Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton's Broader Base?

UPDATE: This post has been updated to correct Bush's margin among white voters in 2000.

Hillary Clinton's comments to USA Today arguing that her support among white voters in the primaries provides her with a broader base of support have set the blogosphere abuzz.

In the interview, Clinton referred to polling data "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."

The comments have ignited a furor similar to that which erupted after Clinton's husband, former president Bill Clinton, compared Obama's success in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential run. Then, as now, the data show something different.

The network exit polls show Clinton winning whites without college degrees in both Indiana and North Carolina by wide margins, but without evident slippage for Obama. And Clinton's margin among this group in Indiana (where they made up more than half of all voters) was 10 points smaller than it was in Pennsylvania.

Among whites overall, there is also little evidence of weakening support for Obama: His share of the vote in Indiana and North Carolina was about the same as in Pennsylvania. And regardless of the divide in the primaries, white voters are a challenge for Democrats in general elections. In 2004, Bush defeated Kerry among whites by 17 points, and in 2000, he beat Gore by 12 points among whites.

This year's full National Election Pool Democratic exit poll trend among white voters is in the table below (table only includes those states where exit polling was conducted, leaving out several with largely white populations that Obama won, including Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas and Nebraska).

        % Total   Clinton   Obama   Clin - Ob
Iowa       93        27       33        -6
N.H.       95        39       36        +3
Michigan   72        63       N/A      N/A 	
Nevada     65        52       34       +18
S.C.       43        36       24       +12
Florida    66        53       23       +30
Alabama    44        72       25       +47
Arkansas   80        79       16       +63
Arizona    68        53       38       +15
Calif.     52        46       45        +1
Conn.      82        49       48        +1
Delaware   64        56       40       +16
Georgia    43        53       43       +10
Illinois   57        41       57       -16
Mass.      85        58       40       +18
Missouri   76        57       39       +18
N.J.       59        66       31       +35
N.M.       57        43       55       -12
New York   70        59       37       +22
Oklahoma   82        56       29       +27
Tennessee  67        67       26       +41
Utah       89        40       55       -15
Louisiana  47        58       30       +28
Maryland   53        52       42       +10
Virginia   61        47       52        -5
Wisconsin  87        45       54        -9
Ohio       76        64       34       +30
Texas      46        55       44       +11
R.I        85        63       37       +26
Vermont    94        38       60       -22
Miss.      49        73       26       +47
Penn.      80        63       37       +26
Indiana    78        60       40       +20
N.C.       62        61       37       +24

SOURCE: National Election Pool exit polls conducted by Edison/Mitofsky.

By Jennifer Agiesta  |  May 8, 2008; 5:08 PM ET
Categories:  Exit polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: More "Sincere" Crossover
Next: McCain vs. Obama on Personal Attributes


There was no consideration given to my home state. What's the data there where Obama won with 68% in a state that is largely white.

Posted by: Washington State | May 8, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Where Obama does not do well is with working white women in the middle class.

Clinton has had a base of support there and this may need to be addressed when he picks a running mate. I doubt however that it would be Clinton. Obama is committed to bridging our differences so I would suspect that he may even pick a Republican. Sarah Palin the Alaska governor?

Regardless he is a bright guy and I am sure he will balance the ticket to strengthen the demographic areas he does not do well in.

Posted by: Deward Bowles | May 8, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

To Washington State - I may be mistaken, but I think the reason there is no data for Washington State is that there were no Exit Polls. I seem to remember reading that back when you had your Primary (as opposed to the Caucus). Do correct me if I'm wrong.

Posted by: Alex W | May 8, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Why do people get accused 'racists' when they are speaking the truth? why is it that it is ok for 91% of the Blacks to vote for an AA and these Blacks are not called racists? If it is ok for the blacks, then it should also be ok for 91% of non-black to vote for the non-black candidate. Let's play by the same rule and Obama and his supporters should stop the double talk.
Obama's win in NC proves beyond any doubt that he is a racially-based candidate. He can't win the general election with just the blacks and the young. It would be another 'Tsongas' election! Clinton's win in Indiana, by a slim margin, also raises the big question why Obama lost a state that he is supposed to win!
Clinton also started out about 23 points behind in North Carolina, and 8 or 10 points behind in Indiana. She narrowed the gap in NC, and won in Indiana. Can you imagine what would be the headline if the situation was reversed? probably "Obama trounced Clinton with a huge 2% gap". And she did with Obama continuing to outspend her by 3 or 4:1.
The media continues to be anti-Clinton. Her win should be presented in the proper context of the quality of each of these candidates' electability!

Posted by: vote4thebest | May 8, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

If you break the white vote down further... one will see that Obama has even greater problems with white voters (less education, less income, religion).

Hillary is correct that her demographic base is needed to win the general.

Posted by: Nickyle | May 8, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

I supported Hillary, if Obama is the Nominee I will vote for McCain along with all my friends, family and collegues. She is the only one who can beat McCain. Its said that the DNC is trying to push her aside because she is a woman. Have fun losing in November.

Posted by: RACHEL | May 8, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Yes, once we can get rid of this woman who is ripping the Democratic Party apart, his base will widen. The electablity argument holds no merit, neither do these polls. I will not miss the "RACE BAIT" whenever you can (Rendell, Ferraro, Bill Clinton) and LIE about everything to get elected mentality. SO LONG OLD WASHINGTON, and as an old person, its refreshing to see NEW IDEAS and new proposals.

Posted by: latinovoter1 | May 8, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

I tan really well and my skin takes on a very dark color when I tan. Where do I fit in in this debate?

Posted by: George Hamilton, Hollywood | May 8, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is done........the fat lady sung....

I've seen how pandering and propagandist Clinton can be......

Now let's see how graceful she can be in helping this country move to the future.....

Posted by: ApostasyUSA | May 8, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

I am white but I melt when it gets warm. Where do I fit in in this debate?

Posted by: Frosty the Snowman, WI | May 8, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Snow men can't just sit back and watch.....

Posted by: ApostasyUSA | May 8, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

As a memmerb if the Blue Man Group I am very upset about the Media's blantant omission of how the blue people are voting durning this election. Shame on you Washington Post! Make a stand and include Blue people too in your reporting. Oh, and by the way, come wee our hot new shows if you coem to Vegas in 2008!!!!!

Posted by: Blue Man Group, Las Vegas | May 8, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Clinton supporters jumping ship and voting for a republican. Why? Because, "She is the only one who can beat McCain."

Does this make any sense?? You're all acting like children who don't get their way. There are bigger issues than Hillary Clinton's gender. This country is going in a very negative direction, domestically and abroad, and we need to address that.

People are trying to get her out because she is DIVIDING THE PARTY in exactly the manner that RACHEL's comment expresses.

There are bigger issues at stake than Hillary's nomination. To Clinton supporters who WILL vote for the Domocratic nominee, whoever it may be: thank you.

Posted by: 3xAmazing | May 8, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

As a bear I can tell you there has been very little media attention to how bears are voting this year and it's making me so upset that it really makes me want to steal a whole lotta of picnic baskets!

Posted by: Yogi Bear, Jellystone | May 8, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

I was once a white guy, but I got pretty burned up near a river of lava and now my skin's kinda grey colored. Where do I fit in in this debate?

Posted by: Dark Vader, Death Star | May 8, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

This piece fails to look at Clinton's argument. She says she has a wider base. Okay, if Senator Clinton has a wider base, why is she losing so badly? Those with a large base win.

The race was over in Feb. She was so far behind she needed to win the rest of the primaries at 55-45 if Fla and Mi were included. She needed to win by more if they weren't.

Again, if she had a large base, she would draw on that base for support, and those people would vote for her. But she's losing states, delegates and popular vote.

So obviously more people are voting for Obama, which in turn means he has a broader base of support.

Finally, Clinton's argument is that these blue-collar white people voted for her in states like Ohio and Penn and won't vote for Obama. Okay, turn the argument around. African-Americans, young voters, new voters, liberals, highly educated voters won't support Hillary if she were the nominee.

Does anyone think Clinton could win Penn or Ohio against McCain without the support of African Americans, young voters or liberals?

Posted by: edzo2 | May 8, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

I once wanted to become an atheist, but I gave up - they have no holidays.

~Henny Youngman

I take my wife everywhere, but she keeps finding her way back.

~Henny Youngman

I told the doctor I broke my leg in two places. He told me to quit going to those places.

~Henny Youngman

My Grandmother is over eighty and still doesn't need glasses. Drinks right out of the bottle.

~Henny Youngman

When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading.

~Henny Youngman

People, why all this nonsense about the color of a human's skin? Come on, now.

Posted by: Henny Youngman, Vaudville | May 8, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse


You've cut and paste the SAME text on another political blog (based in Canada). One would expect more originality from such an ardent, though misguided, supporter.

Posted by: bombast | May 8, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama only leads in delegates because there is a racial devide, and 90 % of black people voted for him mostly because they want one of their own in White House, and that's fine but

here is the question!

Who do you think black people would vote for, if Obama was not in the race at all

Hilary of course !!!!

So the Answer is here in front of your eyes, Hillary with all her votes plus Obamas black support would win

She would eat McCain for breakfast and win the presidency for democrats

Whist on the other hand, Sadly only 40 % of Hillarie's supporters would vote for Obama , thus making him extremely weak candidat against McCain
And its obvious he Cant not attract those needed white people that Hillary can

So even if Obama is ahead of Hillary in delegates due to support from black people



but Hillary knows this and thats why she is still in the race , waiting for other to open their eyes

Posted by: Beri | May 8, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Stick a fork in her. She's toast!.

Posted by: canadian | May 8, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

I like when people say they were Clinton supporters, but when the election comes and Obama is the nominee, they will vote for McCain. They then say that Obama in unelectable because he cant beat McCain. Of course he cant win if half of the DEMOCRATS are spiteful and vote for McCain!

please, consider that the future of a great nation is at stake and we cant afford to be spiteful towards the candidate agreed upon by the majority of democrats.

Posted by: Chris | May 8, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is not loosing badly , its that whole black population is voting for obama , and with such strong racial devide , she is doing superb....

for if Obama was not in the race
who do you think black people would vote for ?
Hillary ! and she would eat MCCAIN for breakfast

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

did you even read what you wrote?
Let me get this strait, you support Hillary because she is the only one who cold beat McCain, doesn't that mean you want SOMEONE to beat McCain? and if that is the case, why vote for him for any reason?

Posted by: Just old enough to vote | May 8, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

You can Nominate 10000000 times obama for presidency and he will never win

he only can win nomination in his own party

but he does not stand a chance on general election

Hillary would have anyway blacks peiople vote if there was no Obama and plus white and also took some reps which obama never could

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: Hillbillary | May 8, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Racism is alive and well in Clintonville. Can you see Hillary wearing coveralls chewing a straw while having a shot of whiskey and cleaning her gun? Then going out to ensure no elitists are votin' boy.

Americans will get the leader they deserve...hmmm...does that means you'll get 4 more years of Bush?

Posted by: RT | May 8, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

If there was no Obama all black people would vote for Hillary

and on the top of what she already scored ,, she would be a godzila and eat mccain for breakfast

sadly Obama cant attract those people that support Hillary in thus he is a weak opponent and candidat against MCCAIN

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse


The difference is that Obama is not saying, "I am the voice of Black people." They are running for President, and thus should never say that they privilege one race over another. As President, one should be responsible to everyone. Clinton not only has said that she is speaking for whites, but she used the classic Reaganism, that minorities are lazy.

Posted by: jcr | May 8, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

If there was no Obama all black people would vote for Hillary

and on the top of what she already scored in delegates ,, she would be a godzila and eat mccain for breakfast.

whilst sadly Obama cant attract those people that support Hillary and thus he is a weak opponent and candidat against MCCAIN

He cant win presidency only democratic nomination

Posted by: Beri | May 8, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

3xAmazing wrote: "There are bigger issues than Hillary Clinton's gender. This country is going in a very negative direction, domestically and abroad, and we need to address that."

First - do you think Clinton won't address the issues? The fact that the right wing who got us into these disasterous situations hates her tells me a lot about what she may do.

Second, Clinton's gender is an issue for two reasons - the media has been against her from the start. They've increased their negative drum-beat seven-fold this week. They just don't get that women are used to being told to go to the back of the bus, and refusing to. Hillary is to be commended and respected for not quitting just because "they" tell her to. Other than that, she is doing a much better job avoiding making gender an issue than Obama has done defusing race.

Second reason Hillary's gender is an issue is because half the people voting will be women. Millions of them have already voted for her, MSM propaganda notwithstanding. The race has not been the slam dunk for Obama the media keeps saying it is. He lost in Indiana this week, a state he should have won handily, being such a "uniter" and all. Apparently the message that he's the new Chosen One isn't getting through to everyone.

There is an issue here and clamoring for Clinton to quit only stirs it up more. Women are an important base for the Democratic party and it would be nice for the poobahs to start to catch a clue about that.

I will vote Democrat this year, no matter who the nominee is. There's really no other choice. But, if Clinton isn't on the ticket, it will be the last time the party gets my support. Time for a REAL change, after this mess.

Posted by: Cat | May 8, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Oh come on. All of the people claiming that they will vote for Clinton (Barack) if Barack (Clinton) gets the nomination are OBVIOUSLY not Democrats, and are OBVIOUSLY just trying to create a little more chaos. Nobody who believes in the core basic values of either Clinton or Barack would ever vote for a Bush/McCain third term. It wouldn't happen. So don't worry when you read comments from Rachel and others; she wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway.

Posted by: Ken | May 8, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

"I like when people say they were Clinton supporters, but when the election comes and Obama is the nominee, they will vote for McCain. They then say that Obama in unelectable because he cant beat McCain. Of course he cant win if half of the DEMOCRATS are spiteful and vote for McCain!"

Sadly Chris, these right-wing Dems have not yet realized the extent to which they will spite themselves if the GOP continues it's reign of terror on everyday Americans. It's a pity how short-sightedness can result.

Posted by: bombast | May 8, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

I hope Hillary's supporters who will vote for McCaine belong to the top 5 percentile of income rank. So, it does not matter to them to have another neocon president.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

The 12,000,000 new DEMs since 2004 are a very broad base.

and a lot of them like O'bama because he is Irish I assume

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton should stay in the race and if Senator Obama is such a strong candidate why is he afraid to challenger her in FL & MI. The answer is simple he will lose and by omitting these two large states he can steal the nomination.
The Clinton people have made several attempts to organize a revote but fearing the results the Obamba people have resisted. Look this should have been a good year for the democrats but that is not going to happen if Obama is their candidate his supporters fall in three groups
1. African American
2. Liberal Affluent Whites
3. Young College students
This is not a broad enough base to win a national election and he is unable to connect with white working & middle class Americans as well as Hispanics. Hillary Clinton appeals to seniors, white working and middle class, Hispanics as well as Reagan democrats and cuts into McCain's base. She is the stronger candidate to run against John McCain but that's not going to happen without FL and MI. The Democrats are making a grave mistake and they will pay for it in November when the republicans take the white house. Its political suicide!

Posted by: Ashley | May 8, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Your data shows that prior to the Wright controversy and "bittergate", Obama was doing well with white voters. Since then his appeal has dropped considerably. This shows that white voters are not turned off to candidates because they are black but because they dislike the people the candidate associates with, or dislike the stereotypes that the candidate has of them.

Posted by: howdy999 | May 8, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is not loosing badly, 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

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

So what she's saying it that the leader of the free world and the Greatest Nation on the planet should be picked by stupid white people... wont they vote "W" back into office! LOL

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

A VOTE FOR McCain is a vote to KILL
ROE vs WADE Stevens is 87

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Donate to HILLARY
SO we don't let ARAB and Chinese Speach money buy ELECTION

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: ROGER | May 8, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Ego and narcissism are the only things keeping Mrs. Clinton in the race.

It's time for this selfish woman and her husband to leave the national stage now.

Posted by: vbalfour | May 8, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

GO McSame endless war bomb iran NOMINATE antiROE WADE oourt TAX cuts for HEDGE MANAGERS PERMINANT speacial priviledge tax rate says at 15%

Posted by: mcsames war | May 8, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Obama's attitude that he is already the nominee is very dismissive to the other half of the Democratic party that voted for Senator Clinton. I guess he doesn't think he needs the votes of Clinton supporters. He has also blocked a re-vote in Fl. I guess he doesn't need the voters in FL either. We are pretty tired of Obama's efforts to end this primary prematurely. I think it is very shortsighted of Obama and superdelegates to not respect Senator Clinton and her extremely loyal supporters. They will need us if they expect to have a Democrat in the White house. We have already watched our candidate endure relentless media bias and vile behavior from Obama supporters. Most of are not in the mood to support Obama. He says he is confident he can win over Clinton supporters-not this one. There already is a movement underway to write in Clinton's name or sit out the general in protest. We are sick of the dismissive arrogance and are prepared to make a statement.

Posted by: greenfun | May 8, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Given the very real likelihood that McCain would get to nominate 3 members of the supreme court, does anybody really think that the majority of women of any color or economic group are going to vote for him or stay home? The real issue here is whether Hillary will rally her supporters to Obama when he is nominated. She has already taken the african american vote for granted if she gets the nomination but I'm sure Obama cares enough about the country to rally his support to her.

Posted by: CDB | May 8, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Howard Dean you blew it. You sabatoged Hillarys Campaign with Pelosi, now your going to pay by losing in November. I supported HIllary but I wont support Obama. I'm voting for McCain he has more experience and if you think Obama can bring all this change you kidding yourselves. He's gonig to lose badly in November as soon as the Republican machine gets ahold of him

Posted by: MATT | May 8, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

You'll get the President you deserve.
God Help America !

Posted by: Maclane Johnson | May 8, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary would have anyway blacks peiople vote if there was no Obama and plus white and also took some reps which obama never could"

If the black Democratic voters who support Obama will (as Clinton and her surrogates claim) automatically switch to Clinton if she becomes the nominee of the Democratic Party, then those black voters are definitely NOT racists. If the white "working class" Democratic voters who support Clinton automatically switch (as Clinton and her surrogates claim they will) to McCain if Obama is the nominee of the Democratic Party, then those white voters ARE racists. In other words, by Clinton's own account, both she and McCain are the preferred candidates of white "working class" racists. How inspiring!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

The democratic race should be about "I PREFER candidate A over B" not "I will ONLY support candidate A or B". A true democrat will respect the process and vote for the leader of the party. I truly hope that the "jump ship ... I'm a republican now" attitude is not based on the fear of voting for a black man ... that would be truly sad!

Posted by: Michele | May 8, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Even from as far away as Australia it's plain to see that Obama -- great candidate that he is -- cannot win against McCain.

The lemming-like Democrats are headed for another disaster and someone should get ready to accept the combined Clinton ire if and when it happens.

Superdelegates need to take a long, slow review of the numbers.

Posted by: Lars | May 8, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Now I am convinced that low income ignorant voters prefer Hillary. These are the same idiots who don't have a clue how the Supreme Court works.

Posted by: Ron | May 8, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

It's a good think that Australians aren't running our government.

Posted by: Ron | May 8, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

The good thing about women is that they have a short memory. As soon as Obama gets the nomination, they will justify voting for him and Hillary will become the former girlfriend.

Posted by: Ron | May 8, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that there are accusations of sabotage and bias against Clinton. Going into the election, Hillary had some of the highest negatives of any candidate in recent memory. She polarizes, period. Some love, but some hate. That is just reality. Also, the implication that Obama is a "racial candidate," or winning by dividing people on race is so profoundly naive. Bill Clinton won 83% of the black vote in the general election in 1992. Did he win because of how black he is? Ridiculous.

Posted by: Sandro | May 8, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

On the contrary Senator Clinton cannot attract Senator Obama supporters because those who support Senator Obama want a brilliant, strong, compassionate, leader with the ability to surround himself with others equally talented, knowledgeable people of diverse backgrounds. Hopefully progress toward a world that has less of the hate and ignorance that I have read in those responses by those people that thrive on hate and ignorance. I am not including supporters of Senator Clinton generally because I would have had no qualms voting for her until I got to know who she was and that to her she is all that matters.

Posted by: Anna K | May 8, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Hey Ashley you said Obama can only win 1 African Americans 2. Liberal Affluent Whites and Young College Students so he can't win. That is the dumbest argument ever since that is the Democratic Party! That is the majority silly. Plus he has a lot of independents like me who normally vote Republican since he is offering something different than McCain I am willing to vote for him and there alot more of us and that is why he will win. That is what the Republicans would prefer Hillary they want those swing votes for themselves. Hillarys main base is democratic women and they may be angry now but they will never be able to pull the lever for McCain and years and years more of war. If they do that thier kids will go and you may be proud of your solider son as a mother not many want them to become one period. They won't be able to vote for a man who will take away abortion rights since supreme court judges are an issue this time and they won't vote for more war. No way no how. Add women AA's LAW's YCS's and Indy's he wins. the only thing they have left is religious right and racisits.

Posted by: t | May 8, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

I hate to say it, but there is certainly some truth to the idea that Hillary's support is drawn from at least a few uneducated ignoramuses.

Just look at the posters on this board.

We all know that the internet posters are the most crazed and ardent supporters, but sheesh.

Would you just look at yourselves? Denial is not pretty.

Posted by: steve boyington | May 8, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Let's not forget that John Kerry was nominated in 2004 because of his so-called electability and ability to reach a broader base. We all know how that turned out...

Posted by: Pete McL. | May 8, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Do John McCain or conservative republicans respect the moral foundation of this country? No, I don't think they do. The U.S. Constitution was actually designed, among other things, to protect the people of America from misguided government.

U.S. Constitution: Amendment I - Freedom of Religion
Right now, for the first time ever, your tax dollars are funding religious groups you may not agree with. To add insult to injury, conservative judges have ruled that taxpayers do not have a right to challenge this expenditure.

Amendment IV - Search and seizure
Under the guise of court action against abortion, Conservative republicans had John Ashcroft subpoena all the medical records of literally thousands of women just like you and members of your family. Conservative republicans are invading your privacy every day. Unfortunately for all of us, they don't appear to care about our U.S. constitution, or by extension, the people of our great country.

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People
John McCain and conservative republicans have tried consistently to overturn States Laws. They used your tax dollars to destroy the will of the people of Oregon, and the famous "Death with Dignity" law; they lost, but undoubtedly will try again. Conservative republicans and John McCain do not respect States Rights.

Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual punishment
Would you rather die, or support a government which supported and sanctioned torture? The founding fathers would rather have died, and in fact they were proud to fight and die for our government: A government which specifically outlaws cruel and unusual punishment for very important reasons.

John McCain and the conservative republicans are destroying the moral foundations of our country. I urge you to keep this in mind in the coming election as we rebuild our nation together by voting Democrat.

Posted by: Frank US | May 8, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

I am from Canada. Obama has said that he will meet with our "President" as soon as he becomes president. Is that smarter than a 5th Grader? Obama supporters would vote for a brick wall if it had a penis stuck to it. He is a shallow, platitude muttering, empty suit leading a bunch of empty heads and commandeered by back room boys with lots of dough and power.

Remind you of anyone? How about George Walker Bush?

Posted by: Kathleen | May 8, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

I would encourage those who are so small-minded about the real issues that they would vote for McCain if Hillary loses the nomination to do so. That will help him make up some of the loss of the evangelical right who will stay home on election day.

At the same time, if Hillary manages to steal the nomination, I will hold my nose and vote for her even though I'm 100% certain that Obama is the president we need now. Why vote for a candidate I've lost all respect for? Because McCain's domestic, environmental and foreign policy ideas are so absolutely, positively, inescapably detrimental to the future of this country that they trump this silly nomination food fight. And that's my elitist point of view.

Posted by: kdhwriter | May 8, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Is it just me, or are the majority of Sen. Clinton's supporters the older white women who make our lives miserable in offices?

So nasty, so vicious.

The female activists in the Democratic Party chose a strange standard-bearer to represent their cause. And their behavior now in trying to manipulate committees and smear the character of a good man in a sociopathic do-anything-to-win approach, after their candidate has lost, is beyond comprehension or excuse.

What is interesting is that the first time women took an active role in American politics was the Temperance Movement, which itself was a misguided intrusion into people's lives, and set back their cause by decades. And now women, through their support of a nasty scorched-earth Nixonian figure, are again squandering their power in a misguided cause.

Posted by: swing voter | May 8, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

I think it is great (and representative for this country) that The Democratic Party had so many candidates for Nomination, I think the process is a true reflection of what America stands for.

BUT -- by the same standards, why is only Clinton presented as "The Divider" ? why is Obama NEVER included into the story of dividing the Democratic base along racial/education lines, or whatever media makes them up to be?

I am trying not be biased towards one or another candidate, but it is hard not to notice that the balance is somewhat tilted.

Posted by: DC | May 8, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

What about Clinton's problem with the AA vote? She got 6 or 7 percent in NC, less than a Republican could traditionally expect to receive. And unlike Obama, she not only hasn't done anything constructive to increase these numbers, but her team seems to have repeatedly and deliberately dissed this important demographic.

You can't win without the AA vote, either.

Posted by: Sherry | May 8, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Sorry folks. Blacks only make up 13% of the nation's population and in some states less than 1%. Obama can't possibly be winning the delegate and popular vote race were he only reliant on black votes. Get over it old folks stuck in the 50's and 60's racist era. The young want a more progressive America where it is not necessary to label people by the color of their skin and white progressives and other minorities have found out that there are quite a few intelligent and capable African Americans in this country who can actually make a difference. Go Obama!!! And I am hoping he chooses Nancy Pelosi as his running mate! It's not about not electing a white woman as president, it's about electing the right white woman for President!

Posted by: Aimee | May 8, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Who's racist? Mrs. Clinton saying she has the white vote is overtly racist.Shame on her and her husband who had the audacity to call himself the first "black" president. How presumptive and insulting.

Posted by: Mona E. | May 8, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Clinton should have had more than 51% of the votes. I don't care what color a person's skin is, but there are some things in Obama's past that are disturbing to me and should be to a lot of people. His association with Farrakhan, the individuals associated with his campaign, his history with a racist pastor. I don't think he has what it takes. Also, it's insulting to read that Clinton's supporters are mostly middle aged uneducated white women. She will fight for everyone. At least have MI and FL do over their primaries. Whether or not the candidates agree is irrelevant. It's the voters who matter. I don't want superdelegates selecting our nominee. That would be a slap in the face to everyone who voted.

Posted by: indygrandma | May 8, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Black/white? How about the fact that Hillary supporters are less educated? Why is that?

Posted by: ella | May 8, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is right when she claims to lead Obama among uneducated, white racists. She also leads among shrill, middle-aged white women, the same ones who won't shut up and sit down at the PTA meeting after everyone has voted on who is going to run the spring carnival.

But a even lot of THOSE people like Obama, too. So get with the plan, Neanderthals. Check your calendar, it's the 21st century, already.

Posted by: David | May 8, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Hillary supporter do not make sense. They think that African American will vote for Hillary because they don,t think for themselves. Let me tell u something, we been paying attention very carefully how Hillary run her campaign and we all now know that her and her husband enjected race into this race. We will not vote for her at all. We will stay home.

Posted by: Raf | May 8, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Of course Clinton Supporters will vote for McCain if Obama is the Dem Nominee - Clinton and McCain are waay closer than either is to Obama - he is way less of a Washington Hack.

Until they get it in Washington and stop the party wars, it is way more important to the future of the country that we keep the Legislative and Executive branches polarized - the worst damage to the country has come when both branches are in the claws of the same partisans.

Posted by: Albert Pascal | May 8, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

(rā'sĭz'əm) pronunciation

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

When do blacks ever get the opportunity to think they are better than anyone based on their race? When you are a minority, you can not be racist!

Posted by: MileyK | May 8, 2008 7:33 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.

Obama is ahead of the nomination game because his camp pulled the race/victim card whenever he runs into problems. How pathetic.

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 7:36 PM | Report abuse

"Bill Clinton won 83% of the black vote in the general election in 1992. Did he win because of how black he is? Ridiculous." - Sandro

In that same election, Bill Clinton won 39% of the white vote. Can Barack Obama do that well among whites when running against McCain?

That's not a rhetorical question.

Posted by: HippoMan | May 8, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Its rather sinful the way the media has treated HIllary and pushed Barack down everyones throats. Of course, people see "A Movement" in Obama and they want to join the party. Came across an interesting quote which reminded me of the current sham (which everyone seems to be buying hook line and sinker)
"Perhaps the longest lasting power of media companies is the power to create ideas and movements, which if necessary can reflect the strictly private desires of the media owner. Once public attention has been aroused, the media owner can pretend to be reporting on a spontaneous public phenomenon".
Its rather scary when you think of it. Kinda like Murdochs fundraisers for Obama. Even scarier when no one thinks critically enough to question the obvious. Why o why is Obama portayed as another JFK or King instead of being questioned like a CANDIDATE? Why oh why is Hillary being portrayed as a crazy evil monster? Got news for you, JFK was a great man who died a long time ago, Hillary is a hard working politician and is no more "power hungry" or "cut throat" than any of the others (Obama included)
I cant believe everyone is all right with this. Its nuts.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

This is old news.
Obama may win the nom but lose in the general. Duh

Inorder to win a 97% turnout with african americans he had to play to the base through the churches. Problem for him now will be how to undo the damage. A race based campagign creates a race based electorate. May be a decades before the country get back to steady like it was a year ago. Shame on Axelrod.

Posted by: hhkeller | May 8, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

It's not that Clinton supporters are spitful or racially prejudice, the fact is poeple are uncertain of Obama's positions on the issues. Other than the platitudes he professes, what does Obama stand for? He has some very liberal (if not radical) leanings as to the company he is willing to keep. So who is this guy that the Dems are willing to toss the White House keys too? These are the questions that are on the minds of many.

Posted by: PRB | May 8, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

alee21, that's almost the stupidest post on the thread. First you whine, "Why do all the Obama people call Hillary names and demand she quits?", then you call Obama names and demand he quits. Asinine. Listen, Obama has sewn up the nomination because he has MORE SUPPORT. He got more votes, he won more delegates, EVEN IF YOU COUNT Fla & Mich. Those delegates aren't counted because those are the rules, rules Hillary agreed to until changing them worked to her advantage. If it was to Obama's advantage she'd scream bloody murder before she allowed them to be changed. Don't be a fool. Hillary is playing the game of politics. Obama has won, fair and square, and there is no way Hillary can win by any measure. The only reason she was allowed to stay in this long is because so many Dem high mucky-mucks are scared of her vengeance, but even they have to rent some spine now.

Posted by: David | May 8, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

If this woman cannot see the obvious , how on earth is she going to deal with complex world problems rationally.Well I for one think she is going to ignore the 3AM call because she is incabable of handling the truth.Pull the sheet covers over your head and go to sleep, Hil.

Posted by: paul | May 8, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

As an Obama supporter let me agree that race obviously plays a factor when as high as 91% of black vote for him. I'll even go further and agree that if we don't blame blacks for doing that, we can't blame higher percentage of whites vote for Hillary either.

Fair enough? Then what I do have a problem is, after all are counted - whites, blacks, educated or not, high and low income, working class or otherwise - Obama is the overall winner, then what's Hillary fussing about? Is she saying white votes are more important than black votes? Is she saying less-educated working class votes count more than people with higher income?

Sure, it's the truth that she has more support in certain groups, but by the same token HE has more support in many other groups. A vote is a vote, and Obama wins overall votes.

Posted by: foo | May 8, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse


This is exactly the kind of ignorance that has plagued this primary season. Did you read or hear what Bill Clinton completely said? He and Hillary never said anything intentionally that was racist, it was all misinterpreted and misrepresented. For all their life and careers they have done a lot of the community to the point that Bill was famously called, the first 'black president'!

Read this article, you will read a thing or two about who actually introduced race in to this primary, it was not the Clintons:

Posted by: Rohit | May 8, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad that we're finally able to look at the election stats to see how individuals are voting. As a white American, I'm concerned about the percentage of blacks voting for Obama. I'm concerned because I think they're doing it because he is black instead of on his record, his policies or if he is the best candidate or not. Look at the stats. Take it further and can this black vote carry Obama to the presidency or by being prejudice on this issue, is this demographic going to keep the democrats out of the White House in the end? Lastly, our job as Americans is to vote for the right candidate for our country. If we're doing it because of color, popularity or other reasons, I think America is in deep trouble. Just food for thought as I watch this election and how it is polarizing the different groups.

Posted by: Cheryl | May 8, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Do any of you really believe BO is going to DC and reforming the political system? All three of the candidates have taken vast sums from industry and the oil companies. (JM has taken the least from oil, BO took more!) The system is too corrupt and he will be ineffective. HC knows how to manipulate the system to get things done. That is why I support HC. BO's lofty speaches are great but they will accomplish nothing inside the beltway. I know this country was much better off when B C was pres. I long for the days when the biggest problem this country had was if the pres got a bj in the oval office or not! I do not care about her personal life. (It should be just that, personal)

Posted by: GW | May 8, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Some people (like the Clintons) may not know they harbor racist attitudes because they have always been in the position of top dogs and feel they have been magnanimous and compassionate. They truly dont get Obama' success...over them. They dont know how to relate to it.

Posted by: ella | May 8, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

"As a white American, I'm concerned about the percentage of blacks voting for Obama."
Cheryl | May 8, 2008 7:49 PM

I wanted to quote that so we could all savor the irony fully.

Posted by: David | May 8, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Hillary had the Black vote people. Remember? She had over 50%, but then Bill started minimizing and portraying Obama as unelectable because he is black. Then, she lost the black vote and can't get it back.

She would not get the black vote if Obama is out. They would all stay home and she would lose. The Clintons have race-baited one too many times and done everything they can to appeal to racist whites to get themselves elected.

Shameful!! Divisive, but then this is Hillary.

I am a white male from a small rural town.

Posted by: Mike in Sac | May 8, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse


There is a difference in taking personal contributions and taking PAC and lobbyist monies. Huge difference there and you should either acknowledge it.

Obama is the least corporate candidate. He will owe the people giving him $50 a month not huge and rich corporations for his candidacy.

He owes We the People not We the Rich like Bush or McCain and Clinton.

Posted by: Mike in Sac | May 8, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Anyone that thinks Black people will come running back and vote for Hillary if she wins the dem nomination clearly doesn't have enough Black friends in their life. She's DONE in the Black community!!! She's sat by and quietly tried to benefit from all the racist statements and actions of people in her camp. Haven't we learned anything from Wright-gate???? It's not enuff to say you don't agree with the statements and keep associating with the person. I don't think people realize just how pissed off Black people are with Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

I don't want Michelle Obama to touch anything in the white house. Why would she respect the american history that exists there if she has never been proud to be an american. Can she live there with all the portraits of white presidents, and historical figures. I don't think so. I don't trust her. Please save our White HOuse!!!!!

Posted by: SBvoter | May 8, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

I am white woman Hillary's age.

Hillary has made her gender a centerpiece in her campaign. Because she is a woman women should vote for her? Isnt that sexism? Meanwhile, Barack Obama is the son of a truly amazing non elitist white single mother. What a great job she did with her son who has chosen not to put his race (or his gender) as a centerpiece in his campaign.

Posted by: ella | May 8, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Hillary doesn't need the Black people - she's got the Hispanics and whites-thats good enough!

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

In other words: "Nominate me because I'm white."

Good lord. She has stopped being subtle, and is now openly running a racist campaign.

She's basically saying: "He's black and white people won't vote for him, but they'll vote for me because of my skin color."

Please, Hillary, drop out now before you do any more damage to your reputation - or to America.

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

re: "save our WHite House"

Have you seen it lately? That all got lost a long time ago... barricaded and covered with swat teams...

PS Did you vote for Bush by any chance?

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

The broader base is that the American people needs to grasp reality and respect this land in which the Creator have bless all with. Can't you see that this is a land of all, and any race or gender can become president of this country, in the sight of the Creator. The Creator doesn't like ugliness and could care less about beauty. The Creator have no doubt bless America and had mercy on us for a great time now. Yet, with the manifestation of an alarming amount of tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, crater holes (like in Texas), one would need to take heed to these occurrences, because it is likely that the creator isn't pleased. We need to turn away from our evil ways, unite and move forward in a positive manner that our country may prove the best for all. Actually, we need to do what's right that the Creator will help restore our land. Obama has won this election righteously, by all means set forth by the rules and regulations, yet there still is a question mark. Why? In all fairness, we should be moving forward in all efforts to follow protocol in focusing Hillary to accept her loss and move forward in this campaign with Obama to strengthen, unify and solidify the democratic campaign that Obama may move forward in all efforts to be the democratic presidential candidate for the seat of the President of America.

Posted by: Nisey01 | May 8, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

"Black/white? How about the fact that Hillary supporters are less educated? Why is that?"

I can answer that Ella ... the less educated are more likely to be fooled by propaganda. More likely to only hear, or relate to one side of a story. They are the perfect targets for Hillary type politics and Obama is too intellectual for them to relate to. Many seem to have missed the fact that Hillary is the one born into riches ... Obama was the one who pulled himself up from a single family, modest home.

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

The big picture argument:

Choice A:

1. add another trillion in debt to our country
2. have thousands more maimed or killed in Iraq and Afghanistan
3. overturn Roe V. Wade
4. have President a man who voted against increasing rights of women to earn the same as men

Choice B:

1. have President someone whose father was a black African


Posted by: steve boyington | May 8, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

I am still looking for Harvard educated Barack Obama comes looking for Canada's "President". Ignorance is bliss.

Like I said, some people would vote for anything with a penis stuck on it, rather than any woman on earth.

There are going to be a lot of middle aged men doing without sex for a very long time if Hillary loses. Believe me.

Men have had thousands of years to bring the global community to the edge of doom, why not give us a chance to save it.

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

I agree with 'vote4thebest'. Any negative comment against Obama is considered racist. Any comment against Clinton is perfectly fine. The media has been pro Obama since the beginning. They are afraid of being accused of being racist if there is any disagreement with Obama. And I do not believe any of it is racist. I believe every person has an opinion, is entitled to it and should not be clouded by the accusation of racism.
When I was a child a wonderful teacher told us "the day you can look at another person and not notice what color they are is the day you can say you are not racist".
Who can do that?

Posted by: peaches | May 8, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

They told Hillary to "wash our shirts". What if they told Obama to "shine our shoes."

She is my hero and she is going to be the next leader of the free world, with half the money of Barack Obama. All the white metrosexuals in the world cannot buy that guy the Presidency.

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

so am I traitor to my gender because I won't vote for Hillary Clinton? You talk about bias, but say that women should vote for her simply because we both share XX chromosomes. That is ridiculous and insulting. It's like saying her issues and plans don't matter. Just vote for the only woman in the race.

Take your toys and go home.

Posted by: Ann | May 8, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like a lot of 15 year old boys here tonight. Bashing everyone with no real point.

My $.02. The difference between Clinton and Obama in terms of race is that Clinton is using her 'ability' to attract the white hard working American as support for why the SDs should endorse her. This severely subdivides the Dem party. For example, what about the hispanic hard working American? Conversely, you don't see Obama using as his talking point that he can bring the AAs. As an fyi, neither of those sub-groups alone are large enough to take on McCain. It will take the entire party. So, you can be sour grapes and not vote, or vote McCain if your candidate does not win. Some people believe 'the devil you know'. Personally, I would rather take a gamble on the new guy...

Posted by: MelB | May 8, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

MelB, there is another problem with Shillary's claim. She wins the elderly overwhelmingly but Obama generally wins the under 65 crowd. Of the two, which is more likely to be in the workforce? Nothing against the elderly, but very few of them are working, much less hard working. Working people are voting for Obama, although the supposedly pro-Obama press lets Shillary get away with these claims.

Posted by: RealChoices | May 8, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Ummmm, vote4thebest and other Clinton supporters, have you thought about your rationale? "I'm a Hillary supporter and since Obama can't win in November I and my family and my dogs and cats and horses and pigs are all going to vote for McCain." Ummmm ... if you'd like to guarantee 4 more Bush years, 4 more years of economic disaster, 4 more years of Iraq, 4 more years of Republic party Supreme Court nominees, 4 more years of Republic party "management" of the EPA, Dept. of Justice (torture memos, tapping, civil-liberty bashing anyone?)etc. etc. then do exactly what you're threatening. A vote for McCain is a vote for Republic party domination no matter if it's a "protest" or not. It's not going to be MY FAULT if you cut off your nose, and mine, to spite your party. Oh, and i'm one of those middle-aged white woman that Sen. Obama supposedly can't get support from.

Posted by: omyobama | May 8, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

There is no way I will vote for Obama in November because I believe he does not have the requisite experience to be president and not because of his race. I also could not possibly vote for McCain because of his endorsement of Bush's policies over the past 7 years. I am truly disheartened over the choices for President this year, and I am deeply regretful that Hillary could not have hit her stride a month earlier, and also that the MSM has devastatingly failed us in its role as an objective presenter of facts. I honestly feel that an Obama presidency will be crushed by the realities of a Washington infrastructure and the way politics is played. He has nice rhetoric, but it is a lot of BS aimed at the vulnerabilities of the American people after 8 years of Bush. I fear for our country.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's supporters are as twisted as she is. Now if Barack was not in the race than blacks ( 10 -14 % of population) would be voting for her in the same percentages as their voting for Barack. Hillary or any of the past democratic presidents like her husband getting the lions share of black votes is OK but Barack getting them is racial.

Her supporters do not articulate why they support her - they know she is a liar, has no integrity, no longer claims experience, is vicious and vindictive, polarizing,she has already made the world a less safer place with her comments.

News flash, just like white republicans, white democrates, there are blacks that were never going to vote for lying, destructive Hillary no matter what.

We have no worries about winning in November as there are enough good Americans that love our country and refuse to let the likes of Clinton and Bush continue to destroy it. We do need her like mind supporters. Good will prevail. Hate is not a good motivator which is why her base is not turning out in sufficient numbers - enough won't tirn out in November either.

Posted by: Heather | May 8, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Mike in sac

Money is money. It all spends the same, no matter what you call it.

Posted by: GW | May 8, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

I am at a loss that some Clinton supporters would vote Republican in November. Clinton and Obama's positions on the issues are almost identical. Clinton and McCain's not so much. So why would you vote for somebody who you don't agree with when there is somebody you agree with (for the most part) running for President? This mindset, if it plays would explain a lot to this independent voter, why the Democratic Party seems to fall on it's face so much. And I don't understand the issue with Wright. If Obama is guilty by association then Clinton is just as guilty for her some of her associations. From where I stand as independent voter, I'm afraid to vote Democratic no matter who the nominee is as the Democrats worst enemy appears to be themselves.

Posted by: Shane | May 8, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has a broader base? Since when does a white chick with a fatter butt make a better candidate? Oh, I get it. Hillary's playing the race card ... again. One day someone's going to compile a book on all the complex little strategies and equations the Clintons are so fond of employing. We'll all recognize the tome; the cover will depict Hillary, merrily painting herself into a corner:

Posted by: Peggy McGilligan | May 8, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

peggy mc gilligan:
I am from Chicago. I know Axelrod and his politics and how it all works. You suckers, er, people, are being played by a master. Obama ain't what he's portrayed to be, and we will all suffer for it. I can't vote for either Obama or Mc Cain.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

No doubt! Obama was senator here and made zilch impact.

Posted by: Jo CHGO | May 8, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, people blame Clinton for having been complacent and presumptive but in reality it is her supporters who should really bear the brunt of this accusation. Many of us thought that this was a slam dunk and we stayed home and assumed others would do our job and never accounted for the totally out of proportion levels of voting that would occur amonst the black voters who usually remain apart from the politics of this country. Hindsight being 20/20, have no doubt that that solid middleclass white and female support would have whomped the polls in the early days and ended this in Clintons favor. Now, there are too little & too late and a DNC and opponent intent on chasing her from the race. Hopefully, all things considered, the Super Delegates will look and see behind the smoke and mirrors and realize the mistakes were made by the voters who assumed this contest was over before it began. I have no doubt there are a lot of people who cast early votes for Obama believing he was the underdog and automatic loser and that they were doing their bit for anarchy and they are not cringing. And with each overwhelming victory brought about by the unquestioning unity of black voters in this country, the DNC and the Super Delegates must surely see that this has devolved into racism and not nationalism. The only answer can be at the convention with open debate and caucus and selection acknowledging how closely these candidates have run and allowing the final decision to be made by the experts. It's the only way to ensure that you retain the voters for the losing candidate.

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

You know Cheryl, and others, your ignorance about Democratic voting patterns is outrageous. African Americans gave John Kerry 88% of their vote in 2004, Bill Clinton 83% in 1992 and 84% in 1996. I didn't hear anybody claim racism in their choices in those elections! And this is not only a general election phenomenon:

"In 1992, the black vote in the Southern primaries made Bill Clinton the frontrunner and soon the party nominee. Mr. Clinton, later called "America's first black president" because of his popularity with blacks, took more than 70 percent of the black vote in the heavily black Southern primaries that year.

In 2000, Vice President Al Gore won the black vote in early primary contests with his main rival, New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley. Before the Iowa caucuses, the two candidates bickered over who would do more for blacks--they weren't campaigning for the 98-percent white Iowa vote, but for the black votes in the Southern primaries that followed.

Mr. Gore won 75 to 90 percent of those votes in the early March primaries. Mr. Bradley dropped out, and Mr. Gore won the nomination.

A recent article by Democratic pollster Patrick Reddy in Insight magazine [Analysis: Black Vote Key to Kerry's Charge Feb. 17, 2004 By Patrick Reddy] shows that the same pattern holds this year. John Kerry got a boost in the mainly white bastions of Iowa and New Hampshire, but since then his victories have depended to a large extent on the black votes he was able to capture."

Nobody questioned African Americans' "racial preferences" in electing one or another white male Democratic candidate by overwhelming numbers in these recent contests. So can you understand why people might be calling this "playing the race card" as these allegations are being raised???? The level this debate has stooped to is the biggest reason this "primary" season needs to be over.

Posted by: omyobama | May 8, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

How this racist tripe is played is nauseating. Obama gets virtually all of the African-American vote and that is not racist?

Posted by: Hillary Supporter | May 8, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Madeleine Albright said "There is a special place in hell for women who do not support other women." Every time I see one of those slick women pundits supporting Osama, oops, Obama I want to scream at the television "YOU BLOODY TRAITOR, DON'T YOU KNOW WE DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTE A HUNDRED YEARS AGO. IT IS WOMEN LIKE HILLARY WHO GAVE EVERYTHING SO YOU COULD SIT THERE SUPPORTING MR. KNOW NOTHING METROSEXUAL GEORGE BUSH LITE" That is what I want to shout. But I don't.

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

Kathleen, I am with you. I am particularly disgusted by the so-called educated young women who have benefitted from the struggles of women like Hillary who made it possible for them to be where they are today. The entitled generation has no idea what it was like 30 years ago when I was coming up. By the way, I make 6 figures, have a doctorate so Hillary has supporters across all demographics, and I object to the categorization of the voters by the pundits.

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

Hillary Clinton just makes me so damn proud to be a woman. Maybe for the first time in my life, at 52 I feel like I can do anything, be anything.

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

I am guessing all of you know that the leader of Canada is a Prime Minister, not a President. Canada is the biggest trading partner of the US. They share the longest undefended border in the world. Canada is the one of the biggest if not the biggest source of oil for the US yet Obama said that one of the first things that he would do when elected was "meet with the PRESIDENT OF CANADA". Does that tell you anything about the substance of this guy. He is not running for third grade class president.

Posted by: Kathleen | May 8, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

I agree. And all the young women who are blowing her off for this arrogant, aloof egomaniac (I have never run anything, but I can run the free world!?) who wrote two books about himself before he even hit forty, and who have failed to look beyond the marketing tactics, are really a disappointment. There is no more sisterhood.

Posted by: Hillary Supporter | May 8, 2008 11:33 PM | Report abuse

43 yr old Educated white male here. I too object to the categorization of the voters by the pundits. I support HC for reasons listed above, and the fact she is putting her own cash in the pot. I will vote for BO if it is my only real choice. I think all of the "change you can believe in" is crap. He took nearly as much money from the oil industry as HC. Not exactly bucking the current system he denounces.

Posted by: GW | May 9, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

43 yr old educated white male here. I too object to the categorization of the voters by the pundits. I support HC for reasons listed above, and the fact she is putting her own cash in the pot. I will vote for BO if it is my only real choice. I think all of the "change you can believe in" is crap. He took nearly as much money from the oil industry as HC. Not exactly bucking the current system he denounces.

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

Kathleen -- hmmm, you're sounding a bit like Michelle Obama -- first time you've been proud to be a woman? I'm 53. I was pretty proud of being a woman as I put myself through college and law school, became one of the first active female defense trial lawyers in DC and got married. Then I was pretty proud of myself as a woman when I didn't stay with a cheating husband and left a very nice home in the MD suburbs with nothing but the clothes I took in -- and started, on my own, to rebuild a pretty succesful life ON MY OwN, my dignity and good humor intact! I'm so proud of being a woman that I recognize I fought for all these years to have the freedom to choose -- and not be guilted into some knee-jerk reaction. Feminism is about equality and my choice is Barack Obama. His values, his programs and his ethics match mine. And to be able to support that choice makes me very proud to be a woman. I don't question your right or your passion in exercising your choice; please stop questioning mine.

Posted by: omyobama | May 9, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

Hillary a champion of women's interests? --As a woman, I have experienced some discrimination, but I feel my life has been much more adversely affected not by that so much as the stereotypically masculine, hypercompetitive, heirarchical values that prevail in our society and which reward typically "masculine" professions where working with things instead of people, or--if working with people, enforcing rules rather than caring for or teaching them--is much more highly valued. Hillary seems to support those kind of hypermasculine values much more than Obama. Promoting a militaristic attitude towards the world, making threats to "obliterate Iran," is a part of that mindset (how can we teach our children to solve problems nonviolently when they hear leaders spewing this kind of garbage?--Moreover, it's women and children who disproportionately suffer in war; this is reason enough to avoid it whenever it's not absolutely necessary.)
I believe Obama will do a better job of bringing people together, both within our country and abroad. He seems to be a very good judge of the intent and context of the provocative speech of others, and less likely to get us into war in reaction to some inflammatory diatribe from some other leader. I see this kind of attitude as part of the antidote to the hypermasculine and hypercompetitive values of our culture; and I feel that working to change the larger culture will in the long run benefit women more than having a president who happens to be of my same gender.

Posted by: Donna Hughs | May 9, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

omyobama ... BRAVO!!! You should be very proud. You are a woman of fibre ... These women who will vote for a woman just because she is a woman baffle me ... yet they complain because they are under the "perception" that blacks are voting for the black candidate because he is black. Give your heads a shake!!!!

Look beyond the sex AND the colour. I'm amazed at how many racist/sexists there are that don't know it.

Posted by: Michele | May 9, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

I find it hard to believe that any ardent feminist would seriously consider casting a vote for McCain. His record on women's issues is positively neanderthal.

If democrats are genuinely concerned that their nominee might have difficulty gaining support in a key demographic, there ARE many ways to strengthen the candidate (veep selection, voter outreach and education, refining the party's platform at the convention so the areas of concern for that "problem" demographic are fleshed out in enough detail...). Taking the election away from the person who won it by conducting a winning campaign seems an insanely Draconian solution. A little like killing the patient to solve the problem of his extreme youth...
HRC is not being victimized. She's just not winning enough votes or raising enough money to be the winner. It's not her year. She's tried harder than anyone I've ever witnessed, but nothing, not even Obama's relative inexperience and screw ups have been able to reverse fortunes. I'm a woman who by demographics should be an HRC supporter. I was. Until New Hampshire. The tears seemed forced to me (just my gut reaction) and it reminded me all over again about the clinton years and all the poll tested positions and the way they seemed to reinvent and rationalize with astonishing regularity. From that point forward, I researched the options and ended up on Obama's team. But I am not gleeful to see HRC reduced to this level of debt and defeat. I'm hoping that she can exit the race after her wins in WV and KY and that the DNC can then deal with the FL and MI delegations. I think its the height of unfairness that the party would allow them to impact the primaries after both states knowingly and deliberately violated the rules. My state did not break the rules. And, baby, if Massachusetts doesn't go for the dems, then the dems are SERIOUSLY screwed. Rules will only be taken seriously if they are enforced. I think the way to do thatso all the rule following states don't erupt in an uproar is to conclude the primaries first, then determine the way the delegates get seated.

Since popular vote only ever matters as the raw material that is used to calculate the delegates in primary states, it is implied in and carried forward by the delegates.

But any woman who votes for McCain so he can pack the court with judges who will overturn Roe vs Wade, and eliminate and/or outlaw programs and policies that are key to women's continued advancement is acting in direct conflict with and opposition to her passion for the candidacy of HRC.

Posted by: ireneinmass | May 9, 2008 1:22 AM | Report abuse

So much hatred and venom being posted...

This kind of talk is the sad reality of our American situation. This is the cynical, slandering culture we've made for ourselves...turning toward honor and integrity is a huge challenge we are all faced with.

Regardless of who takes the election, republican or is we, the American people, at the helm of this country, guiding its course with our actions every day.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 3:13 AM | Report abuse

So much hatred and venom being posted...

This kind of talk is the sad reality of our American situation. This is the cynical, slandering culture we've made for ourselves...turning toward honor and integrity is a huge challenge we are all faced with.

Regardless of who takes the election, republican or is we, the American people, at the helm of this country, guiding its course with our actions every day.

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

Hillary Clinton actually was in Bosnia. There was actually a war going on at the time.

When was the last time Barack whats his name was in a war zone...when he last sneaked a smoke in Michelle's powder room?

Hillary has been working for children's rights and improvements to Health care her whole adult life. She is courageous as hell and smarter than Bill. But of course she lacks a penis and the unmitigated gall to spout inanities like "change we can believe it."

Does Obama have to burn a flag on the white house steps or pee on the Iwo Jima Monument to get your attention?

Barack Obama is nothing more than a George Walker Bush "lite" and that is no change at all.

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

Hillary Clinton actually was in Bosnia. There was actually a war going on at the time.

When was the last time Barack whats his name was in a war zone...when he last sneaked a smoke in Michelle's powder room?

Hillary has been working for children's rights and improvements to Health care her whole adult life. She is courageous as hell and smarter than Bill. But of course she lacks a penis and the unmitigated gall to spout inanities like "change we can believe it."

Does Obama have to burn a flag on the white house steps or pee on the Iwo Jima Monument to get your attention?

Barack Obama is nothing more than a George Walker Bush "lite" and that is no change at all.

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

Those who would vote for Obama would vote for a Macy's Parade float if it had a penis attached to it over any competent woman.

Barack Obama scares the hell out of me on so many levels, none of which have to do with colour. He is a George Walker Bush "lite" if anything. A bright capable bipartisan war hero with great substance like John McCain will eat him for breakfast. Then you will have your 100 year war in Iraq.

Posted by: Kathleen | May 9, 2008 3:47 AM | Report abuse

Those who would vote for Obama would vote for a Macy's Parade float if it had a penis attached to it over any competent woman.

Barack Obama scares the hell out of me on so many levels, none of which have to do with colour. He is a George Walker Bush "lite" if anything. A bright capable bipartisan war hero with great substance like John McCain will eat him for breakfast. Then you will have your 100 year war in Iraq.

Posted by: Kathleen | May 9, 2008 3:47 AM | Report abuse

For all you Clinton supporters. What makes you think that African Americans will support her if she were to get the nomination? Without them no democrat could win the presidency. Remember that.

FYI - Bill Clinton only had 40-43% percent of the white vote when he won the presidency in 92 & 96. Think about that.

Posted by: B.B. | May 9, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Greetings All,
I am an African-American man, Desert Shield/Desert Storm vet, in the Telecom Field, taking College courses (where in the Democratic Base does that put me?) that couldn't wait for Hillary to finally run for the White House. I truly believed she and the Clinton Machine would win. When Barack threw his hat into the ring, I thought that is great but I still wanted to support Hillary. As time went on I began to support Senator Obama. Why??? I like his policies better and I believe he will be better received by Democrats, Republicans and Independents. I definitely believe World leaders will respond to him better. He will be one of the most successful presidents in our wonderful country's history. His second term will be greater.
Okay, Hillary became too negative as she began to lose she began to display a cheesy and phony political side. She seems to do whatever it takes to get into the White House even if it means attempting to destroy Senator Obama's image and political beliefs and create divisiveness in the Democratic Party.
Will she do a 180 and throw her support in behind him in November? That would be interesting after building such a horrible case against him.
One more ting mon, where was she shot at by sniper fire? Did anyone find out? Did she misspeak on several occasions and miswrite the same BS in her book?
Just a thought...

Posted by: JustMy2cents-SupportTheTroops!!! | May 9, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

I am getting really tired of people thinking that it is ok to suddenly change the rules so that their candidate can win. Why should MI and FL vote again? Rules are rules; get over it Clinton supporters. I am an independent voter and am completely turned off by her tactics. She needs to sit down before she completely alienates herself.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

So what if people are voting for Obama because he is Black. There are probably more people who WILL NOT vote for him for the same reason. It's called leveling the playing field folks.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Beri---Like Clinton you underestimate the Black vote.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

When has that phony Osama, oops, Obama been within a 1000 kilometers of sniper fire? He is a scarey, shallow metrosexual loser who wouldn't know sniper fire if it hit him in the ass.

When he first appeared miraculously on the scene like a Madonna on a cloud I wondered why people said he wasn't black enough. Now I know. He is African, American, not an African-American. Remember it was the Africans from Africa, Obama's ancestors, who sold African-Americans into slavery. I wonder why nobody but me sees that. I would vote for that Michelle Obama, a real African-American in a heartbeat if she wasn't an unpatriotic two faced b*. That gal has chutzpah, but not enough for her and her limp wristed creepy husband.

Posted by: Kathleen | May 9, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Misogyny will trump rascism every time. Where is that incredible Shirley Chisholm when we need her!

Like I said, stick a penis on it and some people will vote for anything over a competent woman every time. It amazes me.

Posted by: Kathleen | May 9, 2008 3:04 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 5:03 PM | Report abuse

don't know about you guys but hillary's refusal to bow out gracefully in the face of reality suggest to me that she knows something we all don't know. kind of conjurs visions of a smoke filled room, hillary, bill and superdelegates who are for sale... why else would someone spend $11 million of their own money on a race that can't be won unless of course the fix is in...

Posted by: bdmiller | May 9, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Latte Democrats supporting Obama now will face a major and unpleasant surprise in November when McCain wins.
Sorry, but the only way for the Democrats to lose the White House this year is to nominate the weakest candidate, i.e. Senator Obama.
The "Second-Coming" Big Uniter will end up being the biggest loser and divider in the recent US history.
How come Democrats have not learnt the lesson from Kerry, Dukakis, McGovern's losses??

Posted by: Independent Bostonians | May 9, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

As a Republican, I can only say one thing to all of you Hillary and Obama supporters;
Thank you so much for destroying your party. McCain/Cheney in 08!

Posted by: Bruno Dexter | May 9, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

i think the thing that strikes me the most is that the people who post for hillary can neither spell or put together a coherent sentence as they spew their bigoted poison. i'm a white woman and am sickened to realize that so many americans are as racist today as they were 20 years ago. good God...

Posted by: bdm | May 10, 2008 1:18 AM | Report abuse

For all those middle aged woman who consider Hillary Clinton their Joan of Arc, consider this Hillary Clinton is no one ... no one if not for her last name Clinton.

Nothing in Hillary Clintons womanhood made her who she is. She stuck by Bill Clinton when he so clearly cheated on her, not once but multiple times. And you know why? She needs that Clinton last name. Rodham wont do her good.

For God's sake Nancy Pelosi will make a far better America's first female President.

Without her last name Hillary is but a very very ordinary woman.

Posted by: JSmith | May 10, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

For all those middle aged woman who consider Hillary Clinton their Joan of Arc, consider this Hillary Clinton is no one ... no one if not for her last name Clinton.

Nothing in Hillary Clintons womanhood made her who she is. She stuck by Bill Clinton when he so clearly cheated on her, not once but multiple times. And you know why? She needs that Clinton last name. Rodham wont do her good.

For God's sake Nancy Pelosi will make a far better America's first female President.

Without her last name Hillary is but a very very ordinary woman.

Posted by: JSmith | May 10, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Clinton says that Senator Obama's "support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again". Does Clinton mean as compared to his support among lazy, shiftless blacks? That is certainly what she seems to imply. I'm not an American, but as a hard working black man, I can guess how the hard working black Americans, who for so long were such loyal supporters of the Clintons, will feel about this statement. I find it deeply offensive.

Posted by: Radianman | May 10, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

It is almost incomprehensible that so many believe that Hillary should quit. Why? Not everyone has voted yet and all should have that opportunity - as should those in the two states where they are unfairly being disregarded meaning the election isn't democratic at all. Why aren't people marching in the streets demanding their votes be counted? When the election is over, anyone applying for jobs should only have to be charismatic and a fine speaker because if the leader of the country and the armed forces doesn't need experience, why should other job candidates have to worry so much about what their qualifications are or aren't. Also, those in jail for using drugs should be released because what are they doing there if others who have admitted using drugs don't have consequences and can be the leader of the country. How interesting that Obama is receiving so much of the black vote, yet if speeches are directed at white voters by Hillary, it is considered inappropriate. Obama could have run as a white person, not black - what effect would that have had on black voters and others? I think much of the world looks at America's preoccupation with race and wonders how they could be so far behind ref. awareness levels and priorities all while they are supposedly a beacon of light to the world. The melting pot approach to multi-culturalism isn't in the U.S. and it is now, after this election, an even more divided country, it seems. So many are turning on the Clintons, opportunists all. Endorsements should be disallowed and benefits should not be given to those who do endorse candidates. It doesn't seem to me that Obama is changing the way politics is being done. It seems like the same old boys' club, the same backroom wheeling and dealing is going on. Obama might think he is changing Washington because so many are sucking up to him now instead of others. Obama should remember that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The power he is expecting where blacks are vilified who don't support him or he accepts endorsements that fracture the party more than Hillary's ongoing fight to the finish (which is good for democracy), the power he expects where no one should say anything against him, is not democratic. If Hillary quits he and others seem to think all Democrats will fall into line and follow him. Why should they? They aren't going to be lulled into following him, unthinking. In a democracy there is dissension and if almost all blacks are voting for him, they aren't really voting at all, just blindly following. The first black man in power - in America, but certainly not in the rest of the world. It is such a bizarre election issue, race, in some respects, considering America involves itself in other countries' matters as if the only thing that matters is the people, democracy - but where is the equality and democracy at home? Right now voters are voting for Obama because he is black or charismatic - qualifications be damned. Likely, he will be an amazing president - but so would Hillary - and she should fight on til the bitter end for the good of democracy, fight to win, fight against all who say she should quit. Americans are expected to struggle on, yet Obama followers want him to have an easy ride and Hillary, who is a symbol of strength, epitomizing what an American is and needs to be nown and purpose is vilified for staying in the race? She should be commended. Don't give in, Hillary! Don't make a deal! Fight to the finish and get those votes back!

Posted by: Andy1 | May 12, 2008 1:56 AM | Report abuse

Why doesnt Hillary and Bill step away from Rush Limbaugh who is ardently trying to destroy the democratic party. Why dont they reject and condemn his support?

Posted by: Harriett | May 12, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Could Hillary run as an independent if she loses to Obama?

Posted by: Aaron | May 12, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

what do you call a candidate that gets 95 percent of black vote but can't get more than a slice of the white vote? A black candidate, of course. Those who are pillorying Hillary for saying the obvious have their heads in the sand. If they persist it will be President McCain,

Posted by: Hillary's my hero | May 12, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Obamja won in:Wash/Idaho/Conn/Colo/Wyoming/North Dakota==sooo, there are no white, blue collar,no college degree people in these states?These states also have a small percentage of blacks.
Shocking that WHITES voted for him. Also, do we not have umpteen other races in USA?.According to HRC all races other than white are not blue collar/no college degree/hard working Americans?
ASnd no, blacks would not vote for her after the comments she & Bubba Clinton have made throughtout this campaign.I am positive that some of her blue collar/white/no college degree/hard working americans were insulted by that pharse. It is demeaning and ELITIST to make such a comment.

Posted by: Katerina Deligiannis | May 13, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

If Obama wants to insure victory he needs to offer the vp spot to Clinton.
Clinton may turn it down.
It would insure party unity.
Obama is the self proclaimed bridge building uniter, able to build consensus with hostile opponents.
Lets see him sit down with Clinton to negotiate, with of course no preconditions.
He better bring help (Gov. Richardson or Michelle) or he will leave without his shirt, and end up happy to be on the ticket as the VP.
She is clearly tougher and smarter then he is, as the net shake out of all the debates has shown.

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

Read each others comments!

There seems to be a lot of racial hostility from the "White" and "Black" commentators.
It is amazing, after 50 years of racial progress driven by the Democratic party that "White" and "Black" DEMOCRATS could be so hostile to one another. Save it for the party of economic oppression, the Republicans.

As you know,if you read the comments of others you will find much to offended by.

Not to stir things up more, but......

"White" voters have supported Obama particularly prior to Rev. Wright. Wright is clearly a racist hate demagogue. He and Obama's crisis management of him really scared many AMERICANS.

"Black" voters are not immune to racism.
Some Afro-Americans would argue THEY have reason to be racist. Some "Whites" actually sympathize with such arguments. "Blacks" voted about 10 to 1 for Obama.
Ther is a split of about 55% to 45% of "Whites" for Clinton and a split of about 90% to 10% of "Blacks" for Obama.

The "White" vote is also split by gender due to Sexism. If you factor that out, (how?) one would find that the "White " communities support for Obama is even stronger.

The "Black" vote is hardly split ( by anything) .

All that said , the point is that for all the screaming and yelling, the anger and hostility......

By the numbers in this contest , a much stronger case can be made for wide spread racism in the Afro-American community than in the "White" community.

The vast majority of "White" voters have been color blind and supportive to both candidates. This cannot be said of the "Black" community.
What can be said ?

In Fact, by the numbers , in most of the large primaries , as long as Obama could count on the "Black" vote he only needed about 44% of the "non black" vote to win. He did this in South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, ,D.C, Maryland, Louisiana, and the Virgin Islands. Where he built his media created "Momentum". If you don't believe this , crunch the numbers yourself. It is a Fact no one wants to talk about.

Posted by: allblues | May 13, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Why all the obsession with Clintons "White" working class voters and virtually no mention of the monolithic "Black" demographic in North Carolina. The media does not even question how this could be.

The media has created quasi Affirmative Action for "Black" Racism in this contest and ignored this issue.

"Black" Racism is more than alive and well just read the commentaries on the Washington Post site.
White Racism (obviously repugnant also)is covered as it should be, but "Black " is largly, not called down. Even Rev Wright a blatent RACIST on the face of his comments was defended by Solidad Obrian and Roland Martin untill the rest of the media weighed in. (What happenned to Solidad, she dissapered after her remarkable live performance in Detriot)
The media can focus energy on Clinton's
observation of the demographics and allow her to be painted as a racist. At the same time the media totally ignores the clear Racist vote in N.C. as if it were not even an issue.

Posted by: allblues | May 13, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

McCain/Clinton 08'


Posted by: McCain/Clinton 08' | May 13, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Those of you that are talking about a failed election if Obama is not the nominee and the fear of losing the black vote, should begin to think about the underestimated power of the Hispanic vote that Hillary can secure with her nomination. The great majority of Hispanics(since 2000 the largest minority in this country)are Democrats and will vote for Hillary(of course with the Bill Richardson exception). With this group and all other groups she will present a much broader coalition and along with her better capabilities, she is the strongest candidate of the two to win the general election.

So, this fear of losing the black vote is a dinosaur with the current demographics and looking into the future!!!!

Posted by: Hispana | May 13, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

None of you seem to remember that we African-American vote for B. Clinton both times, 83% and 84% respectively. Now we're voting to Obama (extra 7-8% for pride) you're mad! Even if Obama loses it all what he has done us all proud, White and Black alike!

Posted by: Troy Emerson | May 13, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
Results Posted Tommorrow!
Get Your Vote in for this week!

Posted by: votenic | May 13, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton Extends Her Lead Among Congressional Districts"

Read the full article, and what the Obama campaign doesn't want to talk about at:

Support The Obama Truth Week

Posted by: JB | May 14, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

I am not sure I want someone in the white House that appeals to primarily one base.
I'd like to have someone who has a broader base so they are not beholden to one particular group.
just a thought

Posted by: just a thought | May 14, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

And this Presidential Election poll says it all. You won't believe these results!
(you have to vote to see them)

Posted by: votenic | May 15, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Says Rachel: I supported Hillary, if Obama is the Nominee I will vote for McCain along with all my friends, family and collegues.

If Obama is the nominee, you say?
My dear, that is perfectly okay. There are millions of American women who are not so narrow minded that they would prefer four more years of a faltering economy, more death and destruction in Iraq, high gas prices...I could go on.You must be one of the six people in this country who still believes that Bush has done a super job. Speaking of super, watch the Super Delegate count. You just go ahead and pull that lever for McCain in November. Peace out.

Posted by: Hollyinla | May 15, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Rachel says: Have fun losing in November.

Your candidate has already lost. Are we having fun yet? Why are Hillary's people so anger and bitter? Since you are a Hillary supporter, you should take your group of friends, family, etc and start writing checks to help the lady out. Out of this race, that is.

Posted by: Hollyinla | May 15, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Reply to: Hillary would have anyway blacks peiople vote if there was no Obama and plus white and also took some reps which obama never could

Hey...wanna learn to spell and then maybe repost? And this time in English, please.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Anna K | May 8, 2008 7:16 PM

Very good point, Anna K. I agree with you on all counts.

Posted by: Holly | May 15, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Voteforthebest said, "why is it that it is ok for 91% of the Blacks to vote for an AA and these Blacks are not called racists?"

Sorry to break it to you, but Bill Clinton got 39% of the White vote in '92/'96. He also got 87% of the Black vote. Just 4 points short of Obama's 91%. Last I checked, Bill Clinton is white. Your (or Hillary's) point???

Sort of throws Hillary's contention of her broader base into the trash heap where it belongs.

Here are some interesting comparisons of Primaries in formerly Republican States:

Kansas (6 Electoral votes)
Obama ---- 27,172 All Repubs ---- 19,516
(Clinton ---- 9,462)

Louisiana (9 Electoral votes)
Obama ---- 220,588 All Repubs -- 161,319
(Clinton ---- 136,959)

Colorado (9 Electoral votes)
Obama ---- 79,344 All Repubs ---- 55,845
(Clinton ---- 38,587)

North Dakota (3 Electoral votes)
Obama ---- 11,625 All Repubs ---- 9,743
(Clinton ---- 6,948)

So, the cry that, "the sky is falling," over West Virginia is a bit disingenuous, at best. WV has 5 electoral College votes. Look at the popular vote totals above. That is 27 electoral College votes Clinton would not get, but that Obama likely will.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

A movement is being born thanks to this election in which the female candidate was smeared and demonized by the MSM, obama and the pundits.

millions of woman have had enough and are beginning to organize. Obama is going to lose them in the GE, not because he is an empty suit who was stunningly promoted by the the pundits, but because at some point, woman have to draw a line in the sand.

and that stand is going to take place in Nov when the 'annointed" Dem candidates goes down because woman refused to support a primary so poisoned by hatred of women.

a NON-VOTE for Obama is affirmation of the FEMALE'S candidate right to have a fair campaign.

Posted by: Linda | May 17, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Would someone please tell me some of the great ideas of change we are talking about?
I supose they'l be masterminded by the Ted Kennedy's, David Boren's and Opra Winfry's.
I've heard nothing origional come from o'bama, that I would want for a change.

Posted by: Hispirit | May 18, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

The Respected Senator John McCain would "Never," even consider such an absurdity "the MAN is a US War Veteran," and Senator Obama you could learn a thing or two from John McCain.

Citizens living in Hawai'i are having fits "absolutely outraged," writing endless letters and commentaries (Comments) to both the Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star Bulletin since they printed that the appointed junior Senator is coming to Hawai'i possibly giving a speaking engagement inside Punchbowl National Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii. It's a Veteran's National Cemetery not Obama's personal "Soap Box," to stand on and rant; it's a place for those resting in peace. The people of Hawaii are angry at the thought of this and have every right to be at the report he's planning this - it's a disgrace. Punchbowl would NOT be a "wonderful backdrop." Talk about crass -- speechifying in a national cemetery during a political campaign. Imagine this: thousands of enthralled Obama supporters rushing around the cemetery to get close to the man, trampling over the graves of men and women who've given their lives in service to their country. The reactions posted in Comments still, when the idea of a Punchbowl speech was first floated are from angry families whose loved ones rest in peace. National cemeteries are no place for political speeches. Makes you wonder about the maturity and integrity of the people who proposed such a preposterous idea in the first place.

Senator sell your socialism opinions on Capitol Hill, Hawaii's questioning and lost respect for the "so-called," junior appointed Senator who's turned into another Washington D.C.*Wanna-bee* just allot of talk nothing more. You'd make a great car salesman NOT A PRESIDENT you seem to sell plenty of B.S. to those not wise enough to read between the lines of a script written performance; every word out of your mouth is written by a paid staff member whose worked the D.C. circuit for years like the well known Mr. Rove," Yes, he too, could write a good speech and America bought it; just look at our current sitting "Bobble head," in the oval office.

Webster's Fourth Edition describes Barack Obama as a "HYPOCRITE," His own Pastor taught Trinity Church words of hate and racism while the Senator and his air-head-of-a-wife passed the tithe platter not giving even as 20 year members. He doesn't support any causes really, not even his own Church "just the views of Reverend Wright's anti-White; anti-Israel; anti-American points of view. A "greedy," Senator is described in the Bible as a "HYPOCRITE," as well. He's a Racist Elitist Marxist or the Antichrist reading his well written speeches. the *Wanna-bee* Washington Politician has in less then 12 months become a disgrace to Christianity- He's not a Christian man of his word; a poor excuse for one.

The Punchbowl National Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii is a sacred place for the many lying in Peace, Those US Military young and old, Men and Woman who gave their lives to this country will turn over in their graves at the sound of Obama's political performance if he speaks there. Punchbowl Cemetery it's not a place for a campaign rally "The Senator should keep his political performances with its Washington Socialism undertones to an area more suiting for "HYPOCRITES," Senator your always welcomed to rant at Neil Abercrombie's headquarters, but Punchbowl Cemetery is a resting place of peace and should remain so for those who rest there, - not an arena for your personal political agenda; Show some decency and class moron.

My vote goes to Hillary in 2008 !!!!

Posted by: Pineapple1 | May 19, 2008 2:15 AM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton is, and always will be, a SURVIVOR, You just cant put a CLINTON down that easy, Even you should know that Barack; so Lay off Hillary, and Stop acting like, Your wife.

Senator Obama is forgetting this race isn't over. Hold that Maybelline Colored Compact tight; you just might need it yourself to hide the running mascara come November.

In the mean time Simma-down simma-down Big-shot and PaH-leezZZ Shut-up, you didn't receive an Oscar yet "It isn't over till the fat-lady sings," nobody's heard that Opera yet. At this point in the 2008 Election "ANYTHING," is possible; so loosen your belt it seems a bit tight lately and your not in the "Black House yet, nor is Aunt Jamima cooking' up any waffles for you this morning.

Don't count all your eggs in one basket this soon; The ELECTION is just getting started; you might just find yourself, warring Senator Clintons worn down campaign heels near the end, young man!

Posted by: pineapple | May 21, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

I am a black man in America and would love to see a black American become President in my life time. While Barack Obama maybe a good speaker, and maybe even a descent politician. I still don't know anything about the man. Most "Black" people don't know anything about him. During Super Tuesday after I voted, I ask some of the young Black and Latino men in my neighborhood one question "Why did you vote for Barack Obama" the answer I got was crazy because he "Black". What has he done for the Black Communities? I think that Black American have once again "Taken Their Eyes Off Of The Prize". They once again let White America decide who our black politician should be, and who we should follow and call our black representative. I am forty years old and never hear of this man, I have never seen him, never hear of his accomplishments. Now, because a person can speak well, then they should be president. They say Barack Obama is the first good looking, bright, good speaking, articulate black candidate. Once again White America wants to decide for us and most black people fell for it. Now, If Barack Obama gets the nomination I will vote for him because I am a Democrat, but I still think he will be a one term president. People open your eyes and see for yourself. You have your own head on your shoulders, don't be a robot.

Posted by: kevin | May 22, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

That is because Washington is a caucus state- a ridiculous, undemocratic process that favors people with resources over people without.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse


so losing the popular vote 50.5- 49.5 is losing "so badly"??

She is losing the delegate race because she was outplayed by a more crafty politician- he took advantage of a system that is dysfunctional loaded with where very small percentages of the people vote and they are dominated by people of means, states that never vote democrat but have Dem parties that are dominated by AA voters and states with open primaries. In states where the Dems can win and where Dems voted only- she won consistently. Now I understand that the argument can be that we need someone who can appeal to Independent and Republican voters (although voting in the primary does not really mean anything) but here is my argument.

I am a lifelong Dem. I support them as they are the carriers of my philosophy in public life. I worked for J.Jackson in 88, Dinkins in 89 and 93, B. Kerry and then B. Clinton in 92, and flew to Florida for Kerry on election day last cycle. The Dem. party has been the equivalent to me in some ways (not all) of what a church is for others- a representative of fundamental beliefs. I happen to be an agnostic. I would never feel entitled to go into someone elses church and pick their pastor. Why is it ok for someone so fickle and uncommitted to core values that they may have voted Bush last time, maybe following the right wing slime about HRC, or were just plain uninterested- who may or may not have any facts now- and still doesn't fill strong enough about it to commit to the party- why is it ok for this person to chose the representative for a party that has meant so much in my life? As a left winger, I intend to work for Barak this one cycle- after that I am done with this ridiculous party.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

It is to noticeable that the White difference in favor of CLINTON (aside the age factor) is much larger in states with high % of black population, where the racism is clearly higher.

It is interesting to note that in states with high Latino AND Black population this is less so, probably because the white racism is there directed more against the Latinos as against the blacks (glaring example: California !!)


- OBAMA, an attractive, intelligent, perceived as sincere person, with the handicaps of lack of experience and his race, highlighted and magnified by the Hillary incidious attacks and weakened by
the fanatization of her women supporters,
which will lead in November to a high rate of defection there.

- HILLARY, a clearly ambition sick, insincere woman, teaming up with her also insincere husband, perceived as dishonest by most of the people,and vulnerable to future GOP attacks regarding the absurd
speach fees of BILL and presidential pardon for favors and donations.

Therefore, the Democratic Party would incur at a huge risk to go to the elections with OBAMA, not to mention HILLARY

Unfortunately, to refuse nominate any of them and instead select a suitable candidate as AL GORE, probably will not help either, as the already named HILLARY fanatics and the young people, in additionto all the black electorate, will be so pissed of that they neither will vote him but rather stay home!


Posted by: Anonymous | May 25, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama is winning but not because of his "broader base". He's winning because of the caucuses. If Hillary had worked them the way Obama did, she'd be the nominee. Doesn't anybody here have any common sense?

Anyway, I supported Edwards in '04, Clinton twice, and even held my nose and voted for Kerry, but I have never supported Hillary or Obama. I supported Edwards this time too, and believe now, as I did then, that he would wiped the floor with the Rethuglicans. It's too bad you people had to be ignorant and not vote for the sure winner. Now you can all sweat it out till Nov. or later, if the Rethugs steal this one too (or try to steal it).

Posted by: webber | May 28, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

I look at the differences in the campaign staffs as much if not more than the differences between the candidates.
I am full aware that many from the winners campaign staff will become part of their administration.

As a democrat who supports all the American people, I have a hard time supporting Senator Clinton and her campaign staff who treat the rules as nonsense (aka Alberto Gonzales), didn't have a long term strategy for their campaign(aka no long term thinking while governing), didn't treat the caucus states as important (aka not every American counts), didn't manage their campaign budget well (aka can't manage our countries budget), used divisiveness and misrepresentation of facts (aka Karl Rove spin), handpicks votes that should count (aka white working class nonsense).

Since Senator Clinton is in charge of her campaign and staff. I have to link her to the remarks and strategies used by them.

Posted by: Richard in Bellevue, WA | May 29, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company