama nut who is a Clinton supporter basher, like some black men who come online and vent hatred at white women who support Clinton, unloading demeaning and abusive language at them."

No, AsperGirl: you have a math problem, which you keep dodging by being female and a poor abused Clinton supporter. You claim to have an engineering degree. Prove it by addressing the mathematical issues, and quit hiding behind Hillary's petticoats!

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 3:51 AM | Report abuse

I am white. I am horrified by the Clinton's use of race to try to divide the Democratic Party. Clinton only won Indiana by 14,000 votes. That means an awful lot of whites voted for Obama because the state is not 50% black. I am so disgusted with Clinton that I don't want to see her on the ticket. Is the Democratic Party going to stand for such a bigoted line. Hillary is not racist, but she is using a racist line here just to get elected even though it is impossible. That may be even more offensive to me than if she were a bigoted Republican. After all the uproar that Democrats have made over the years for Republicans saying anything that is bigoted, how can this party let Hillary get away with this constant divisive talk about race?

Posted by: Adam | May 9, 2008 3:48 AM | Report abuse

I am white. I am horrified by the Clinton's use of race to try to divide the Democratic Party. Clinton only won Indiana by 14,000 votes. That means an awful lot of whites voted for Obama because the state is not 50% black. I am so disgusted with Clinton that I don't want to see her on the ticket. Is the Democratic Party going to stand for such a bigoted line. Hillary is not racist, but she is using a racist line here just to get elected even though it is impossible. That may be even more offensive to me than if she were a bigoted Republican. After all the uproar that Democrats have made over the years for Republicans saying anything that is bigoted, how can this party let Hillary get away with this constant divisive talk about race?

Posted by: Adam | May 9, 2008 3:46 AM | Report abuse

"Obama may be manipulating the Democratic party using 8% of the electorate as leverage, but Clinton is holding all the cards to his win in the Fall. He won't get elected if she doesn't want him to be."

Listen, AsperGirl! Obama doesn't have "8% of the electorate," you silly fool; he has more than 50%. Read the polls. Don't know where you get the 8% number; the only one I remember was that it was Hillary's percentage of the Black vote in Indiana [more than she deserved]. The Black vote is more than 8%, certainly a lot more than 8% of the Democratic Party vote; and you're omitting us overeducated white elitists who also back Obama.

Pretty sloppy math for a self-proclaimed engineering graduate. Online degree?

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 3:46 AM | Report abuse

I am white. I am horrified by the Clinton's use of race to try to divide the Democratic Party. Clinton only won Indiana by 14,000 votes. That means an awful lot of whites voted for Obama because the state is not 50% black. I am so disgusted with Clinton that I don't want to see her on the ticket. Is the Democratic Party going to stand for such a bigoted line. Hillary is not racist, but she is using a racist line here just to get elected even though it is impossible. That may be even more offensive to me than if she were a bigoted Republican. After all the uproar that Democrats have made over the years for Republicans saying anything that is bigoted, how can this party let Hillary get away with this constant divisive talk about race?

Posted by: Adam | May 9, 2008 3:46 AM | Report abuse

I am white. I am horrified by the Clinton's use of race to try to divide the Democratic Party. Clinton only won Indiana by 14,000 votes. That means an awful lot of whites voted for Obama because the state is not 50% black. I am so disgusted with Clinton that I don't want to see her on the ticket. Is the Democratic Party going to stand for such a bigoted line. Hillary is not racist, but she is using a racist line here just to get elected even though it is impossible. That may be even more offensive to me than if she were a bigoted Republican. After all the uproar that Democrats have made over the years for Republicans saying anything that is bigoted, how can this party let Hillary get away with this constant divisive talk about race?

Posted by: Adam | May 9, 2008 3:46 AM | Report abuse

"Obama may be manipulating the Democratic party using 8% of the electorate as leverage, but Clinton is holding all the cards to his win in the Fall. He won't get elected if she doesn't want him to be."


WHAT A FREAKING MORON! Listen, AsperGirl! Obama doesn't have "8% of the electorate," you silly fool; he has more than 50%. Read the polls. Don't know where you get the 8% number; the only one I remember was that it was Hillary's percentage of the Black vote in Indiana [more than she deserved]. The Black vote is more than 8%, certainly a lot more than 8% of the Democratic Party vote; and you're omitting us overeducated white elitists who also back Obama.

Pretty sloppy math for a self-proclaimed engineering graduate. Online degree?

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 3:46 AM | Report abuse

tom wrote: "WHAT A FREAKING MORON!" in response to my posting the quote "Obama may be manipulating the Democratic party using 8% of the electorate as leverage, but Clinton is holding all the cards to his win in the Fall. He won't get elected if she doesn't want him to be.

tom, I said I wasn't going to respond to you anymore. But you continue to post your verbally abusive, inappropriate and retarded arguments against me. Look at the post you are taking that passage from. I was quoting the passage from someone else's post. That's why there are quotation marks around the passage in my post.

Now, I'm really not going to respond to you anymore. You're a verbally abusive Obama nut who is a Clinton supporter basher, like some black men who come online and vent hatred at white women who support Clinton, unloading demeaning and abusive language at them.

Whatever your pathological issue is, you have a problem.

Posted by: AsperGirl | May 9, 2008 3:41 AM | Report abuse

tom wrote: "WHAT A FREAKING MORON!" in response to my posting the quote "Obama may be manipulating the Democratic party using 8% of the electorate as leverage, but Clinton is holding all the cards to his win in the Fall. He won't get elected if she doesn't want him to be.

tom, I said I wasn't going to respond to you anymore. But you continue to post your verbally abusive, inappropriate and retarded arguments against me. Look at the post you are taking that passage from. I was quoting the passage from someone else's post. That's why there are quotation marks around the passage in my post.

Now, I'm really not going to respond to you anymore. You're a verbally abusive Obama nut who is a Clinton supporter basher, like some black men who come online and vent hatred at white women who support Clinton, unloading demeaning and abusive language at them.

Whatever your pathological issue is, you have a problem.

Posted by: AsperGirl | May 9, 2008 3:41 AM | Report abuse

tom wrote: "WHAT A FREAKING MORON!" in response to my posting the quote "Obama may be manipulating the Democratic party using 8% of the electorate as leverage, but Clinton is holding all the cards to his win in the Fall. He won't get elected if she doesn't want him to be.

tom, I said I wasn't going to respond to you anymore. But you continue to post your verbally abusive, inappropriate and retarded arguments against me. Look at the post you are taking that passage from. I was quoting the passage from someone else's post. That's why there are quotation marks around the passage in my post.

Now, I'm really not going to respond to you anymore. You're a verbally abusive Obama nut who is a Clinton supporter basher, like some black men who come online and vent hatred at white women who support Clinton, unloading demeaning and abusive language at them.

Whatever your pathological issue is, you have a problem.

Posted by: AsperGirl | May 9, 2008 3:41 AM | Report abuse

Oh, by the by Obama is going to lose.

The only good part about it is we (non cultist) will rub it in your face for 20-25 years until your moronic children grow up and vote for an ex-power ranger to lose the 8th election in a row.

I can't believe people who voted for bush twice have not killed or blinded themselves out of shame.

F U polosi (sp)

Posted by: mul | May 9, 2008 3:35 AM | Report abuse

Clinton takes Indiana by a 'razor' and Obama wins North Carolina by a huge margin. Nevertheless, Kentucky, Montana and West Virginia are still to come.

The Democratic race for nomination is still very much alive - and most likely to be decided by superdelegates

If you're tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support Clinton or Obama

If you haven't done so yet, please write a message to each of your state's superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com

Obama Supporters:

Sending a note to current Obama supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Clinton supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Obama, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Obama. It's that easy...

Clinton Supporters too .... !

It takes a moment, but what's a few minutes now worth to get Clinton in office?! Those are really worth !

Sending a note to current Clinton supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Obama supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Clinton, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Clinton. It's that easy...

Posted by: Jack | May 9, 2008 3:33 AM | Report abuse

"Obama may be manipulating the Democratic party using 8% of the electorate as leverage, but Clinton is holding all the cards to his win in the Fall. He won't get elected if she doesn't want him to be."


WHAT A FREAKING MORON! Listen, AsperGirl! Obama doesn't have "8% of the electorate," you silly fool; he has more than 50%. Read the statistics. Don't know where you get the 8% number; the only one I remember was that it was Hillary's percentage of the Black vote in Indiana. The Black vote is more than 8%, certainly a lot more than 8% of the Democratic Party vote; and you're omitting us overeducated white elitists who also back Obama.

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 3:33 AM | Report abuse

"Obama may be manipulating the Democratic party using 8% of the electorate as leverage, but Clinton is holding all the cards to his win in the Fall. He won't get elected if she doesn't want him to be."


WHAT A FREAKING MORON! Listen, AsperGirl! Obama doesn't have "8% of the electorate," you silly fool; he has more than 50%. Read the polls. Don't know where you get the 8% number; the only one I remember was that it was Hillary's percentage of the Black vote in Indiana [more than she deserved]. The Black vote is more than 8%, certainly a lot more than 8% of the Democratic Party vote; and you're omitting us overeducated white elitists who also back Obama.

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 3:33 AM | Report abuse

Letter from McCain campaign describing the negative-attack campaign tactics that we've watched Obama use against Clinton all season:

"To: Interested Parties
From: Mark Salter, Senior Advisor

Date: May 8, 2008

Re: Senator Obama's Attack Today

"First, let us be clear about the nature of Senator Obama's attack today: He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning.

"We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is.

"It is important to focus on what Senator Obama is attempting to do here: He is trying desperately to delegitimize the discussion of issues that raise legitimate questions about his judgment and preparedness to be President of the United States.

"Through their actions and words, Senator Obama and his supporters have made clear that ANY criticism on ANY issue -- from his desire to raise taxes on millions of small investors to his radical plans to sit down face-to-face with Iranian President Ahmadinejad -- constitute negative, personal attacks.

"Senator Obama is hopeful that the media will continue to form a protective barrier around him, declaring serious limits to the questions, discussion and debate in this race...."

Full letter on http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/05/mccain_obama_camps_trade_fire.html

Posted by: AsperGirl | May 9, 2008 3:31 AM | Report abuse

Letter from McCain campaign describing the negative-attack campaign tactics that we've watched Obama use against Clinton all season:

"To: Interested Parties
From: Mark Salter, Senior Advisor

Date: May 8, 2008

Re: Senator Obama's Attack Today

"First, let us be clear about the nature of Senator Obama's attack today: He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning.

"We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is.

"It is important to focus on what Senator Obama is attempting to do here: He is trying desperately to delegitimize the discussion of issues that raise legitimate questions about his judgment and preparedness to be President of the United States.

"Through their actions and words, Senator Obama and his supporters have made clear that ANY criticism on ANY issue -- from his desire to raise taxes on millions of small investors to his radical plans to sit down face-to-face with Iranian President Ahmadinejad -- constitute negative, personal attacks.

"Senator Obama is hopeful that the media will continue to form a protective barrier around him, declaring serious limits to the questions, discussion and debate in this race...."

Full letter on http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/05/mccain_obama_camps_trade_fire.html

Posted by: AsperGirl | May 9, 2008 3:31 AM | Report abuse

Senator Obama has earned more delegates from states with miniscule people of African American heritage than from states where the "black" vote was a dominant percentage of his total. Are there no working class whites in all those states? I'm betting some of the folks in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. would take issue with that assertion.

The assertion at the top of the column is simply false.

Posted by: 33rdSt | May 9, 2008 3:31 AM | Report abuse

They said Hillary's campaign was for the advancement of women.

This is what Hillary's campaign has taught me:

I used to think women were less racist than men. I no longer believe that. It makes me sad.

Posted by: Kevrobb | May 9, 2008 3:31 AM | Report abuse

"Obama may be manipulating the Democratic party using 8% of the electorate as leverage, but Clinton is holding all the cards to his win in the Fall. He won't get elected if she doesn't want him to be."


WHAT A FREAKING MORON! Listen, AsperGirl! Obama doesn't have "8% of the electorate," you silly fool; he has more than 50%. Read the statistics. Don't know where you get the 8% number; the only one I remember was that it was Hillary's percentage of the Black vote in Indiana. The Black vote is more than 8%, certainly a lot more than 8% of the Democratic Party vote; and you're omitting us overeducated white elitists who also back Obama.

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 3:27 AM | Report abuse

"How very sad that we as white people would reject a wonderful person because of skin color."

It's a disgrace that the Democrats would go for an under-qualified, freshman U.S. senator who four years ago was a young and callow state senator, just because he's black and a good rhetorical performer.

Obama's never even won an election outright, all the way to the finish line, against a tough opponent. He's had his opponents disqualified, or they imploded on their own or were never viable.

That is why Obama has led his fan base in the media and his supporters on the left into this months-long tirade against Clinton to "drop out". Since when is it the obligation of an opponent to drop out of a race? Only in Obama world.

The Democrats are going to let Obama manipulate them into muscling Clinton out against her will before the convention, in some "superdelegate" wave. Well, that would not only alienate her base if they do an end-run around the rules and try to force her out with a superdelegate push when her MI & FL delegates aren't seated, but it just reinforces Obama's record of never winning a contest outright without resorting to an eliminate-the-competition strategy.

The Democratic leadership is not only trying to nominate a young freshman senator who is under-qualified for the job, just because he's black, but they're willing to go with a candidate who has never won a truly contested contest against a viable opponent.

Posted by: AsperGirl | May 9, 2008 3:17 AM | Report abuse

Anybody see George Will's column today, with the [tongue-in-cheek] suggestion that Black votes should only count 3/5 of a vote, since it's in the Constitution [pre-14th Amendment, anyway...]?

Sounds like the way Hillary is headed!

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 3:16 AM | Report abuse

"Stretching my imagination a bit more, I could see black people to have a renewed hatred for whites maybe beyond anything they have ever had. I mean like wanting "whitey dead". I am not kidding if I were black I would want to burn the white people at the stake."

And if you weren't a moron, you'd quit insulting everybody's intelligence, JakeD. Try growing up; we're tired of changing your diapers!

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 3:16 AM | Report abuse

>>mightycrows wrote: "Who are you to pontificate that Obama won't get the supporters of Clinton? So is she a dictator? She just has to say don't vote Democrat and all her supporters will just jump into line!"

Actually, not that's not what I see and hear. What I've heard, and how I feel, is that no matter what Clinton says, I won't support Obama or vote for him.

All she has to do to deny him her base is to stay in the contest until the convention, which she is perfectly entitled and justified in doing if her delegates in FL and MI don't get seated.

Her staying in the race denies Obama her base, because while she is still in the race, they will be empathizing with McCain as Obama triangulates him in the same way he did Clinton: act dignified and respectful while his campaign and supporters act like a vicious attack pack for him. All she has to do is stay in the race, which keeps her supporters from forming an emotional connection with Obama while he tries to use the same nasty, hypocritical tactics on McCain that he used on Clinton.

Then, the Clinton supporters, who are already inclined to vote for McCain by margins of about 30-50%, will form an empathetic feeling toward McCain and remain divided against Obama. The more Obama tries to stonewall Clinton and the longer he tries to wait her out, the more he will become repulsive to her supporters as he attacks McCain with the same tactics he used on Clinton.

Obama may be manipulating the Democratic party using 8% of the electorate as leverage, but Clinton is holding all the cards to his win in the Fall. He won't get elected if she doesn't want him to be.

Posted by: AsperGirl | May 9, 2008 3:11 AM | Report abuse

Anybody see George Will's column today, with the [tongue-in-cheek] suggestion that Black votes should only count 3/5 of a vote, since it's in the Constitution [pre-14th Amendment, anyway...]?

Sounds like the way Hillary is headed!

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 3:05 AM | Report abuse

>>mightcrows wrote: "Hey aspergirl you sound like the convener of a lynch mob. If she has this overwhelming support, why is she going to lose the nomination? Your message is irrational spiteful racist and will not help Hillary win this nomination " in response to my comment "Clinton's campaign has been the rainbow candidacy: she has the Hispanic, Asian, White woman, white senior, Jewish, blue collar white and all of the rest."

We're all aware that you Obama supporters attack anyone who mentions voter demographics (and other racial aspects of this identity-politics campaign season) as racists. We're not allowed to point out that Obama isn't a racially "transcendent" candidate because apart from blacks and a couple of narrow demographics subgroups of whites, Clinton has captured majorities of other racial, religious and gender groups.

We're not allowed to describe who voted for whom in South Carolina or North Carolina. If we mention the racist, white-bashing conspiracy theories of Obama's pastor, we're conducting a "race-baiting" attack on Obama.

You can call me a racist for daring to mention Clinton's base's racial, religious and gender diversity.

Accusing anyone of racism who opposes, criticizes or even questions your candidate in an uncomfortable way, is the race card that the Obama camp has been playing all campaign season.

Everyone is sick of hearing the shrill accusations of racism and other black conspiracy theories about evil whites, from Obama supporters.

Clinton hasn't been drawing white support away from Obama, Obama's camp has been driving white support away from Obama with these hate-based tactics and online bullying and poisonous vitriol against Clinton and her supporters.

Posted by: AsperGirl | May 9, 2008 2:53 AM | Report abuse

obamas kabinet: Rev Wright as white haus chaplain, Dr. Phil McGraw as surgeon General, Samantha Powers as ambassador to Israel, the honorable Rev. Farrakhan as press secretary, Tony Rezko as HUD secretary, Donna Brazile as laison to working class white and Latino communities.

Posted by: dan | May 9, 2008 2:53 AM | Report abuse

Go Hillary. www.ivotedforhillary.com

Posted by: Go Hillary | May 9, 2008 2:50 AM | Report abuse

My wife and I are white, late sixties, one with a college education and one without. We have been hard working all our lives. That automatically should make at least one of us a Clinton supporter over that up=start black guy - NOT. You can't be hard working if there are no jobs.

Starting in the late 60's and early 70's with the maquiladora program, our jobs have drained out the U.S. back door, over the border, then through the ports. That benefited business.

At the very same time, all immigration quotas were thrown out the front door. That benefited the politians and our image.

We pumped money into Northern Mexico, and the people arrived in droves: $1 per\HOUR, when jobs in Mexico typically paid $2 to $4 per DAY.

Then, the jobs went overseas, and the people massed on our borders started coming over in droves. These are poor peasants. They already knew there was nothing for them in the South of Mexico. Then they found out that the promised land in the maquiladora zone was too little and fading fast - so they started informally immigrating. What they didn't know was that North of the Mexican border jobs were fading fast, too.

Before we threw out our jobs, America could and would have absorbed any and all immigrants - legal or illegal.

But then, also to further benefit business, we started increasing the visas for "needed technical personnel". What was actually wanted by our fine corporate sector was "cheap" technical personnel. If the businesses had been required to pay wages equal to the talented Americans forced out of work,(or even not available) the visa program would have been severely curtailed

Not long ago, I read that Target had a store manager who was here on a visa. Like that is really hard knowlege to find in America: retail!

Then along came old "Gut Regulation Regan" and business was given less government. Those pesky regulators and auditors were interfering with business's right to rip off average Americans. And average joe bought into it.

Even when the Savings and Loans collapsed (see Keating five, the various Bushes involved etc.) average joe didn't make the connection.

The infrastructure = roads, schools, bridges, etc. began to crumble - and average joe didn't make the connection.

Then we had the stock market melt down, when the SEC and those entrusted to keep Wall Street honest just fell down on the job - and average joe didn't make the connection.

And Clinton gutted the military, closed bases, signed NAFTA, and average joe thought that Peace had suddenly broken out, and that we actually had something Mexicans wanted and/or could afford.

But - everything we have is made somewhere else, by someone else. The only thing not outsourced has been poverty. THAT we kept.

Then, we had the great prime mortgage meltdown - and guess what? The sleazy savings and loan theives, the wall street theives, the telephone, utility, airline thieves moved into real estate. The government regulators (gosh, there were a few left), were, again, asleep (or maybe still asleep). And Average Joe is starting to catch on! He has the internet!

So, hard working average American whom Hillary is so sure she has for a "base" - what have you got to lose? Look around, there is nothing left.

We need jobs - and the billions upon untold billions sucked out of American and sent to Iraq (and to Halliburton and the
"contractors") would have bought a LOT of infrastructure (read jobs done in America, by Americans) It could have been used to shore up small businesses, small farms, to educate our children, to improve our healh care.

The part of goverment that is directly affecting us has not shrunk one iota. The government is still in our bedrooms, our churches, our day to day lives. Our current crop of lawmakes are, apparently, determined to have us do as they say - not as they do. Family values, "Christian" ideals? Talk about them plenty. then pass legislation to literally screw Average Joe to the wall. But, protect stem cells at all costs and be sure sex and scandal gets top billing. Keep old Average Joe distracted.-

But, Hillary, Average Joe is not completely stupid, he's just been uninformed. It is starting to occur to him that HE IS OUT OF WORK and HIS PART OF AMERICA IS DYING. Family values are great, but you can't put food on the table unless those values equate to jobs.

So, blather about your "white" base, attack Obama for having a fool for a pastor (I had several fools in my church, and still have several in my family.) To quote Cheny. so?

Call him "elitist". You were the one who proposed a univeral health care program that average (and, in fact well above average) joe could never afford. You went to no less illustrious schools, have far more money and influential friends, and a few sleazy friends, too. What does that make you? Mary Poppins?

Barak Obama went to Harvard, and he emerged with, get this, an EDUCATION. He went to a predominately Black church - and he mingles with common people completely unlike the congregations I am sure you have encountered. Except for the black part, he mingled with people who are exactly like the "hard working under educated white people" you are so convinced are your major support. Poor people, which is about 80% of this country, all face the same problems and need the same support from their Government. Thet have had ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT during the past eight years, and little support in the years preceding.

Barak Obama may turn out to be a mistake - who knows? But more of Bush is a disaster, and your divisive personal attacks - pitting black against white is absolutely something we do not need, ever again.

The world has changed. Get over it, and figure out how to make it work.


Posted by: kenpeterson | May 9, 2008 2:46 AM | Report abuse

Will someone PLEASE give Ms. Hillary a crisp, white sheet so that she can cover up? It's chilly outside...and besides, her slip is showing.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 2:44 AM | Report abuse

"The DNC, held hostage becaue they aren't will to offend 8% of the voters."

The funny thing is, all McCain has to do is pick Condoleeza Rice as a running mate. Right from the start, that ticket would eviscerate the black vote for Obama, because it's much more of a landscape-altering advance for American politics in an experienced black leader were elected to head the Republican Party than it is to elect an under-qualified, speechifying freshman black senator to lead the Democrats.

Not only that, but Condoleeza Rice on the Republican ticket would pick up, en masse, many of the "bitter", berated and belittled female voters who have been frustrated and disillusioned by the sexist and demeaning attacks on Clinton by the Democrats on the left.

The DNC is not only being held hostage by 8% of voters, it is being led into a blind canyon where there are many ways for the Dems to lose the White House this Fall with such an under-qualified, racial candidate with such a narrow, fanatical base of support. Obama's racist supporters and his racist background have driven his base down to comprising three legs of a stool: college kids, ivory tower liberal whites and blacks. Anything that compromises any leg of his trinary support will collapse his candidacy.

McCain can do that just with the right VP pick!

Posted by: AsperGirl | May 9, 2008 2:43 AM | Report abuse

Will someone PLEASE give Ms. Hillary a crisp, white sheet? It's chilly outside...and besides, her slip is showing.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 2:41 AM | Report abuse

aspergirl your postings are truly atrocious. Where did you learn the vitriol? It is almost as if you are Hillary writing under a pen name. Who are you to pontificate that Obama won't get the supporters of Clinton? So is she a dictator? She just has to say don't vote Democrat and all her supporters will just jump into line! Wow- you just took the democracy out of Democrat. You gave the following pearl of profound wisdom in your cretinous posting: "Clinton's campaign has been the rainbow candidacy: she has the Hispanic, Asian, White woman, white senior, Jewish, blue collar white and all of the rest." Well 0bviously not all the rest.There is a rather large minority group who built this country (and its popular culture) on their flogged kidnapped dark backs. Hey aspergirl you sound like the convener of a lynch mob. If she has this overwhelming support, why is she going to lose the nomination? Your message is irrational spiteful racist and will not help Hillary win this nomination. Like Mrs Clinton you need to accept reality aspergirl. your comments are enlightening in one regard; they indicate what Hillary was trying to appeal to. Its scary, aspergirl.

Posted by: mightycrows | May 9, 2008 2:40 AM | Report abuse

aspergirl your postings are truly atrocious. Where did you learn the vitriol? It is almost as if you are Hillary writing under a pen name. Who are you to pontificate that Obama won't get the supporters of Clinton? So is she a dictator? She just has to say don't vote Democrat and all her supporters will just jump into line! Wow- you just took the democracy out of Democrat. You gave the following pearl of profound wisdom in your cretinous posting: "Clinton's campaign has been the rainbow candidacy: she has the Hispanic, Asian, White woman, white senior, Jewish, blue collar white and all of the rest." Well 0bviously not all the rest.There is a rather large minority group who built this country (and its popular culture) on their flogged kidnapped dark backs. Hey aspergirl you sound like the convener of a lynch mob. If she has this overwhelming support, why is she going to lose the nomination? Your message is irrational spiteful racist and will not help Hillary win this nomination. Like Mrs Clinton you need to accept reality aspergirl. your comments are enlightening in one regard; they indicate what Hillary was trying to appeal to. Its scary, aspergirl.

Posted by: mightycrows | May 9, 2008 2:40 AM | Report abuse


folk who say obama cant win have
underestimated obama from the beginning

much like the clinton campaign

as for her insistence that whites wont vote for him in november -

based on returns that doesnt seem to be the case, most of his support is white

ture, we will lose the die hard racists in november but we will gain the independents

and id rather have independents than racists on my side anyway, makes for more ethical policies

hillary on the other hand has based her last gambit on stirring racial resentments

much like reverend wright

based on the campaign shes run she deserved to lose, it was incompetent and somewhat unsavory - she took the low road

and i can hope the democratic party and all those who depend on it will be able to forgive her for what shes done to the party, what shes done to america

obama is not infallible, he is after all just a politician,

but i take him to be a sincere good man capable of growing into the job

and if the quality of his campaign vs the chaos of clintons is any indication, a damn good organizer

competency - just what we need after 8 years of bush

btw: my understanding is that if obama is nominated, his acceptance speech will be aug 28th -

the 45th anniversary of kings i have a dream speech

deep

Posted by: arthur flowers | May 9, 2008 2:38 AM | Report abuse

"I'm not going to respond to you anymore, tom."

Boo-Hoo! No more smears or threats? Aw!

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 2:34 AM | Report abuse

>>way out there wrote: "has anyone thought this through, that barak should have just went public with his campaign as the bi-racial, or mixed race candidate....?"

Obama's supporters have tried to push the narrative that he's a "postracial" candidate who "transcends" race.

The problem is that he only wins college kids, ivory tower white liberals and blacks. Clinton has consistently won the majorities of Hispanics, Asians, gays, whites (including women and blue collar), seniors and Jews.

Obama's biggest asset has been the virulent, no-holds-barred support of his black base and the media (which is part of his ivory tower white demographic). These two groups have smeared and bashed opposition to Obama's candidacy on his behalf, ranging from sheer hatred driving Clinton supporters to shut up and let them dominate the forums, to outright bullying and lying about his opponent.

Obama's "chickens [will] come home to roost". He's not going to get most of the votes of Clinton supporters, and he doesn't deserve them.

All those rules-cherry-picking, disingenuous Democratic Party players who are blithely waving off the phenomenon of Clinton voter rejection of Obama are deluding themselves. A great many Clinton voters aren't going to vote for Obama and they've been saying so for some time.

Clinton should keep her candidacy alive as long as possible, and keep her voters emotionally disconnected from Obama and empathizing with McCain as Obama attacks and smears him with the same send-the-surrogates-to-do-the-hatchet-jobs method of dirty campaigning he used against Clinton.

Posted by: AsperGirl | May 9, 2008 2:30 AM | Report abuse

"I'm not going to respond to you anymore, tom. You're an ignorant, sneering, anti-white black Obama supporter."

Sorry, honey-poo! I'm a sixty-five year old white ex-lawyer with a Ph.D. on the side who has small tolerance for the sort of smarmy BS you people revel in. THE RACE IS OVER, DUMMY! THERE IS NO WAY FOR HILLARY TO OVERTAKE OBAMA IN DELEGATE COUNT [THE ONLY MEASURE THAT REALLY COUNTS], OR POPULAR VOTE, OR NUMBER OF PRIMARY CONTESTS WON. For one who claims to be an engineer, you have little comprehension of mathematics. What sort of train do you drive?

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 2:24 AM | Report abuse

Donna Brazile "has remained neutral in the race"? Puh-leez. She's been one of Obama's biggest cheerleaders in the punditocracy. At least Begala and Carville are honest about their support.

Donna, fat lot of good you did Al Gore - go away.

Posted by: jtool | May 9, 2008 2:23 AM | Report abuse

"WE VOTERS need to write Howard Dean and our state superdelegates and convince them that we WILL NOT STAND for the contest to be stacked in favor of Obama because "his supporters might get upset".

Okay. But how do you explain the delegate count? The popular vote? The 2:1 ratio of states won? Reverse racism? Give me a break! Obama has won the primary by following the rules, most of which were written by Terry McAuliffe and Harold Ickes and their cronies on the Clinton campaign. He has simply outpoliticed the Clinton campaign. [A post on the Huffington Post today reports that Mark Penn, Hillary's late senior strategist, based his strategy on the flawed assumption that the Democratic primaries were "winner take all."] The Clinton campaign assumed it was all sewed up from the beginning; the Obama campaign dug in and worked. The Clintons helped when around the time of the South Carolina primary they made remarks that alienated their base of black support, which until that time had been largely pro-Clinton. Hillary's remarks to USA Today yesterday about "hardworking Americans, white Americans" is probably the final nail in the coffin they have constructed for themselves.

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 2:20 AM | Report abuse

>>tom wrote: "Just never learned to count delegates, huh?"

It's your own lack of education and information that's showing. You are equating Clinton's base of Hispanics, seniors, white women, blue collar whites, Asians, gays and Jews with a delegate count.

Obama's delegate count, most of which was racked up in thinly-attended Democratic caucuses in Republican states, is not evidence of the composition of his base. Obama's base is comprised of college kids, ivory tower white liberals, and blacks. That's barely enough for him to edge Clinton in the Democratic Primary in heavily black states and caucus states, but that's as far as his "base" will get him.

I'm not going to respond to you anymore, tom. You're an ignorant, sneering, anti-white black Obama supporter.

I've been forced to listen to trash talk from Obama supporters like you for months during this Primary season, and you're not worth the time. You're more interested in venting your racial resentment in bashing and insulting Clinton supporters than the political facts and debate.

It's the Obama supporters like you and the poisonous tone of the left-wing blogosphere and other Obama-dominated voices, that alienates Clinton voters.

Enjoy your Clinton-supporter-bashing. You're not doing your candidate any favors by being such a nasty blogger.

Posted by: AsperGirl | May 9, 2008 2:16 AM | Report abuse

"His gang of black, white-hating supporters and white trash-talking surrogates who have been smearing and sneering at Clinton for so long can try to get him elected without her supporters."

What's the thread count in the sheets you war to the meetings, AsperGirl? I'm as white as you are; and a lot older; and a lot less stupid and insipid.

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 2:10 AM | Report abuse

Hey, AsperGirl with the engineering degree! I'm white, too. And I think Clinton is the one demeaning white voters by implying they're all like you. I also have college degrees, four of them. And I can count delegates. And states won. And popular vote.

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 2:08 AM | Report abuse

Clinton acts this way, because Howard Dean played favorites, and overstepped his jurisdiction, in effect he has rigged this election.

Posted by: Helena Montana | May 9, 2008 2:06 AM | Report abuse

Clinton must deny Obama the support of her voters. Obama has done nothing to deserve her support and will not get it. She can eat the money she lent her campaign without compromising her lifestyle or Chelsea's inheritance.

Clinton is entitled to run her campaign up to the convention and deny Obama her support. After all the race-card playing, hypocrisy and sexism of the Obama campaign, Obama's worse than a Republican for President. His gang of black, white-hating supporters and white trash-talking surrogates who have been smearing and sneering at Clinton for so long can try to get him elected without her supporters.

Obama doesn't deserve Clinton's support and he doesn't belong in the White House (you can't even say he needs 10x the experience he has today because he's accomplished nothing professionally to date).

Posted by: AsperGirl | May 9, 2008 2:06 AM | Report abuse

"I have an engineering degree." Just never learned to count delegates, huh?

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 2:05 AM | Report abuse

Chickens coming home to roost, hmmmmm?

This could be a prophecy for the Democrats this fall! Good job Rev. and thanks for the slogan:)

Posted by: Sh-jock | May 9, 2008 2:04 AM | Report abuse

Nice to see that AsperGirl has realized her potential and become a McCain Supporter! Bomb Iran, AsperGirl!

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 2:02 AM | Report abuse

Who would eve have believed that the Clintons could turn so shoddy? This is a Greek tragedy with hubris playing a starring role.

Posted by: Helena Montana | May 9, 2008 2:02 AM | Report abuse

DaMn tHe DemOcrAtS, i SwItCh mY vOtE tO McCaIn!


this ad sponsored by Trinity Church

Posted by: rEv | May 9, 2008 2:00 AM | Report abuse

News Flash!

"NYC announces job opening for graveyard shift dog-catcher. A day later, Howard Dean is seen dropping by for an interview!"


*

Posted by: Johnny Democracy | May 9, 2008 1:58 AM | Report abuse

>>tom wrote: "Just not very many of them! Ever take an math class? Third-grade arithmetic?" in response to my comment "Clinton's campaign has been the rainbow candidacy: she has the Hispanic, Asian, White woman, white senior, Jewish, blue collar white and all of the rest."

Firstly, Clinton has consistently won majorities of those demographic groups. Obama has only commanded majorities with white ivory tower liberals and blacks.

Secondly, I'm quite familiar with the sneering, condescending and belittling behavior of Obama supporters. In response to your comment "Ever take an math class? Third-grade arithmetic?" I'll tell you that I have an engineering degree.

One of the reasons why Clinton voters will not vote for Obama is the nasty, ugly and mean behavior of Obama's black supporters toward Clinton's white supporters, in which their anti-white resentment, meanness and hatred shows itself quite regularly.

Obama's brought a new tone to politics, all right. He's imbued the Democratic Party with the ugly hatred of black-on-white racism. Just wait until Republicans get a load of Obama the hypocrite, who acts so respectful and dignified while his posses of surrogates and supporters behave like gangstas in the hood toward anyone who questions him.

Posted by: AsperGirl | May 9, 2008 1:57 AM | Report abuse

I thing the racist, sexist issues are like chickens coming home to roost in this election. And to think that we pioneered these issues( Maybe we were too greedy?

Posted by: mary | May 9, 2008 1:56 AM | Report abuse

-------------------------------------------

IMPEACH DEAN!

TJ

-------------------------------------------

Posted by: Tom Jefferson | May 9, 2008 1:54 AM | Report abuse

"Is anyone going to answer this,

I heard that Dean had told Obama that this would be so much easier if he was a black woman...Is this true?"

Okay, I'll answer that! You are a racist sexist pig, Jamal. Jamal: isn't that a Muslim name??

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

And the Rev should have thought of that one too!

Posted by: Almanac Kid | May 9, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

By continuing her campaign, Clinton continues the emotional divide between her voters and Obama. So long as she remains in the race, her supporters continue to develop immunity to Obama's message and feel lack of empathy for Obama.

I for one am cheering McCain on for calling Obama out his hypocrisy. McCain came back at an Obama camp smear very assertively:

"We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is."

(McCain campaign response to Obama campaign attack)

The more McCain calls out the Obama campaign's blatant hypocrisy and as the more McCain highlights the faux narrative of the under-qualified, black freshman senator who wants to be President with the lightest resume of experience ever, the more Clinton supporters will cheer him on.

As McCain fights back against the Obama campaign's hypocrisy and the arrogant, empty speeches Obama delivers despite his lack of qualifications, Clinton supporters will develop more and more empathy for McCain during the Summer.

Posted by: AsperGirl | May 9, 2008 1:49 AM | Report abuse

has anyone thought this through, that barak should have just went public with his campaign as the bi-racial, or mixed race candidate....?

instead of the black candidate. gosh, all this would be a mute point. maybe dean should have also thought of that one, before sending the inexpereinced senator off to the wolves.

Posted by: way out there | May 9, 2008 1:48 AM | Report abuse

"The blacks can have the party I will vote Green or see who the independent will be."

Poor dumb peckerwood! I'm white, and old, and backing Obama. So is my wife. You can have your KKK fantasies if it's what turns you on.

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 1:48 AM | Report abuse

wc


"THE CLINTONS WILL LIVE ON IN INFAMY!"


*

Posted by: W. Churchill | May 9, 2008 1:45 AM | Report abuse

New Hillary campaign slogans:

In your heart, you know she's white.

Things were better in the 90s. The 1890s.

Why do you think they call it the WHITE House?

Not everyone has a role.

A hardworking white person. Just like you.

Arbeit macht frei.

Posted by: gbooksdc | May 9, 2008 1:45 AM | Report abuse

Is anyone going to answer this,

I heard that Dean had told Obama that this would be so much easier if he was a black woman...Is this true?

Posted by: jamal | May 9, 2008 1:43 AM | Report abuse

"Clinton's campaign has been the rainbow candidacy: she has the Hispanic, Asian, White woman, white senior, Jewish, blue collar white and all of the rest."

Just not very many of them! Ever take an math class? Third-grade arithmetic?

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 1:41 AM | Report abuse

-------------------------------------------


IMPEACH DEAN!


tj

-------------------------------------------

Posted by: Tom Jefferson | May 9, 2008 1:41 AM | Report abuse

he keeps saying she needs to get out of the race, why doesn't he (dean) just get out the race, and let the chips fall where they may. it's obvious he's been trying to rig this thing since the beginning. and you know what, everyone is catching on mr. dean, everyone is catching on....

Posted by: voter in florida | May 9, 2008 1:39 AM | Report abuse

"They did a similar thing with Hillary's comments about MLK working with LBJ to enact the Civil Rights legislation."

That is NOT what she said, Sam! Check the record!

Posted by: tom | May 9, 2008 1:39 AM | Report abuse

Whatever happens, the Clintons are dead. The Democratic Party is finally free of them. Every cloud has a silver lining.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 1:39 AM | Report abuse

The importance of Clinton continuing to oppose Obama is to deny him the support of her voters. He and his campaign has treated her with disrespect, hypocrisy and sexist bashing (and I do credit the sneering voices and demeaning, mean words of Obama surrogates to Obama himeslf). Obama doesn't have the support of Clinton voters and has done nothing to deserve her support of his candidacy.

I for one am cheering McCain on for calling Obama out his hypocrisy. The McCain came back to an Obama camp smear quite clearly: "We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is."

By continuing her campaign, Clinton continues the emotional divide between her voters and Obama. So long as she remains in the race, her supporters continue to develop immunity to Obama's message. She is immunizing them against empathy for Obama, and rightfully so.

Clinton's campaign has been the rainbow candidacy: she has the Hispanic, Asian, White woman, white senior, Jewish, blue collar white and all of the rest. Clinton, by staying in the race, leaves Obama trying to show leadership and unity with only his collection of white ivory-tower liberals and blacks.

Obama will to prove he can unite and lead that narrow "base" of his, while Clinton's swing voter rainbow base develops more and more empathy for McCain, as McCain picks up the fight against the Obama attack-and-smear blogosphere and the mean, foul Obama surrogates. As McCain fights back against the Obama campaign's hypocrisy and the arrogant, empty speeches Obama delivers despite his lack of qualifications, Clinton supporters will cheer McCain on and develop more and more empathy for him.

Obama doesn't deserve the votes of Clinton supporters and won't get them.

Posted by: AsperGirl | May 9, 2008 1:38 AM | Report abuse

Want my opinion of Dean,

1. sets a black man against a white woman, go figure it?
2. kicks Florida and Michigan out of the Primary, go figure it!
3. as head of the party, he plays favorites before the elections are over, overstepping his juridiction, and making a mockery of the party.

All said, Dean is a walking disaster for the party, and his terrible leadership will crack this party in half!

Posted by: Mike | May 9, 2008 1:37 AM | Report abuse

Which side was the first to play the race card? It was Obama's. When Bill Clinton called Obama's claim that he consistently opposed the Iraq War a "fairy tale," the Obama campaign took the sound bite and spun it to claim falsely that he was calling Obama's life story a "fairy tale," so they could accuse the Clintons of racism. They did a similar thing with Hillary's comments about MLK working with LBJ to enact the Civil Rights legislation.

Posted by: Sam | May 9, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

"I wish to screw over the voters in Florida and Michigan, because they weren't behind my man, Mr. O....so I dumped them!"

Posted by: Howard Dean | May 9, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

gOd DaMn HowArd DeAn, and F*cK hiLLaRy ToO!

this ad sponsored by the "committee for appointing racists pastors on democratic campaigns"

Posted by: rEv | May 9, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

Is it true that Dean told Obama the other day, that this would have been so much easier, if Obama was a black woman?

Posted by: jamal | May 9, 2008 1:25 AM | Report abuse

Instead of pointing at candidates, maybe we should looking at our leadership, anyone heard of Howard Dean. This guy totally dropped the ball on us, and has left this primary in chaos, and the country standing by watching the circus!

If anyone out to get out, it's DEAN!

Posted by: Johnny Democracy | May 9, 2008 1:23 AM | Report abuse

obama will divide, but he will not conquer!

Posted by: independent raza girl | May 9, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

IMHO this thread focuses far too much on race and divisiveness. To the extent that white voters appear to favor Clinton over Obama, I believe the reason is less 'race' than what George Wallace made famous as the 'pointy-head' factor.

Obama is indisputably an intellectual, meaning someone who thinks 'beneath the surface' and focuses on the 'big picture'. Comparisons with Adlai Stevenson have been made and are not irrelevant. However, as none other than George Will has pointed out, Obama differs from Stevenson in one important respect. His intellectual grasp of issues is accompanied by a 'steel' that Stevenson lacked.

Rarely in US politics has a candidate emerged who possesses both intellectual capacity and the 'backbone' to take on and defeat the 'pointy-head' stigma that the George Wallaces of politics attempt to hang on anyone who appeals to the intellect.

The electorate has taken note, and those that have difficulty in getting beyond prejudice would be well advised to think carefully about their options.

Big John's appeal belongs to a byegone age. Do we want 'more of the same', or are we prepared to take a step into the future, to take a chance on the new guy.

As perceived from the outside, America is a motor for change, renewal, innovation. Obama represents, potentially, an engine driving change. Inevitably, he will stumble. That goes with the territory. But the choice is clear.

This election had little to do with race or gender. It has everything to do with the willingness of Americans to step into the future, or cling to a dubious past.

The World is watching.

Posted by: Rob Bentley | May 9, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

If Clinton somehow wrestles the nomination from Obama, I would hope that African-American voters would either vote downballot or vote for another presidential candidate. Obama supporters see Hillary Clinton for exactly who she is...an inexperienced, opportunistic phony. She hasn't run a thing in her life, and is trying to piggyback off of her philandering, corrupt husband to get the White House. What has she done in the Senate? What major legislation has she passed? And no, naming government buildings does not count. She has a thin record, other than yelling about "fighting for you". She made it very clear that the only people worth fightinhg for are poor, white working class voters, since they are the only hardworking Americans in her eyes. I guess if you are non-white, went to college, and live in an urban area your vote means less.

If she gets the nomination, African-American voters will not vote for her, and she will lose the states she claims that will only vote for her. Another arrogant assertion. Its funny how some Democrats were fine when black Democrats were supporting white candidates, but they have a problem doing the same. Makes you wonder just how much of a "big tent" the Democratic party is. I guess when you stay in your place, things are ok, but don't you dare try to get in front of Queen Hillary! She won't win Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Florida, or Nevada without African-American support, and frankly, she doesn't deserve it. I wouldn't waste my vote on someone of such low character, and neither are the Obama supporters she has continued to deride and ignore. We won't vote for this do-nothing, pompous woman who only cares about gaining power.

Posted by: John | May 9, 2008 1:18 AM | Report abuse

Race relations have come a long way since the 60's huh?

Posted by: Dennis | May 9, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary!

Please, not the "race card." It is not just Whites who have been supporting you and the more you find the need to have to say that, the more you make other ethnics feel invisible and insignifcant.

On the other hand, you present the lie that Barack is only getting support from the Black community. What you don't seem to have captured yet Hillary, is that your style of politics is being rejected.

You were a former First Lady, Hillary, greatly admired by Democrats from all walks of life. Please don't loose your dignity trying to fight in these battles; the war has already been won.

Posted by: Reggie Boykins | May 9, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse

just when one thinks the clintons can't do another dumb thing, the clintons...well...do a dumb thing...this is tragic on two fronts...one, they have frequently shown their true colors and character, neither seemingly the high road...and, two, they are held in such high esteem, despite it...

i think the democratic party sells itself short...it should be clear, at this point, that they simply do not need the clintons, or their brand of politics to thrive...and very few democratic politicians seem to have the stones to address this...it is as if we have dumbed down our politics, our values and have come to expect and deliver very little in terms of an honorable government(i know, it sounds like an oxymoron, but i think it's possible)

they've just been given the extraordinary gift of a grass roots organization that is providing ample bounty...millions in both monies and new voters...the energy alone is an amazing thing...it would seem to be a no brainer...and imagine how much more powerful it would be if they enthusiastically supported and embraced it..

clinton has fought the good fight, but it's over...she needs to stand tall and give a gracious departure...all this posturing about the 50 states having a voice seems disingenuous coming from a woman who once said that "michigan won't matter"...and if she does pull off a victory, it is at a great cost...the democratic party...and, that she would even entertain this idea is galling

Posted by: jazzgrrrl25 | May 9, 2008 1:05 AM | Report abuse

JakeD and Shawn are racists. They did not complain when Bill got 90% black vote.

Posted by: Independent | May 9, 2008 1:02 AM | Report abuse

There is only slight advantage. Mostly amongst less than college education. She is working with media and hate mongers like JakeD to create more.

Posted by: Independent | May 9, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

So I guess the Democrats consider Hillary, the Queen of the KKK of A?

LOL!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

I was a diehard Clintonite and would have gone to the mat for them. What a disgrace when you will do anything or say anything to win. They continue to say things that remind me of the former Democratic Governor of Arkansas,Estes Kefauver.If the Democrats continue to squabble about race they will implode. Haters take a hike.

Posted by: mmmisewicz | May 9, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse

Obama already crowned himself king and his really wife anointed him today. I will not vote for him not because of color but because his arrogant Bush like character!!!!

Posted by: jackmack74 | May 9, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

Obama and his supporters are racists. Look 90+ percent blacks voted for Obama.


Bill has done enough for these ungrateful people.

Posted by: Shawn | May 9, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

I think it's wonderful that Hillary scores with white racists! She's tops with current and former KKK members as well as those who wished they had joined. Expect her to be sworn in as an honorary Confederate General in Kentucky. I also hear Hitler Youth Octogenarians and the Geriatric Nazis are big Hillary fans.

Posted by: Barbra | May 9, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

I'm white but I'll be one angry 51 y/o white guy if Hillary steals this thing from Obama. I'll be a peaceful angry white guy though.

Hillary's comments today about the white vote should be viewed as offensive to all Americans.

By the way, I think that what the exit polls in Miss, Ohio and PA showed is that one can define political racism as the act of voting for someone because of their opponent's skin color. In other words black Obama voters were not voting for Obama because Clinton was white; however, there were plenty of white Clinton voters that were voting for Hillary because Obama was black.

The old double standard racism argument is bogus considering our long history of slavery and racial discrimination.

Go Obama Go.


Posted by: Doug M | May 9, 2008 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Here's the audio of Hillary marginalizing the black vote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfidftLe5Z0

Posted by: gbooksdc | May 9, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse

Clinton is not QUALIFIED to be President.

She is not knowledgeable and too arrogant and lazy to learn what she needs to know. She would rather manipulate the process to win.


Right now, it is Clinton and his supporters who are trying to sanction the illegal Michigan revote and Florida seating for that matter.

WE VOTERS need to write Howard Dean and our state superdelegates and convince them that we WILL NOT STAND for the contest to be stacked in favor of Clinton because "her supporters might get upset". Obama's supporters WILL GET UPSET as well if he doesn't get a fair shake and that doesn't include the votes from Michigan and Florida that those states were told in advance would not be sanctioned by the DNCC. (The media and Howard Dean act as if Clinton, by virtue of being female, has a higher claim than Obama. Listen and you will hear this outrageous bias everywhere.)


If Clinton gets her way, it will be all of us who lose since she will have NO chance in November without the support of disgruntled voters bitter about having no voice in Washington as well as angry voters that just flat out hate Hillary Clinton for sometimes silly reasons. We must promise retribution if Howard Dean and the credentials committee refuse to play fair.

Write congress.org and Howard Dean at [www.democrats.org].

Do this today and pass it on please. Time is running out and the Rules Committee is meeting at the end of May.

Posted by: FIXED IT! | May 9, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Can you imagine the headlines not only at home but in the entire world if 92% of whites voters voted for Hillary?

Posted by: | May 9, 2008 12:15 AM
_____________________________________________

You like the way 92% of blacks routinely vote Democrat? The way (white) Ben Cardin pulled 88% of the black vote running against a (black) moderate Republican? The way nearly 60% of blacks supported Clinton just last October? (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/17/poll.blacks.democrats/index.html)

That way? Because those instances generated zero headlines.

PS When you're right, you can be PROUD to sign your name. Like I do, every time. Ah well, racism and cowardice go hand in hand.

Posted by: gbooksdc | May 9, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

"Can you imagine the headlines not only at home but in the entire world if 92% of whites voters voted for Hillary?"
Posted by: | May 9, 2008 12:15 AM

Can you imagine growing up in a world where you were not represented in the highest office of your home for 232 years?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

Obama is not QUALIFIED to be President.

He is not knowledgeable and too arrogant and lazy to learn what he needs to know. He would rather manipulate the process to win.


Right now, it is Obama and his supporters who are blocking any Michigan revote or Florida seating for that matter.

WE VOTERS need to write Howard Dean and our state superdelegates and convince them that we WILL NOT STAND for the contest to be stacked in favor of Obama because "his supporters might get upset". Hillary's supporters WILL GET UPSET as well if she doesn't get a fair shake and that includes the votes she got from Michigan and Florida. (The media and Howard Dean act as if Obama, by virtue of being black, has a higher claim than Hillary. Listen and you will hear this outrageous bias everywhere.)


If Obama gets his way, it will be all of us who lose since he will have NO chance in November without the support of Michigander and Floridian voters as well as angry voters such as me. We must promise retribution if Howard Dean and the credentials committee refuse to play fair.

Write congress.org and Howard Dean at [www.democrats.org].

Do this today and pass it on please. Time is running out and the Rules Committee is meeting at the end of May.

Posted by: Hillary Simply the Best | May 9, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

If Senator Clinton is continuing the campaign so the remaining voices can be heard in West Virginia and so on, why is she fighting tooth and nail to lure Superdelegates to seal her nomination? Oh the hypocrisy! Superdelegates should step in now so the Party can move forward. Especially in light of Senator Clinton's divisive 'white votes counts' statement.

Posted by: woody | May 9, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

If Senator Clinton is continuing the campaign so the remaining voices can be heard in West Virginia and so on, why is she fighting tooth and nail to lure Superdelegates to seal her nomination? Oh the hypocrisy! Superdelegates should step in now so the Party can move forward. Especially in light of Senator Clinton's divisive 'white votes counts' statement.

Posted by: Woody | May 9, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Can you imagine the headlines not only at home but in the entire world if 92% of whites voters voted for Hillary?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's supporters would vote for McCain? Not likely. They may be undereducated, but they are not stupid.

Posted by: steve boyington | May 9, 2008 12:12 AM | Report abuse

http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2008/05/clinton_campaign_opposes_givin.html

"Clinton campaign spokesman Isaac Baker said Thursday the campaign won't support any proposal that gives Clinton fewer delegates than she earned by winning the primary."

So much for Michigan having a voice in the convention. Obviously, she just wants to keep this alive as an issue. But now Obama can say he was for Michigan's own plan, it was Clinton who blocked it -- in other words, he's got political cover for the status quo.

Earlier, George Stephanopoulos -- in his role as a Clinton campaign spokesman -- essentially floated the feeler that Clinton would take the #2 spot. She must have been turned down, so now she's back on the war path.

I'm thinking her "white votes count" crack to USA Today will drive even more supers to Obama. People who actually have to stand for election understand how racist she's become -- people aren't THAT stupid -- and they can't afford to be associated with these kinds of sentiments. Poor Hubert Humphrey must be spinning in his grave, wondering what happened to the party that once championed civil rights, at a high political cost. Now, the former front-runner is embracing racism for political advantage.

Posted by: gbooksdc | May 9, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

oops

I'll be back to read
Spring contest haikus...that's five...
If anyone's bored

Posted by: eljefejesus | May 9, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

oops

I'll be back to read
Spring contest haikus...that's five...
If anyone's bored

Posted by: eljefejesus | May 9, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

I hope some other people decide to post some political haikus on this contest.

I'll be back to read
Spring contest haikus...
If anyone's bored

Posted by: eljefejesus | May 8, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

It is good to see that North Carolina was reported with little political "spin." A win is a win, but when one candidate has almost clinched the nomination, that may be the last win that matters.

Posted by: eljefejesus | May 8, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama in May
Winning the contest so soon?
Republicans' fear

Posted by: eljefejesus | May 8, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Throw the bumbs out,

Vote Obama 2008!

Posted by: eljefejesus | May 8, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

But I also know that when you look at the races as a whole, whites do have an unfair advantage as far as inherited wealth goes. They've traditionally earned more and could buy more and invest more. Just that some of us have always been poor and with the economy faltering, a lot of people of all races that were climbing towards the middle class have fallen flat on their backsides. It's just a bad time to have nothing to fall back on when you do find yourself slipping for whatever reason. It's bad times and I think Obama provides the most hope.

And also - if you are white, don't you think some of the high dollar donors could be seeing things the way that you and I do and want to work toward a more equal society?

Posted by: WhiteDove | May 8, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

We should "YES WE CAN"
Gritamos "SI SE PUEDE"
Mai "OUI NOUS POUVONS"

Posted by: eljefejesus | May 8, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

lbm, I'm white and I'm working lower class. I'm not rich and I kind of resent you equating rich people with white people. I know there are no poor white people on TV or in leadership positions and most of us are passed off as either white trash (a term I despise) or lazy bums (which isn't an entirely true depiction in all cases of us either) but there are a lot of us out here in America, working 40+ hours a week to meet our basic necessities like food, shelter, and a little entertainment on the side. I know that's not a necessity but entertainment should be counted as such i.m.o.

At any rate, I think that most of Obama's fundraising has come from grassroots organization. Hitting up a massive array of donors for small donations when they can give. I'm not positive about that but he's all about accountability and I bet those records would be easy to find for him. At any rate, I trust him to stand up for what he knows is right and just. And I think he knows that if the vast majority of his funds come from the American people that can give only a little at a time then he'll be looking out for them more than the pharmaceutical companies or oil companies or whoever else his corporate donors might be. But you have to trust him to do that. You can't complain about him catering to special interests until he's actually done that.

Posted by: WhiteDove | May 8, 2008 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Jessica wrote:

"I am white ... and the only people I know supporting him are blacks at work"

Well, no surprise there; her comments sound like that of a racist white supremist.

It's probably not her fault, though. Judging by the errors in spelling and verb agreement in her short comment, it appears as though the education system has failed her too.

Posted by: Steve | May 8, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

graduating crowds
can you help your elders out?
change the country's path

Posted by: eljefejesus | May 8, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Iowa is mostly white working class. They voted for Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

It's sad, but there are still people in this world, who would vote for or against on the basis of skin color.

( Some of these people have commented here )

This can be a defining moment in our nation's history. We can show ourselves and the world, that we have transcended the racism of our past and vote on the issues for or against, McCain or Obama.

Or we can let our children know, that nothing will ever change.

Posted by: wolf | May 8, 2008 11:30 PM | Report abuse

"Another person said that you would be surprised what happens in the black churches. I just listen to what they were saying. It truly seem that they were more or less saying that the church had a control over the way a person would vote.

Could that be right?"
___________________________________________

How is that any different than the situation in white churches or any churches that dip their influence into politics? How is that any different than Jimmy Swaggart telling people to vote for G.H.W. Bush because he opposes abortion?

Is the difference because one preacher is black and the other is white and broadcasting his message on national TV?

I suggest you start analyzing what you overhear by applying it to your own life. If someone says, "All black people do what their preachers tell them," then think to yourself, "Do all white people do what their preachers tell them? Do ALL white people act the same way? If ALL white people don't act the same way then why do I think all black people act the same way?" Analyze your thoughts. Reflect on what you hear and analyze your thoughts. I'll bet you'll find that 100% of what people tell you in regards to political and societal occurrences is their own opinion with very little hard-earned fact to back it up.

Posted by: White Dove | May 8, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

There is really only one concern that voters should have and should be questioning. For the first time African-Americans finally have the chance to make history and have their voices be heard. Unfortunatly, Mr. Obama is also getting the very wealthy vote. As everyone knows politicians take money from all types of people and organizations, and he has received millions upon millions from the very wealthy. If he becomes President we all know that eventually the bill becomes due, and those that supported you are going to want something in return. My question is how true will he remain to the African-Americans that supported him when he has rich white people wanting favors and they are the ones who gave the most money. What side do you think he will choose? That may very well be the big picture that all should be looking at. People in the inner city have never gotten all they deserve-education, quality of life improvements, and better jobs. The money has always gone to the big companies and the wealthy. Do you think that will change? The numbers don't show that, and just so you know I am white, and believe that life should be better for ALL races.

Posted by: lbm | May 8, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

"Ill fares the land
To worsening ills a prey
Where wealth accumulates, and men decay."


I once read this quote that sounds like it's talking about the US in this recession where the Republicans have already cut every tax they could get their hands on, including the wealth-concentrating inheritance tax (which they started calling the death tax to make it sound like it was about everyone, not about the very wealthy).


Posted by: eljefejesus | May 8, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

"I was reffering to what could happen if the nomination was stolen from Obama. It would just confirm that the black man will never be able to win because "whitey" will never let it happen. That would set us back decades."
__________________________________________
I don't think it would set us back, but I think, if everything is done fair and square and Hillary won the nomination, people could accept that. Even us most hardcore Obama supporters.

However, he's pretty much got the nomination all tied up at this point. He's the most serious black candidate and more than that - the most serious candidate that's looking out for ALL Americans that we've had since, well, Bill Clinton. Maybe I'm living in fantasy land or maybe I have crunched all the numbers fairly and squarely, but he does have the numbers and the people in his corner. And I think he can turn the people that don't support him now into true believers by the time November rolls around.

But I think, beyond the nightmare scenarios, he's empowered all Americans that want change and want a voice in the government and he'll be the voice of reason in Washington beyond this long, dragged out, sick-of-it-all-three-months-ago nomination process.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

alee21 --

(1) Hillaryites have EXCELLED at name-calling, slurs, and general nastiness. Your own post is an example.
(2) I'm white, and it's clear to me that Hill/Bill BEGAN the "racializing." You can blame them for the scabs ... as most of us do. And you're making it far, far worse -- to your candidate's, and our party's, great detriment.

And, note: I'm a professional (nonpolitical) researcher, so must scan tons of news-et-al sites daily.
Since Feb., I've marveled at the waves of weirdly same-sounding (even identical) pro-Hillary/anti-Obama posts that pop up robotically on unrelated -- and even obscure -- media-and-other sites. The stuff generally has the same tone, "HRC spin of the day," typos, and often usernames or alleged-personal details. It also either (a) pushes nyah-nyah ad-hominem slurs, or (b) carries inadvertent hints that the poster isn't just Joe/Jane Average Voter. (And Joe/Jane Average are unlikely to post SO often, SO identically, and in such far-flung markets.)
It's obvious to longtime-and-prof'l politics watchers that this post-flood isn't "grassrootsy," but is a paid and/or coordinated HRC effort.
Hence, your posts are familiar from other locales; and the content itself is deja vu, since others posted near-identical stuff elsewhere, and I've seen it 3x today.

Posted by: wryer | May 8, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse

jessica-Bad News.

George Soros and the World Labor Party that ARE the "Green" Party, are also "Barry's" sponsors!

It is the Kos, and all the other "Green" entities that have been getting "Empty Suit" where he is.

LOL! :-D

And NOW his "Baggage" is showing up! ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | May 8, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Indeed we are seeing Hillary's true colours emerge... what a pathetic spectacle. Kudo's to Barack for not taking the bait and keeping steady. The better candidate has indeed emerged.

As for the Clinton legacy, its in shambles.

Posted by: Michael | May 8, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Tired of this race stuff. I am white and I am not voting for Obama and the only people I know supporting him are blacks at work. Everyone is so afraid that you don't support Obama you are a racist. People need to wake up to this because Obama cannot be critized here. People will be disappointed when they see he cannot bring people together and has most likely with the rest of these black coalition have divided the Democratic Party. The blacks can have the party I will vote Green or see who the independent will be.

Nobama

Posted by: Jessica | May 8, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

This is earth to the Clinton campaign. Forty percent of North Carolina whites voted for Obama!

Posted by: Jim | May 8, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

This is really sad to watch Hillary loosing touch with reality. She really is starting to look more like a strait jacket case everyday.

Posted by: Jim | May 8, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

Black White Black White
Maybe its a feature of the bicameral mind to always want to see things as black and white. But life isnt that simple. I am not a color. And if I am, its more like something between peachpuff (RGB values 205, 133, 63) and burlywood (222, 184, 135).

Posted by: Steve | May 8, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Supers are doing the right thing now by supporting Barack Obama, especially in light of Clinton making outrageous comments designed to split voters along racial lines by saying that she has the support of hard working "white" people. That is a terrible thing to say for someone who is trying to be the leader of all of the people of the United States of America. She does not deserve to be a leader. She had the benefit of the doubt of a lot of people but as her campaign continued she lost the respect of more and more of us. Hillary Clinton has proceded though her campaign to step lower and lower to this low point that is surprising in its insensitivity. She needs to appologize to the country for her remarks. The one good thing that has come of this is the clarity of the fact that Barack Obama is the leader for a truly United States inclusive of all people. He has come through the barrage of mud slung at him by the Clintons with his character and integrity intact. He has continued to maintain a positive campaign, inspiring us all to be better people, to do the right thing, to do right for our country. He is the leader for us.

Posted by: carolyn | May 8, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

FACT: It seems that black voters are voting for a black candidate. Lots of white voters seem to be voting for a white candidate.

I over heard a person in a gas station make this comment the other day
"the black voters would vote for a black person no matter what the persons history or long standing happened to be because black voters had a history of doing that no matter what, or even it the person could do anything to help or not".

I just wondered if that could actually be true.

Another person said that you would be surprised what happens in the black churches. I just listen to what they were saying. It truly seem that they were more or less saying that the church had a control over the way a person would vote.

Could that be right?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON is the right candidate to be the Democratic Presidential Nomination choice. Hillary will produce the WIN for the Democratic Presidential election.

~~SUPERDELEGATES -- NEED TO DO LOTS OF SOUL SEARCHING....BEFORE GIVING JOHN MCCAIN THE PRESIDENTIAL WIN.
~~SUPERDELEGATES -- NOTHING IS WRONG WITH CHANGING YOUR ENDORSEMENT TO HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON.
~~SUPERDELEGATES -- PLEASE DON'T LET YOUR PRIDE STAND IN THE WAY OF CHANGING YOUR SUPPORT AND ENDORSEMENT TO HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON....HILLARY IS COMMITTED TO AMERICA.

Thank you - California Senator Dianne Feinstein and California Senator Barbara Boxer for your support and endorsement for HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON.

GO HILLARY!!!
GO HILLARY!!!
GO ALL THE WAY TO THE CONVENTION!!!
GO ALL THE WAY TO THE WHITE HOUSE!!!

~~~WHO LET THE DOGS OUT~~~
~~~WHO LET THE DOGS OUT~~~

Posted by: Blondshag | May 8, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse


"Who needs a quota, you need a quota, who's gotta quota? I never said anything about needing no darn quota, we don't need no darn quota!"

Posted by: Jackie Chiles | May 8, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

If you look at all of this, I think the only way we're going to see a black man for President, is if he's a conservative..kind of like Colin Powell. America would probably go for a guy like him.

Posted by: Raddude | May 8, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama will divide, but he will not conquer!

Posted by: independent raza girl | May 8, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

I was reffering to what could happen if the nomination was stolen from Obama. It would just confirm that the black man will never be able to win because "whitey" will never let it happen. That would set us back decades.


******************
What I'm hearing in the black activist comments is not hatred from black citizens but fear from white citizens. The guy who said, "I would not want to live in a city with a large black population once they hate for the whites that has been festering for so lone bursts forth," I just assumed was a white guy telling us his fears of a Barack Obama presidency.

That's not how I see it at all. I see nothing wrong with black empowerment and I think not closing, but bridging the racial divide with a wonderful orator, thinker and statesman that happens to be black would empower the black community in so many beautiful, positive ways.
Posted by: WhiteDove | May 8, 2008 10:02 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

------------------------------------------


News Flash!

"DEMOCRATS NOMINATE AMANDA JEFFERSON, A SENATOR FROM DELEWARE, TO REPRESENT THE PARTY IN THE GENERAL ELECTION...."

In a dimly lit backroom, Howard Dean is seen having his cake, and nearly choking on it too!

-------------------------------------------

Posted by: Almanac Kid | May 8, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

comment


Recent History of Howard Dean:

Pits an African American male against a Caucasian female in the biggest primary ever!......MORON!

Disqualifies Florida and Michigan primaries, and disenfranchises millions of voters,...so Patriotic...MORON!


Comes out swinging, while the race is still in the air, and auspiciously endorses Obama...Favoritism.....MORON!


WHEN IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY GOING TO UNDERSTAND THAT HOWARD DEAN IS A MORON!


really now, what's up with this guy))))

Posted by: ty | May 8, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

What I'm hearing in the black activist comments is not hatred from black citizens but fear from white citizens. The guy who said, "I would not want to live in a city with a large black population once they hate for the whites that has been festering for so lone bursts forth," I just assumed was a white guy telling us his fears of a Barack Obama presidency.

That's not how I see it at all. I see nothing wrong with black empowerment and I think not closing, but bridging the racial divide with a wonderful orator, thinker and statesman that happens to be black would empower the black community in so many beautiful, positive ways.

Posted by: WhiteDove | May 8, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

jusa


you go girl, you grab all those votes, you win in kentucky and west virginia, you have counted all those millions that voted for you in fla. and mich., you go girl, you grab all the votes you can, and don't let anybody tell you to quit, or that you have to start being nice to obama, you go girl, grab those votes and delegates!

jusa

Posted by: JenniferUSA | May 8, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

African Americans did their best to elect Al Gore and John Kerry. Whites kept electing George W. Bush. Do you think the country is better off today than it was 8 years ago? Maybe the African American population is supporting Obama, not because he is black (he is also 1/2 white), but because he is the best candidate. Hillary's campaigh is in debt but she still insist on staying in the race which is not really a race any more. She is fiscally irresponsible. If she can't manage money in a campaign, just think what she will do with tax payer money.

Posted by: JB | May 8, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Just A Klansman Expressing Disdain...

JakeD.

Posted by: JokeD | May 8, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

A revote in Florida or Michigan.......

Correct me but didnt they rule that out for Al Gore in 2000?

Apparently then the rules were the rules and that was that...

Posted by: support a revote? | May 8, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

hey JakeD will you still be on these blogs when BO gets the nomination, or when he becomes President...?

My tip is he will run with HRC as VP....

But you no doubt will have no opinion other than one espousuing the negatives...
Which is all you have done in evey SINGLE BLOG you have been on....

Your choice I guess....


Posted by: NickH | May 8, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

"It's going to be a landslide for Obama."

Not if Hillary Clinton manages to steal the nomination ...

so sayeth JakeD...
--------------------------------
Well JakeD if Hillary steals the nomination then it will be a landslide for McCain. Fullstop.

And the serious consequences you asked about earlier?

This: The Democrats will no longer be a bona fide or legitimate political force, they will be finished. A primary vote fopr a democrat candidate will always be a dorothy dix vote, the deomcrats will simply be Communists. This is how they vote for candidates in China or did you know that much allready?

Posted by: NickH | May 8, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

So, the newest Clinton claim. Vote for me because whites won't vote for him.

I never thought I'd ever say this. If she's right, and white democrats won't vote for a black candidate in large enough numbers, but we can, as Bill always did, take the black vote for democrats for granted, then maybe the Democrats aren't yet ready for the Presidency.

Hillary, I really was excited about voting for you. But never again. Not now. Not in NY. Not in 2011. It's no longer about you. Stop embarassing yourself and us.

Posted by: mythbusters | May 8, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand all these Obamaites calling Hillary names and demanding that she quits. She has 48.7% of the popular vote not even counting Michigan and Florida. The only reason is that they are afraid that Hillary supporters will not support Obami - in that they are absolutely right. We will not support a thin-skinnned hypocrite like Obama. By the way, in response to McGovern who said Hillary supporters in the end will support Obama, he is way past his time. Hillary supporters who are independent, like myself, have no allegiance to either party. We vote for whom we think is the best for the job and that person is Hillary. Forget the Democratic Party - it's a party of infinite rules and regulations, a party for aging liberals and blacks.

Obama is ahead of the nomination game because his camp pulled the race/victim card whenever he runs into problems. Above all else, that is the one thing that convinces me that I will not vote for Obami.

Why doesn't he support a revote in Michigan and Florida? Is he so scared or is he so arrogant? In my view, he has stolen the nomination from Clinton by playing the victim card, by refusing to debate before important primaries, by trucking impressionable college kids to the voting booth, by hypocrisy, by spreading disinformation, by pushing the caucus states where voting is entirely undemocratic, by buying voters through massive ad campaigns. He is most certainly not another JFK nor a Bill Clinton. He is but a typical Chicago politician who has learned how to manipulate the system. Why hasn't the press figured out what is going on with Rezko, Ayers and what Obama did to win his State Senate seat?

More than anyone in recent memory, Obama has peeled open racial scabs and polarized the nation. Obama should drop out if he wants what is best for the country and not what is best for him. The real winner in all this is Axelrod and his ilk.

Posted by: alee21 | May 8, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

I bet all the geezers who talk down Obama are ancient and have no "myspace" nor have they even heard of it. Obama will be the president, more! he will be the president for the world. Unless you're a total fool to engage in self flagellation you'll shed your fear, vote for Obama and Uplift yourself politically and economically.

Posted by: Penny | May 8, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

can someone let her know it is not going to happen for her......all she is doind is messing it up for the next female candidate.....no one likes sore losers

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton brings up a great point or should I say she identifies a big problem. African American voters are too loyal to the Democratic Party. She basically dismissed the African American voters. She figures they are given and that no real efforts needs to be fourth to earn their votes. She held this same point of view through out the campaign when she started to dismiss states that were predominately black assuming that Sen. Obama would win anyway. She probably figured that she could get their votes in November. There was no concern that she might ruffle any feathers of an important group in the Democratic Party. Why? As far as she was and is concerned African American votes (as she implied in her press conference) are a given. Like so many Democratic politicians they view African Americans like loyal dogs, no matter if you are good or bad to them, they will always be by your side. She feels that the white working class is important because they can switch parties. Why? Because they are loyal to themselves and issues that are in their best interest. African Americans are loyal to the Democratic Party even if they suffer from party. African American voters need to realize that their votes are taken for granted. African American voters need to reanalyze their loyalty to the Democratic Party. African American voters need to ask, "what have you done for me lately'? Like all Democratic politicians black, white or brown they feel the African American vote is a given, so there is no reason to make any serious efforts to earn their votes. I hope that one day African American would unite and vote Republican or Independent. That would scare the daylights out of the Democratic Party and then they would no longer take the black vote for granted. Sen. Clinton pompous behind expected to win the election as if she was heir to the presidency. She knew she could count on her loyal, no questions asked black voters. As for the other voters, well she showered them with substantive information. African American voters got MLK Hallelujah and meetings with African American groups. They skillfully pander victimization like a used car salesman. Sen. Clinton keeps harping on her "coalition" what would happen if 90% of black voters voted for McCain. How would she do then!?

Posted by: Peggy | May 8, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Exit polling is like your toilet paper JakeD. When you smell what's been cooking, it stinks.

It's been a primary of women supporting Hillary over the amount of men. Racists aren't winning and they won't.

For 20 years Clinton's had the fame and some haven't wanted to let the 90's go.

A lot of guys in America don't want Bill back in the White House. Some Hillary supporters want to say gender bias, that's not true.

Bill caused controversy with his statements during Hillary's campaign, but guys haven't forgotten his actions as Governor in Arkansas or in the White House.

Many reject the Clinton Dynasty and it took Bush's robbing the electorate for theirs to happen.

Posted by: Marks | May 8, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse

How very sad that we as white people would reject a wonderful person because of skin color. We have no choice in the color of our skin. We do have other choices such as telling multiple lies and committing adultry. Yet we seek to punish and torture skin color and reward liars and adulterers. I'm not sure I'm happy to be a white person in this world. What is morally wrong with this picture? EVERYTHING!! Is this a Christian attitude? And Hillary is cruel to keep bringing this issue before the public. I don't want her as my president and I am white.

Posted by: LaDonna Wilson | May 8, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

How very sad that we as white people would reject a wonderful person because of skin color. We have no choice in the color of our skin. We do have other choices such as telling multiple lies and committing adultry. Yet we seek to punish and torture skin color and reward liars and adulterers. I'm not sure I'm happy to be a white person in this world. What is morally wrong with this picture? EVERYTHING!! Is this a Christian attitude? And Hillary is cruel to keep bringing this issue before the public. I don't want her as my president and I am white.

Posted by: LaDonna Wilson | May 8, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

This is ridiculous. Yes, Hillary won the majority of white votes, but only in only a few states. Do the research -it's really not that hard. Obama got the majority of white votes in more states than Clinton. Whites DO support him, just not those whites who plan on voting for McCain no matter who the Democratic nominee is! Look more closely at the exit polls. In INdiana, 40% of those white voters who voted for Clinton admitted they would probably vote for McCain NO MATTER THE DEM. NOMINEE in the general election. 6 out of 10 registered Republicans in Indiana VOTED IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY. Some of you people are actually being fooled by "operation chaos." On another note, African-Americans and young people, though overwhelmingly Democratic, have had historically low voter turnout. Until now. Obama has created a broader coalition than anyone running previous. Fact is, we can afford to lose some racist ignorant white votes...because we're replacing them with so many more votes from people who actually give a damn about this country! Wake up!

Posted by: Anne J. | May 8, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Look for a resurgence of the black activist. The black panther so to speak. A lot of black leaders will grab on it to empower themselves. I would not want to live in a city with a large black population once they hate for the whites that has been festering for so lone bursts forth.


*****************
May I also pose the following simple, honest question to any "black activists" reading this: what "serious consequences" do you have in mind?

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2008 6:53 PM

Posted by: | May 8, 2008 7:41 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama has no chance in the national election. Half of Clinton supporters will not vote for an African American ultra liberal wacko candidate. White females will leave the party in droves. McCain has it locked up. FOUR MORE YEARS.

Posted by: Jon | May 8, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

I am not black but I have enough imagination to maybe see it from what could be their perspective. If he doesn't get the nomination, assuming he has it coming, it would set racial relations back decades. It would only confirm what a lot of black people think now that it is not a level playing field. Stretching my imagination a bit more, I could see black people to have a renewed hatred for whites maybe beyond anything they have ever had. I mean like wanting "whitey dead". I am not kidding if I were black I would want to burn the white people at the stake.

*********************++++++++++++****************
May I also pose the following simple, honest question to any "black activists" reading this: what "serious consequences" do you have in mind?

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2008 6:53 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is not loosing, its that whole black population is voting for Obama , and with such strong racial divide , she is doing superb....
if Obama was not in the race at all,
who do you think that black people would vote for ?
Hillary of course ! and with what she already scored in delegates and plus black people support she would eat McCain for breakfast , and that's why she would be strongest candidate for Democrats
On contrary Obama cant attract even 40% of Hillary's supporter and thus he will loose presidency if nominated
His lead against Hillary now means nothing on general election

Posted by: beri | May 8, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

"It's going to be a landslide for Obama."

Not if Hillary Clinton manages to steal the nomination ...

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Bush has the highest DIS-approval ratings in the history of presidential polling. McCain is Bush-lite. No Democrat is going to vote Republican this year and lots of Republicans are holding their heads in their hands moaning, "What have we done to this country?" and will desert the Republicans. The Evangelicals are already praying for forgiveness. It's going to be a landslide for Obama.

Posted by: thebob.bob | May 8, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

The DNC, held hostage becaue they aren't will to offend 8% of the voters.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

RT:

You believe that Hillary DIANE Clinton is going to personally assassinate Barack HUSSEIN Obama? Do you also think that Elvis is still alive?

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Time to show those uppity people huh?

Get a grip America just remember who voted for Bush.

Clinton will kill the best thing to happen to the USA since JFK and RFK

Posted by: RT | May 8, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Ron:

I'm sure that Ms. Williams is just an old Uncle (Aunt?) Tom!!

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

...and she says she wants was best for the country? I may not be important in her world, since I'm an educated American, but, she is really reaching down to the bottom now; extremely racially-divisive. What kind of integrity does her campaign manager (a black woman named Ms. Williams) have?

Posted by: Ron | May 8, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

May I also pose the following simple, honest question to any "black activists" reading this: what "serious consequences" do you have in mind?

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Breaking news, for those who did not know, Hillary Clinton is White!

Sad thing is people voted for the Clintons, not Hillary Clinton, icluding us trailor park white people!

She should just crawl under a rock

Posted by: whoc | May 8, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Exit polling back up her statements.

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company