Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama, Clinton, Misogyny, Racism

Every comment string on any story about the Democratic nomination process contains suggestions that Sen. Barack Obama has benefited greatly from media bias but has suffered because of racism. Every story also draws comments that suggest Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a victim of misogyny. The comments on this morning's stories on the Kentucky and Oregon primaries are no exception.

In case you missed it, Clinton swept Kentucky and Obama won easily in Oregon. Those results had been widely predicted, and Dan Balz wrote today that "The odds against Clinton are now so long that it would take a near-miraculous change... to alter the trajectory that Obama is on to clinch the nomination next month."

Columnist Ruth Marcus weighed in on that near certainty by saying "Clinton managed to win more votes than any primary candidate in either party ever had before. It's hard to square that result with the notion that her candidacy exposed a deep vein of misogyny."

And Dana Milbank dropped in on Kentucky to "...take a sip of the Clinton Kool-Aid and listen to Bill Clinton explain how Obama's status as the presumptive nominee is a media fabrication."

First for the comments on the Balz story. We'll start with a different type of complaint, fromjayvan24, who said, "The only interesting fact in this long story--stuffed with generalities we have all read dozens of times--would have been the actual vote count. The headline says "landslide." That could be anything from a 10-point lead on up. What in blazes is the vote-count."

The numbers are provided, but not in the text of the story, partly because the exact numbers are moving targets for hours and even days after an election, even though the winner is known and the reporters have gone home. But we also didn't make the best available current number easy to find. There are separate links on the home page to results in Kentucky and Oregon, but those links are not provided on the article page and many readers come directly to the article page without going through the home page. We can do better here.

VirginiaConservative said, "It is so delicious to witness the schizophrenic madness on the left over this. Whats a lefty to do? Women are so important - unless they are being ravaged in muslim countries and killed in China. Blacks are so important - unless they are up for an important nomination - or being murdered by the hundreds of thousands in Darfur... Which ever way the nomination goes, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

titindgp said, "By all counts, vote count, delegate count, state count, super-delegate count - Barack is ahead. Clinton's are once again lying about the popular vote; counting Michigan. Well how many popular votes did Obama get out of Michigan - 0. Ohhhhh forgot, his name was not on the ballot!"

Jaymand wrote, "Clinton is clearly the stronger candidate. Yet the granola eating radicals of the party push forward this neophyte candidate that has no credentials what so ever to be president of the United States... Obama cannot win the general election."

NobleDog agrees, saying, "Hillary is like money in the bank for McCain. While she slugs it out with Obama, McCain assembles his organization, banks money and as Bush would say, "strategerizes" for the general election. She does not give a flip for the Dem party. It is all about her "entitlement."..."

asoders22 wrote, "...If Obama is going to campaign against McCain in the fall, he will need a lot of advice. If he ends up president, he will need even more... He is making a lot of mistakes and he is being far too condescending, giving in to his impulse to use jargon that connects him to the youthful and academic voters but leaves so many others out."

But Flabergasted said, "...These are both excellent candidates (which is why this is going on for so long). I'll vote for whichever one is the nominee... Stop arguing..."

howdy999 wrote, "Hillary is pounding the pavement, putting in 16 hour days, meeting people face-to-face, standing in front of factories at 5:00 am. Obama... flies in to some urban center, gives a one hour speech, and then flies out... Then the media plasters the front page with his image and screams deliriously for Hillary to get out."

snowy2 said, "The less educated white voters so smugly dismissed here and elsewhere will have the last laugh in November. Given the choice between a smooth talking lawyer and an old soldier whom do you think will come out on top?"

morningglory51 wrote, "Obama still has a problem with white, working class voters in the Midwest, that's a fact... That's a mighty big section of America to just write off."

All comments on the Balz article are here.

Now to the Ruth Marcus column.

joeparadis wrote, "...You state--I agree--that Clinton did not lose because of sexism and you go on to minimize sexism's impact. Yet you say at the end that women face an achingly long ascent. I think your logic represents the conflicts of reality. Hillary did get the bubba vote and there is still a glass ceiling--me thinks, however,the whole room is being rebuilt. What a complicated world we live in--thanks Hillary for making it more livable."

pramanathan said, "Great job defending pathetic circus known as Main Stream Media..."

blankinships declared that "The only thing that held Hillary back was her personality, which gave her her negatives. Gender was never a factor. America is ready for a woman president."

alance said, "This extremely long primary season is proof that white liberal guilt for racism, slavery and lack of opportunities is more important to them than gender and equal rights for women. Women are often their own worst enemy. Women are taught to be guilty before they are toilet trained."

All comments on the Marcus column are here.

Finally to Milbank' Washington Sketch:

brewstercounty wrote, "I was in KY for the last week helping with the Clinton campaign. There are many great people there who have nothing in common with Washington Post writers. That is a good thing. I would rather be with them any time."

But PrussianBlue1 said, "Hillary Clinton--the candidate of the old feminists, the dumb racists, and Bill's friends. Include me out."

aztecterp wrote, "What really hurts us is that there are states like West Virginia, PA, and Kentucky where people are so anti Black, where people refuse to vote for a person because of his skin color. If I were a Black person, I would never want to visit those areas. It's truly disgusting. It shows one how important education is."

WestVirginian said, "...How funny, when White Voters cast their ballots for a White Candidate over a Black Candidate by 60%, the media calls them BIGOTS. When Black Voters cast their ballots for a Black Candidate by 99% nothing is said about bigotry. Using these statistics and the same rationale it would seem the BLACK VOTERS ARE BIGOTS."

But tcroan asked, "Could someone point me to the story in which Clinton condemns the West Virginia voters who confessed that Obama's race was a factor in their decision to vote for her?"

ichief wrote, "This is a sick, disgusting article that shows contempt for women, the state of Kentucky, and Hillary Clinton, the first viable female candidate for the presidency in our nation's history. I can't believe the Washington Post would publish such despicable garbage."

And jake10 said, "I live in KY and don't drink the Clinton Kool-Aid. You nailed it Dana!"

All comments on Milbank's sketch are here.

By Doug Feaver  |  May 21, 2008; 9:50 AM ET
Categories:  Clinton , Obama , Presidential Politics  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Democratic Disunity
Next: Oil Price Shock and Blame


Most negros have been spoonfed that they have to vote for obama. And they all follow inline like lambs to the slaughter. McCain needs to get down wit the bros. to win this election.

McCain needs to adress the problems that black people face... So many of them are drug addics, illetirate, un-employed and on

welfare and robbing people and having too many babies. We need to solve their problems to make our streets safer and not

have so many prisioners.

Just because "Osama" is a negro dosnt mean he can fix their problems. Yeah, and what have the f*cking demoncrats done for

the country lately besides give more free gub'mint cheese to the negroes? At least big john isnt a secret muslim trying to

overthrow tridishinal family values like "osama" obama!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 7, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

74ohn2kq > hk0y0ttwivts7kca [URL=] 2stvpuexrd9 [/URL] 9rbgxaq0

Posted by: fkyrsfjkuq | June 6, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

I personally feel that Obama will be a great leader than Clinton and Bush.He is one of them who effected worstly by rasism row----------------------------

Suffering from an addiction. This website has a lot of great resources and treatment centers.

Posted by: jimmy | June 4, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

olyuzu91xr > 81ffh0uiv2fqisq [URL=] disid43h0oowu24 [/URL] 2ba027ngpuqe

Posted by: za75fbo16b | June 3, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has taken Kentucky and Obama is right there in Oregon.
The Democratic race for nomination is still very much alive - and most likely to be decided by superdelegates - as CNN points out clearly

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

If you haven't done so yet, please write a message to each of your state's superdelegates at

Obama Supporters:

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

Clinton Supporters too .... !

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

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

Posted by: feeba | May 29, 2008 4:08 AM | Report abuse

cool post dude 10x ">finalfantasyxxx

Posted by: xxx young girls | May 27, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

This was posted:
"Bill and Hillary Clinton operate like the Democratic version of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. No dirty trick is too low. In addition, Bill Clinton had much fewer accomplishments in his eight years than either Jimmy Carter or George Bush senior had in their four years each."

Name the "tricks" sir. Name them, with links to sources. (sound of crickets)

Ane here's a link for the person who wrote that, since he obviously isn't aware of Bill Clinton's accomplishments.
To name a few Highest Homeownership Rate in History, Over 21 Million New Jobs, Moving From Record Deficits to Record Surplus, Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Over Three Decades, ETC. ETC.

Posted by: Tom | May 26, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

To quote,

"If you review the website for the leading organization for women (National Organization of Women) you CLEARLY see their choices to fight not only for women's rights, but against racism, homophobia, economic injustice, etc"

In other words just another far-left extremist group.

Posted by: Lewis Loflin | May 23, 2008 2:25 AM | Report abuse

I've asked several passionate Obama supporters to name one thing he's done in the Senate that would persuade them to vote him in as President. They can't name one. But they're sure he'll make a great president. Yikes! Are we that stupid to dream up a Wonder Boy and expect him to deliver? He's a joke. He started off big because those Iowans can't handle a strong woman unless she's making pie in the kitchen. Give me a break. Hillary is by far the best candidate and has shown that she can actually get things done.

Posted by: Dazed and Confused | May 22, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

PREVIUOS QUOTE: "Sexism vs. Racism! Are we REALLY surprised we've arrived to this level of analysis? I, for one (as a liberal white man), stand by my sisters. If you review the website for the leading organization for women (National Organization of Women) you CLEARLY see their choices to fight not only for women's rights, but against racism, homophobia, economic injustice, etc. (the sections are easily seen and identified). If you visit the leading African American organization's website (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) you do NOT find clear choices that support women's rights, gay rights, etc. Their subsections speak of youth, education, economics, etc. but they don't seem to care for women or gays (not even black women or gays)."

That's bogus logic that assumes a white male (without an "official" organization) would not fight for those very same things under the consitutional right of ALL CITIZENS. This kind of pissing contest serves no purpose and word-smithing website mission statements is as naiive as many have called Obama.

To evaluate the candidacy of a person based on such a microscopic set of wording of divergent organizations which happen to have one or the other as part of it's demographics is not only naiive, but laughably so. It is simply a way of convincing ones self that they are being "logical" instead of "emotional" about their selection. We've seen that level of self-delucsion for 8 years with George Bush.

But, as usual with the Democrats, they just don't practice what they preach. Sure, it's all a love-fest between all the diverse factions, until there's power at stake. Then they turn into the very power-hungry, dirty political tactics they've claimed so long was the GOP domaine. No matter who wins, if it's a Democrat, this stank will not wash off as easily as they seem to think it will. Geraldine demolished a political lifetime of accomplsihment with a serious case of "political victimzation". Then tried to cast the blame elsewhere.

You know she was really right about some things, and dubious in motive and stupid in execution.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary genuinely is the better candidate, why is she running a terrible campaign? Is she going to run the country the same way she ran her campaign? That's something to think about. She might not be such a great executive after all considering everything that's happened within the last year.

Posted by: dcp | May 22, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

All the backstabbing going on here reminds me of home.

Posted by: Barry Kritz | May 22, 2008 8:07 AM | Report abuse

Once again it is all about race....How about women are about 50% of the population and blacks are about 20% of the population, so it only makes sense that the black candidate should immediately be nominated over the woman. Blacks have been subjugated for 400 years, women, since Eden. Get in line!

Posted by: Sandoo | May 22, 2008 8:05 AM | Report abuse

kd4uozfjoofa > 6ieiqyh2ezq9i0ycu [URL=] ejkt9uuf2 [/URL] c71y6fqtyu

Posted by: 28rnn54ssp | May 22, 2008 4:57 AM | Report abuse

wow awesome i love you __) ">ringtones_y_iconos_gratis_para_el_celular_audiovox_htm

Posted by: coding workshop ringtone | May 22, 2008 4:13 AM | Report abuse

See and will you see how much of a pass the media and Obama have given Hllary Clinton.

When is the last time you heard a negative story about Hillary Clinton on broadcast television?

Heard of Rezko, yes.
Heard of the Peter F. Paul lawsuit
against the Clintons. No? why not?
Depostions will be taken this year.

Media bias in favor of the Clintons.
Obama, the media, and talk radio,
have ignored most of negative stories
about Clinton See below.

The media repeats her false claim
that she is winning the popular vote.

From RealClearpolitics.

Note also the number of states Obama won by more than 35% but yet the media made little mention of Obama's huge spin.

Meanwhile one line will be taken from a Barack or Michelle Obama speech, distorted in meaning, and repeated to public thousands of times.

Case in point the Michelle Obama in Madison speech, where she says really proud of my country. Take a listen and note the applause. Note also Obama won by "white working class" Wisconsin by nearly 200,000 votes.

Here what she actually said.

ABC spliced togther that greatest hits piece of Rev. Wright. Can't even count how many times that was played.
Now you have people think those snippets of 3 sermons were repeated every Sunday over the last 30 years. Wright confirmed that Obama was not in church for those 3 sermons. Obama was in chuch for Audacity to Hope.
Listen to the sermon.

Canadian Broadcast corporation exonerates Obama and said the Clinton campaign contacted their embassy, not Obama.

After the state union speech Obama turned to answer a question from Senator Clair McCaskill. The New York Times and ABC cropped McCaskill out of the picture and accussed Obama of turning away from Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Mr. Unite Us | May 22, 2008 3:41 AM | Report abuse

There is quickness on the part of the black community to label anything that is not embraced by them as racist. Conversely, there is hesitancy to recognize when those of color make angry and racially derrogatory comments toward the white community that this too is racism. Perhaps, this is a part of the reason that Obama does not sell well among some white working class Americans. Michele Obama's thesis, some of Obama's comments from his own book as well as the Rev. Wright tends to feed into this dynamic. One questions the truthfulness of his rhetoric regarding acceptance of differences and his promise to unite rather than divide.

Posted by: SAL | May 22, 2008 1:58 AM | Report abuse

WestVirginian said, "...How funny, when White Voters cast their ballots for a White Candidate over a Black Candidate by 60%, the media calls them BIGOTS. When Black Voters cast their ballots for a Black Candidate by 99% nothing is said about bigotry. "

There's a mountain of difference between the two. Whites were never the property of others in America, nor subject to lynch law. Nobody judge ever said of that 'the white man has no rights which the black man is bound to defend.".Never was there a time when they were forced out of neighbourhoods to keep up the property values. Electing another white person at the expense of a black simply on the basis of skin colour is another instance of the history. Electing a black opens a new page, in which African Americans are seen as legitimate even for the highest office -- something that is not in doubt for whites.

The fact that you all miss this shows exactly why the West Virginia votes were tainted by open bigotry.

Posted by: Jenny | May 22, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

snowy2 said, "The less educated white voters so smugly dismissed here and elsewhere will have the last laugh in November. Given the choice between a smooth talking lawyer and an old soldier whom do you think will come out on top?"

If there's one thing worse than a 'less educated voter' it's someone posturing as a better educated voter by using 'whom' in the wrong place.

Posted by: Jenny | May 22, 2008 1:26 AM | Report abuse

Why do the HRC supporters are livid that black people back Obama, but find no irony when women freely admit they are voting for Hillary because they want a woman president? When HRC runs as the first woman president? This makes my teeth hurt.

Posted by: Lynne | May 21, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Why all the hatred? Gender and race prejudices have occurred by Americans, both Black and White. Just because a woman votes for Clinton does not mean the woman voted simply because she and Clinton are women. Just because an African American votes for Obama does not mean that the African American voted for Obama simply because both he or she and Obama are Black. Did it ever occur to Americans that people believe in their candidate of choice to deliver the American Dream and make our lives better? Both Clinton and Obama are competing for the same goal, one will win, one will lose. Individual supporters for both candidates know why he or she chose either Clinton or Obama, which may not have anything to do with gender or race. Why has it not occurred to anyone that the most important thing in this election is to vote? Let your choice be known by casting your ballot. As for leading the country, both candidates have given their all to win the Democratic nomination and I would be honored to vote for either candidate in November. The challenges that both candidates faced were unimaginable, but they both perservered. If how either of the candidated ran his or her campaign is any indication as to how he or she will run our country, I say I cannot wait to cast my vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

Posted by: StopThe Hatred | May 21, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Joni, are you wearing a flag pin? Has it come to this, that your party, the party of Lincoln is reduced to a gadfly? Rush seems desperate to prove his relevance by way of Operation Chaos. What's good for him may well be the end of the GOP's relevance.

Posted by: jhbyer | May 21, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

The way I see it is that the biggest problem in America is Racism. Not the economy, not the war. We can not function as a country as long as this exists. I believe that only bad things can come from Obama as President. We have already put ourselves in the position that he has to be nominated. If they choose Hilary, who is obviously the better canidate and would most likely beat Mccain in November. It becomes a racial issue. If Obama loses the election in November, again its going to be about race.

We have to let go of all this Politically Correct BS and except the world for what it really is. Accept it

Posted by: jb | May 21, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Bill and Hillary Clinton operate like the Democratic version of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. No dirty trick is too low. In addition, Bill Clinton had much fewer accomplishments in his eight years than either Jimmy Carter or George Bush senior had in their four years each. One of the many things that worries me about Hillary Clinton is that she is going to have an agenda to push through all the things that SHE would have liked to have done in the 1990s, whether the country is ready for it or not or can pay for it or not. Anyone who is so eager to wield that kind of power is exactly the person you would NOT want to be president. Most of the Democratic party establishment opposes the Clintons- ever consider why? This is why.

Posted by: George Robertson | May 21, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone know anything about this one ?

Investigators to Release Reports on Obama's Communist Connections:

Posted by: Ash | May 21, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Lets face it boys and girls - this race is about race. It is about the hypocrisy of race. The left is soooo ready for this to be over so they can stop pretending one of their two candidates is a racist and concentrate on the real racists - the right.

You know, the party which unprecedentedly appointed two black Americans to the post of Secretary of State. The party which nominated - against a liberal firestorm of smears - Clarance Thomas to the supreme court. Too be fair, JFK appointed Marshall, but then JFK was as far removed from today's left wing as was Ronald Reagan. Ask not what your country can do for you,,,, would be labeled a far right wing hate speech today.

Where was I, oh yeah - race hypocrisy. Remember Howard Dean's idiotic comment about the only colored people at an RNC function would be the kitchen staff? Wow, that opened checkbooks didn't it? Of course, the left is happy to ignore that a black American is not sitting in Howard's chair, aren't they. It seems the kitchen staff analogy fits the left much better than the right. Demonstrably so.

So, while you lefties hold your noses and call each other names - don't run out of race baiting bullets. You will need them whenever this kabuki theater plays out and you go after the biggest racist of all.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

I truly find it hard to believe that all these people with college educations would vote for someone who will lose in Nov. without Hillary. Plus, he is not experienced. That is scary. I am college educated and wealthy. I don't understand what the Obama supporters are thinking. ??

Posted by: Mom | May 21, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

If you are "truly" a Democrat and not a "fan" then common sense will prevail and you will support the party regardless of who the nominee is. Hate speech,sexist talk and votes rooted in racism is more about individual character and upbringing. You can't blame Obama for your hated of Blacks no more than the next man can hold HRC responsible for his dislike for women in positions of authority. It is unfortunate that these two candidates "un-corked" feelings and thoughts we have held on to for generations but managed to cover-up until now.There are those who are comfortable with chaos and disorder and there are those who are brave enough to acknowledge their anger there fear and want to break out from it. I am urging those of you "Democrats" who truly desire change to stand up and say enough of the percentages and the endless bickering we have a common cause ; healthcare,jobs,mortgage crisis, Iraq war and we have an opportunity to put stop to this by uniting behind a Democrat for the office of President regardless of who it is.

Posted by: Robert | May 21, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Now we read (on cnn) that Hillary is being urged to reject the votes of "racists." I suppose that means anyone who doesns't vote for Obama. Can we get Obama to reject his racist cabals? You know, the ones who are only voting for him because he isn't white?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Poor judgement - Hamas, Cuba etc.
Little experience in Senate
Black Liberation Theology
Bill Ayers
Caucus leader
Rev. Wright
Flag pin
Can't win the working class voters
Majority of pledged delegates

Lifetime of experience serving America
Re-elected to second term in Senate
Winner of the popular vote
Winner of Largest states
Winner of swing states
Winner of Red states
Wins working class vote
Won Florida and Michigan without campaigning
Leads in support from women
Knows many world leaders personally
Can BEAT McCain
Stronger with the electoral vote already
Tough, tenacious, a real fighter

Now, if the democrats want to win the White House in November they can shoot themselves in the foot going with Obama or go with a winner - SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON

Posted by: Joni | May 21, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I think if she tells all people who are voting for her in order to not vote for Obama (because he is black) as requested by David Gergen (CNN) then Obama should ask anyone who is voting for him only because he is black not to vote for him as well.

Posted by: Chris | May 21, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Psaw wrote: Taxonomy at work, keeping Obama, a man with small accomplishments, at the fore while a more competent and experienced woman - have a generation older - is expected to step aside, quite early, give the boy his moment.

There is no test for who is qualified. It's just our own opinion of who would be best. To try to analyze who is the better candidate is somewhat futile. Obama has qualities I see that she doesn't have (in my opinion) and these are vital enough to garner my support. Experience comes in many ways and can't always be quantified on a resume. His view of the problems we have and his attitude in resolving them appeals to me. I believe he is quite capable of finding the solutions we need. After all, every president has hundreds of advisors and technicians to support them. Hillary is okay but appears to be more of a politician than a statesman. But I would pick her in a heart beat over McCain. I wonder how many people are locked into the mindset that we finally have a qualified woman candidate and we aren't to be denied? I was a Hillary fan for as much the idea of why not give a woman a chance. After all its a given she would be infinitely better than Bush. But Obama shouldn't be considered a skunk at the garden party. After all we all want the best candidate we can find to support don't we? Irrespective of gender or color right? If one is going to champion the cause of Hillary because she is a woman then you better not complain of all the past sexism we have endured. You can't have it both ways.

Posted by: Patrick | May 21, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

It is NOT OVER until someone crosses the threshold in required delegates. Until then, the process should be allowed to proceed.

It would be undemocratic to do otherwise.

Posted by: PacificGatePost | May 21, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

To all Hillary supporters:

It's about time you put aside your pride and emotion and think deep and hard before nursing what will clearly amount to a dumb decision like vote for McCain or stay home or write in Hillary.

You may think you are doing Hillary a favor, but in reality, not only are you digging her political grave but that of Chelsea as well.

Hillary and her supporters will be held 100% responsible if the dems looses this election.

Obama's supporter's and other progressives nation-wide will never forget if you help derail this golden opportunity to put an end 8 years of Bush/Cheney/McCain nightmare.

Posted by: JmBoye | May 21, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

It amazes me that Obama supporters classify anyone who supports Hillary Clinton is white, uneducated, and racist. They cannot conceive that a highly educated multicutrual person with a high income does not buy his empty rhetoric and constant back pedaling.

Posted by: Mary | May 21, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

What's the difference between working class whites in Oregon and Kentucky? One voted for Obama and one voted for Clinton. It is all cultural. People in Oregon are comfortable with people that are from different backgrounds Kentucky is not.

There are segments in this country that are still stuck in 1950. Anyone that does not recognize this divide has been under a rock. This does not mean that ALL people are bad. You just have pockets of "undesirables" in ALL races.

Posted by: ELuv | May 21, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

....Democrats are the party of victims and special interests. Of course it's candidates are going to claim racism, sexism, and every other sympathy ploy in the book. Talk in broad cliches about "hope" and "change" and the evil GWB - but don't touch any real issues....

Are you kidding me?? The Republican Party doen't represent special interests??? Ever heard of corporate America and all their lobbyists that Republicans sleep with? Look at all the consultants McCain has gotten rid of in the past 2 weeks while he cleans house so as not to appear to have any lobbyists in his anti-lobbyist campaign.

The only real issue is to rectify the damage done by Bush/Cheney. Everything else Obama accomplishes is frosting on the cake.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama never said, "The evidence shows that Hillary's support among Americans, hard-working Americans, Black
Americans is eroding. I have a much broader base according to those facts." Billary chose to play the race card. Barack started out avoiding the race issue as long as he could. Even blacks refused to support him at first. Even now he is trying hard not to portray himself as a "Black" candidate.

Posted by: dcp | May 21, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

This is incredible to me. First - other black men have run in the primaries and have not been overwhelmingly supported by the black community - ie Rev Jesse Jackson and Rev. AL Sharpton. Could it be that they are voting for Sen. Obama because they believe in him and not just based on his race. Stop putting the black community on trial here - we have already proved that we don't just automatically support someone because they are the same race as we are. Secondly Senator Clinton may have had to deal with some mysogenistic suggestions but Senator Obama has had to deal with being accused of being Muslim (as if just being Muslim is some horrible thing), supporting terrorism being Anti-American, racism, sexism, every thing was thrown at him and now that he is ahead in the primary his campaign is being diminished by talk that the media somehow supported him and people were somehow against women????? Is this the same media that plastered Rev. Wright's remarks all over the TV, Internet and Newspapers for weeks???????

Its amazing how with every step this man takes in the primary someone is there to push the bar higher and make excuses for why he is winning that have nothing to do with the fact that he has run a good campaign.

Oh wait no - its just another day in the life of a black professional!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

States that had Democratic Party caucuses instead of primaries went for Obama - and the caucuses are not particularly "democratic" - I couldn't vote, because the machine-like schedule closed the window too early for people with fulltime work other than being an activist. I don't object to Obama because he's black - I'm just tired of 40-something boys running the planet - I see a mature woman who isn't as pretty as the man, and like shallow Americans, we go for the prettier face that talks nice. If Obama were in Clinton's place, no one would have the audacity to tell him to quit so the girl could go ahead: his maleness somehow trumps with an extra wallop with Dems because he's darker skinned than she is. If she were black, I'd still vote for her: we've had men, we've never had a woman - and that is the Great Taxonomy at work, keeping Obama, a man with small accomplishments, at the fore while a more competent and experienced woman - have a generation older - is expected to step aside, quite early, give the boy his moment.


Posted by: Practica1 | May 21, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Anybody running for office or voting in an election is naieve or ignorant to not realize that people vote against some candidates as much as they vote for others. And yes it's based on race, on sex, on all sorts of reasons. It's just the way humans are. And since no one is ever required to justify their choice before they vote then it doesn't really matter how they make up their mind. I think there are way too many misinformed and stupid voters that cast their vote for totally irrational reasons. But this is how we choose to do it and we all have to live with it. This is a comment on society not just our voting habits. It's how we normally live.

Posted by: Patrick | May 21, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Most of you are giving people way too much credit for intelligence and political savy. Most people don't know who their members of congress are. When I hear people saying they will vote for Hillary because she supports the gas tax holiday for the summer- with not plan to follow, I can rest easy that I won't be sparring with Mensa members anytime soon. Geraldine Ferraro is zipping around like Henny Penny squawking sexism and chauvinism- where the "bleep" has she been since- (oh, I know she taught at Harvard, and tried unsuccessfully twice to run for the Senate) - losing the VP race in 1984- but that race gave her a national platform and she did not use it- she's an old gas bag who thinks this alignment with Hillary is going to reserect her somehow. There are a lot of women both Republican and Democrat who don't like Hillary's sense of entitlement- being Senator is fine- but it's just as good at Obama being senator. Being the First Lady of Arkansas gives you experience in nothing. Being the First Lady of the US lets you prove you can be a diverting hostess. There are millions of women in the US who are successful business people, who have come up through the ranks, often raised children without help in the home, or chuaffers or a staff. These women resent her sense that she has all this experience-because the only thing she really has experience in is being embarrassed globally by her husband. I am fairly confident that if you got Bill on a lie-detector he would have to admit that he really doesn't want his wife to be president but is being "supportive" because he owes her. We need to keep this dynamic out of the White House at all costs.

Posted by: Millie Bea | May 21, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Racism and sexism are terms frequently misapplied to certain types of preferential voting. The essence of each is antipathy - a racist is AGAINST someone of a different race, belittles that individual, and wishes to exclude him or her from opportunity. On the other hand, when candidates are reasonably equal in qualifications, it is neither racist for an African American to be FOR the black candidate, nor sexist for a woman to prefer the female candidate, particularly since both groups have suffered past discrimination. Ideally, nothing but qualifications should matter, but the reality of personal preferences in helping members of a group gain their deserved share of recognition is understandable. More important, because it is based on fondness rather than hatred, it should never be confused with the reprehensible bigotry and desire to exclude that characterizes true racism or sexism.

Posted by: Fred Moolten | May 21, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

RE: gayuccpastor - thanks for an interesting take on your position. However, neither NOW nor the NAACP are running candidates for president, the Democratic party is.

Do you really feel that Senator Obama's policies are constrained to those of the NAACP?

Posted by: John D in Houston | May 21, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Democrats are the party of victims and special interests. Of course it's candidates are going to claim racism, sexism, and every other sympathy ploy in the book. Talk in broad cliches about "hope" and "change" and the evil GWB - but don't touch any real issues.

Posted by: pgr88 | May 21, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is fooling her supporters. The Only reason she is staying in this race is to raise as much money as possible from her pissed of supporters and pay off debts.

Posted by: TechGuy | May 21, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

So Obama won in come none of the press has reported that the photo of the huge crowd "waiting" for him was taken just after the Decemberists finished playing a free concert and before much of the crowd could leave?? Why abet Obama's consistent trickery which first began in IL when he orginally was 'elected' after using his usual tricks to dispose of the other legitimate candidates? He his a first-rate IL polititico all right

Posted by: jjb | May 21, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Rajesh said...Obama is winning because of the Republican party support. The dumb thing is the super-delegates are not seeing this and joining Obama's campaign.
Wow, Obama is ahead becasue of Republican support and stupid super-delegates??? Thank God you finally figured this all out for us. We need to tell as many people as we can before its too late.

Posted by: Patrick | May 21, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

@ Rajesh: So you believe Obama is winning because Republicans are voting for him? What planet are you living on? Do you really think those 75.000 cheering white people in Portland, Oregon were Republicans?

Posted by: Ergo Sum | May 21, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Donna said....Sen. Obama's hiring practices appear to be sexist and racist. Look at the composition of his senior staff and advisors.
The seats at the Senator's table seem to be mostly filled by men.

So Donna would you like millions of voters to not for Obama due to your insight?? If you are pretty sure about this then I'll assume you are correct and vote against him.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Jaxon is correct. Edwards lost and we're not hearing his supports cry racism or sexism.

But Obama supporters would be right to cry foul if his delegate lead is overturned.

Then you will have a guy who played by the rules getting robbed. I think that poses a much bigger threat than bitter Clinton supporters.

Don't forget Obama's got millions of supporter too.

Posted by: dada | May 21, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is winning because of the Republican party support"

Hmmm, so they ran out of context sound bites of reverend Wright for two months every thirty seconds on Fox to GAIN support for Obama?, or encouraged their voters to cross-over to Clinton in operation chaos?

Sounds like a sound republican strategy to me.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Racism? Mysogyny? Give me a break and quite whining!

The final two contenders for the Democratic nomination for PRESIDENT are WHO?

Folks, if your candidate doesn't win, don't play the role of a victim of some widespread social ill. They lost because the majority of people didn't like him/her. Period. Get over it. That's politics.

I voted for John Edwards. He lost. Period. Too bad I can't blame it on some form of victimization that makes it someone elses fault.

Criminy. We've been suffering through 8 years of HalliBush, Inc. and look where that got us!

Posted by: Jaxon | May 21, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

By putting up a white woman against a black man, the politically ever-so-correct Democrats deliberately tried to provoke the misogynists, the feminists, and the racists. We will find out next November if that was a good idea. If McCain should win, there will be a lot of head scratchings and I-told-you-sos.

Posted by: Bodo | May 21, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

"That took an inner strength far beyond anything most of us are capable of commanding"

Got to agree with you there, while the party of "family values" ridiculed her for hanging with Bill I thought it was quite courageous of her to keep her family together and work through an incredibly embarrassing and hurtful time in her life.

Posted by: jr | May 21, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama is winning because of the Republican party support. The dumb thing is the super-delegates are not seeing this and joining Obama's campaign.

Posted by: Rajesh | May 21, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Diane, is it sexist for that the majority of women are voting for HC?

What if I protested that the female vote for HC is unfair to men? I think your answer would be that the choice has always been between men.And that the sole reason for this sexism.

Now, apply this same reasoning to your question about blacks and Obama.

The candidates have always been white. And the reason for that is racism. Afterall, blacks had to WIN the right to vote (to much opposition, I might add) and that was only a few decades ago. In fact, people died for blacks to have the right to vote.

And now you're shocked that blacks would fall behind a candidate that represents for them, the potential and success that should be available to all people regardless of race or gender?

When have blacks ever voted against a candidate because they were white? Kerry and Clinton won over 90% of the black vote. And Clinton started this race with the overwhelming majority of the black vote.

For the first time in history a black person has a chance at the presidency, and fools like you howl racism.

Just remember voting for someone out of pride is completely different than voting against someone because of predjudice.

Posted by: abu | May 21, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton has won states that still think we are living in the 1950s. She keep mentioning that she is winning the white hard working Americans, but who she is really winning are those George Wallace, David Duke white folks who still wants the country divided by race. This is why the super delegates and regular delegates have gone to Mr. Obama. American will never heal with this kind of racisim still going and Hillary has taken this country back instead of forward with her campaign. African Americans have been voting for white men to be president in this country for years and now that man that is half African American and half white has the chance to be the President for all of the people and the Clintons and Geraldine Ferraro with her crazy self is taking this country backwards. Now Hillary is crying sexism, she will stoop to any low to try and get the nomination. The Clintons' don't own the White House and if they were decent people, she would try to end this campaign with some dignity left. Those poor working class confederate white folks that are voting for her, just don't know that she doesn't give a crap about them, Hillary is using them to get what she wants, but the Superdelegate and the American people are not falling for their scam this time.

Posted by: Sheila | May 21, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Sexism vs. Racism! Are we REALLY surprised we've arrived to this level of analysis? I, for one (as a liberal white man), stand by my sisters. If you review the website for the leading organization for women (National Organization of Women) you CLEARLY see their choices to fight not only for women's rights, but against racism, homophobia, economic injustice, etc. (the sections are easily seen and identified). If you visit the leading African American organization's website (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) you do NOT find clear choices that support women's rights, gay rights, etc. Their subsections speak of youth, education, economics, etc. but they don't seem to care for women or gays (not even black women or gays). The choice, while quite regrettable, is simply clear...women simply appear to more broadly fight for a range of oppressed peoples while the leading African Americans have not. As a pastor who cares about ALL people (and especially all people suffering from oppression) I must stand by the one who represent the hopes and dreams of women...and all oppressed peoples. I stand by Hillary (flaws and all - we all got 'em) May God be with us all during this difficult time of discernment.

Posted by: gayUCCpastor | May 21, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

The last time we elected an inexperienced one-term Senator from Illinois, it led to secession and civil war. Millions died. Families and communities were torn apart.

And yet - we honor Abraham Lincoln as one of this country's greatest visionaries. Lacking experience, he was forced to rely on intelligence, and a broad grasp of the forces at play at that moment in America.

We could actually elect a Black President. I suspect that a lot of the bluster about voting for McCain rather than Obama will evaporate as November nears and White working-class voters - like myself - realize that McCain would be a disastrous choice. His bravery and service to his country are above reproach. His comprehension of foreign policy and economics are laughable. He would be entirely dependent upon the power structure created by - and fiercely loyal to - George II.

For the first time in American history, a viable female candidate for the presidency has emerged. During the entire Monica Lewinsky affair, Hillary faced more intense and unwanted personal attacks than any First Lady in history. She remained rational and loyal to her family at an extremely difficult time. That took an inner strength far beyond anything most of us are capable of commanding. To the cynics who accuse her of hanging with Bill for personal gain - I can only point to Chelsea as evidence of Hillary's sincerity. It's hard not to like Chelsea, and she may one day succeed where her mother will likely fail. You really can tell a lot about someone by their kids. Whatever you think of Bill and Hillary, they managed to raise a daughter who is strong, well-spoken, and clearly unimpressed with media credentials or approval.

I wonder what Lincoln would have thought of those who would base their vote on race or gender. In some ways, this election has put the vision of Abraham Lincoln to the test. Are we a nation united, or divided? Is this election, and what it implies about our most publicly-proclaimed ideals and aspirations, merely another "Us against Them" Monday-Night Football-style diversion? Do we really "hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.." as our Founding Fathers proclaimed?

In a less familiar line from the same document, one of the charges brought against the King of Great Britain was that "He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power." A similar charge could be leveled at Bush, and McCain is not likely to buck that trend.

Whatever transpires, it will be remembered in 200 years as a pivotal moment in history. I hope we, as a nation, can collectively set aside our emotional baggage, our sexist preferences, our racist rationalizations, and our team-sport mentalities just long enough to live up to our ideals, whatever we believe them to be.

You have one chance to speak that actually matters:


Posted by: rhoadie | May 21, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

To: Donna1000

Do you know who Valerie Jarrett is? Some call her "the other half of Obama's brain.

If Obama was prejudiced against Hispanics then why would the Nation's leading Hispanic endorse him?

As for the Asians I don't have an answer better than perhaps he just couldn't find any readily available qualified Asians to fit in his campaign staff.

Posted by: jr | May 21, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Hey Donna1000,
Just a comment but why do Americans, from NASA to TV shows to politics, automatically need to have a Black, a White, a Woman, and an Asian person appear on screen, be it a Sitcom, a news show, a spaceflight, whatever. You can't erase a hundred years of racism in a few years of TV. If I lived in Spain, or Germany, or Israel or Sudan or China or wherever, the NORMAL choice would be for a local. In the US, meaning a Black, a White, an Hispanic, a Polish, Irish, Romanian......etc person. What is with you people? America has all people. Founded by Europeans just a few hundred years ago. The melting pot

Posted by: justpassingby | May 21, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

DO Clinton supporters realize she is lying to them?

About the real numbers, the Party's numbers, and about her status in general?

A little like "IS" Is, a little like travel gate, and Rose law firm papers and
a dozen more Hillary whoppers. Dodging bullets being the most fun.

She is a liar. And she doesn' respect her
woozey facts supporters.

Posted by: Truthie | May 21, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe some of the big, gaping holes in Sen. Obama's base wouldn't be there if he was hearing about the needs and perspectives of those groups from his senior staff and advisors. If you don't give people a seat at the table, you can't understand their needs and respond to them"

If you are talking about working-class whites then consider that one candidate turned down large sums of money to work for a below-poverty wage upon graduating from college to help steel workers in Pittsburg re-train themselves to find work, while another candidates life story has nothing in common with the working class and has nothing on record that I know of that demonstrates the willingness or action, or sacrifice to do anything meaningful for the blue collar worker.

Guess which candidate is which.

Posted by: jr | May 21, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Sure we all loved Bill but this is about her, not him.

*HRC applies credits for her time in the WH as actual working experience. She takes credit for all of the good and none of the bad.

*I was turned off by the SC comments and Bill's behavior, but still willing to vote for her in the fall. She has since done even greater damage with her comments of the past few weeks.

*She votes for the war, then could not admit that she was wrong.

*She has presented the sterotypical female qualities of being mean, petty, and vindictive.

*She lies---and lies about lying.

*She is a poor general and ran a sucky campaign. She should have locked this up a long time ago, but she let Obama eclipse her. Gotta give it to him for having the right team and a great plan. This give me great confidence in him as a leader.

*She is working doubly hard to put the thought in voters minds that Obama cannot win. Interesting to see how she brings her supporters back from the brink of McCain. I believe that true Dems will vote Dem in NOV. The rest? Probably couldn't bank on them in either case.

Someone keeps posting about black voters voting for Obama. When Bill Clinton got the majority black vote, what did that make us then? Don't worry about us, we will do the right thing in Nov.

Some people vote for the obvious reasons, but the rest of us use our intelligence. Don't you think that after months of campaigning, 20+ debates and access to the internet that blacks have had a chance to compare the candidates and make an educated decision. Geez. He is a great candidate and is worthy of our support.

Posted by: AA Woman not voting for HRC | May 21, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe some of the big, gaping holes in Sen. Obama's base wouldn't be there if he was hearing about the needs and perspectives of those groups from his senior staff and advisors. If you don't give people a seat at the table, you can't understand their needs and respond to them"

If you are talking about working-class whites then consider that one candidate turned down large sums of money to work for a below-poverty wage upon graduating from college to help steel workers in Pittsburg re-train themselves to find work, while another candidates life story has nothing in common with the working class and has nothing on record that I know of that demonstrates the willingness or action, or sacrifice to do anything meaningful for the blue collar worker.

Guess which candidate is which.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Good luck, America.

When you vote someone, at least you should have enough trust.

Anti-Iraq-war is the only credit for Obama. But not so sure now whom he stands for after all Uncle Wright-like connections. It will take time to prove rather than just divorcing one after another.

What else are SO FAR LEFT?
"The Emperor''s New Clothes"

One see the clothes.
One see the color.
One see the body.

Are you thoughtful or simply over exicted about the new clothes?

No blame if you admire the body.
No blame if you see the color.
But those who design the new clothes?
Not more than a bunch of political guys.

Posted by: jy2008 | May 21, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Linda @12:42
A couple of things are clear from your response.
1. You didn't read his books. I did. In fact, I just looked up the quotes you cite to be sure what I am about to say is accurate.
2. I can say with authority that you took his words out of context. The points Obama was making are the antithesis of what you claim they are. So, that makes you either embarrassingly and astonishingly ignorant or you are just another typical despicable smear artist.

Posted by: davie | May 21, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse


Sen. Obama's hiring practices appear to be sexist and racist. Look at the composition of his senior staff and advisors. There are no obvious Hispanic or Asian names. Only three out of 15 senior staffers are female and only three out of 18 senior policy advisors are female.

The seats at the Senator's table seem to be mostly filled by men.


Posted by: Donna1000 | May 21, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

"I'd still like somebody to explain to me why it is when white voters go 60-percent plus for a white candidate,that's racism but if black voters go 90-plus percent for a black candidate, that's not racism."

Blacks have voted for white candidates in the past, remember president Clinton? Many of the white voters in WV and Kentucky publicly admitted that "They would never vote for a black candidate." Some comments I've heard are "you know he is from the other race and we have trouble with them" and "He is a muslim" and "I'm tired of all this Hussein stuff" Do any of those comments sound well-reasoned or informed to you?

Given the history of how blacks have been treated in this country by whites it is natural to assume that when they finally get a candidate as naturally talented and charismatic (not to mention his ideas) as Obama that a large majority would vote for him. Remember, it is the oppressed voting for their candidate, not the oppressors.

Posted by: jr | May 21, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I am convinced that ever so often "the media" of all types and stripes do conspire to do certain things i.e. block out certain information like "what were the per centages of votes obtained in Oregon for both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?".
I watched for hours and only saw on CNN the same 58% - 42% Barack/Hillary in favor of Barack although they were still counting votes. Hours later CNN still had that 58 - 42%. Nothing had changed even though a note on the screen continued to say only 51% of the votes had been counted. No other channels showed anything but Hillary's numerical per centage of victory over Obama in Kentucky. I think this was done to get back at Obama because John Edwards announced his support for Obama on the day Hillary won West Virginia, diluting the story of her big per centage win.

Another example of media conspiracy to block out certain things done by certain people they are molly codling - HILLARY - is
1. In the wee hours of the morning, before the Tuesday Kentucky and Oregon primaries, I was watching ABC news when they showed a news clip of Hillary gleefully gloating with shrill exhilaration "He's gone, and he won't be back. Now I have the whole state to myself!" She was obviously talking about Barack Obama, and the comment was made for the purpose of eliciting a resounding hateful roar of jubilee from the crowd. Hillary and her husband, Slick Willie, (Bill is reportedly dubbed "Slick Willie" in Arkansas Political arenas) are masters at inciting hateful mob mania. That is reflected in the votes in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky.

Her above comment was crude and tacky, and I was waiting for the news to repeat itself as it usually does over and over and over again as if there are only three things happening in the world on any given day, so I could see and hear this again. Oh, I wanted to see this as I couldn't believe how low she would go.

When this news clip was run again, that particular segment of the clip with the above comment was not run with it - just everything she said after that. I continued to watch, waiting for it to come around next time. I watched the news repeat itself a number of times, but that portion never was played with that clip again.

So, I switched channels a number of times watching the repeated broadcasts of the prelude to the next day's primaries. They all ran the acceptable portion of what she said, but, NONE ran her gleeful snort, honk and gloat segment.

I'm certain that if Barack had made a similar braggadocious crow and hoot like she did, the media of all types and stripes would not have stopped running it until 32 days after they had first run it so much that Barack would have been made to genuflect, self depricate, repudiate himself, grovel and apologize to Hillary and this country. Then that would have been run 33 more least.

Posted by: Beverly | May 21, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Did it ever occur to anyone that the Clinton camp had to talk about sexism because the media completely dismissed it as a possibility. Obama only had to address racism head-on when he was confronted with a specific challenge (Wright) because there were hundreds of articles already raising the question of race. I have been fascinated by how race and gender dynamics would play out in this process, but surprised that I couldn't find a single article on sexism and gender issues that treated it as a serious issue. more likely, they did what Marcus did -- clearly people are voting for her, so there's no sexism. Meanwhile there were many many well informative, interesting, really careful pieces about racism (as there should be.)

Posted by: skeptic421 | May 21, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

To: garyt1708

Tell me, how have these 17 million voters been disenfranchised?
Again, wild claims by Hillary supporters with nothing, not one shred of evidence. It's as if they are living in a dream world, "if I say it's so then it is."

Like GF's claim of Obama being sexist, but then no examples of what he has done to be sexist.

Obama has won an insurmountable amount of delegates plain and simple. That is what the Dem. primary was and is, a delegate race. If Hillary didn't like that then she should've run in another party, but she does not make or change the rules for the DNC as no candidate should.

Posted by: jr | May 21, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse


Maybe some of the big, gaping holes in Sen. Obama's base wouldn't be there if he was hearing about the needs and perspectives of those groups from his senior staff and advisors. If you don't give people a seat at the table, you can't understand their needs and respond to them.

And, what are the odds that Barack Obama would be a U.S. Senator and presidential hopeful if many who came before him had not valued diversity? In fact, what are the odds that his father would have been able to travel from Kenya to Hawaii for part of his education if people at the University of Hawaii had not valued diversity?

The Democratic Party has traditionally been a party of diversity. I think it's an important story that Sen. Obama's senior staff is remarkably less diverse than the membership of the Party he is seeking to represent in the general election. His hiring practices are direct evidence of his values in action.


Posted by: Donna1000 | May 21, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

By Ruth Marcus' logic, we can rule out racism as affecting Obama because he has raised more money than any campaign prior. The logic is flawed. They both did well, but they both probably suffered because of their race or sex. Since the media never treated the gender issue seriously, it's hard to know how much that mattered for Clinton. The race issue, on the other hand, has been played and replayed.

Posted by: skeptic421 | May 21, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

By Ruth Marcus' logic, we can rule out racism as affecting Obama because he has raised more money than any campaign prior. The logic is flawed. They both did well, but they both probably suffered because of their race or sex. Since the media never treated the gender issue seriously, it's hard to know how much that mattered for Clinton. The race issue, on the other hand, has been played and replayed.

Posted by: skeptic421 | May 21, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

To all the Clinton voters who claim they'll vote McCain or write-in Hillary if Obama is nominated: What do you think all the Obama voters will do if his lead in delegates and votes is overturned?

The myopia is astounding. The same people who argue for HC will accuse the disenfranchised Obama supporters of bitterness and sexism if they refuse to vote HC in the general.

The only logical course is allow the race to play out and accept that Obama has won by the rules established early in the process.

Posted by: pc | May 21, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

So let me get this straight:

"As for me, I'm a typical white person ... you know, the kind that doesn't like to be stereotyped and spoken down to. And if he's the nominee, I'll vote Republican."

Because of all the Internet chatter and blogs, you would let HRC take over the USA, because "I'm a typical white person ... you know, the kind that doesn't like to be stereotyped and spoken down to."

Hmmmmmm. Sounds pretty racist to me!

You want to fix this country or make a racist statement?

Posted by: justpassingby | May 21, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Now that Senator Clinton has had her day and I think she hoped donations to bring down here debt it is time for her to take a long walk with Bill away from her million dollar a week advisors and start to mend fences for the future of our nation.
She needs to make some definitive statements to her base.
Racism, sexism, class-ism, even republicanism is a disease of fear. It has been at play in trying to move the electorate back to the idea that HRC was our most experienced and familiar candidate. Maybe you should fear what you don't know was a hammer that might sway voters back to the familiarity of another Clinton presidency. Clintons are familiar and well white.
A better organized, funded, energized, articulate and responsive campaign that pursued every state across America (even in KY and NV where these divides may be strongest) could not be denied. There are a lot of good people that are very disappointed and angry and willing to pull out there own isms that the reasons are pant suits and voice quality. In the end there is a nation of people that have reached a saturation point of frustration and are desperate to see someone different at the helm of our nation. They are not going swayed by guilt by association. Many of our pastors have beliefs we don't share. It's almost in the job definition of a cleric to attempt to make connections that are not entirely logical in their love for their parish. If you are of color and you look at our nation you can see it through the other side of the lens. Some things will look bigger and other things smaller. We, white people, allowed African American men to die from syphilis when we had treatment for them. We allowed them to infect others. People of the age of Rev Wright witnessed hate in its most blazing heat with lynching, church burning, separate fountains, bathrooms, and schools. Did we allow millions to die in Africa when treatment was available for HIV? Are you close enough with an African American to have ridden with them in a car and seen the behavior of some police officers? The statements of Rev Wright are sad and wrong but they have a context and Obama articulated this brilliantly in his books and in his speech in Philadelphia. This is not just beautiful rhetoric this is a man who has a sense of mission and not just ambition.
We need Sen. Clinton to quell this ferment and believe many will come to reconcile that they too were speaking out of fear. She need to "find her voice" of reconciliation. She needs to tell those that expressed color as the reason they could not vote for Obama that they are wrong and that she has and will vote for what is best for our nation and our world. She needs to tell her followers that sexism is not a reason to blame Obama. It does exist but would you rather be a white women or a black male? That Obama carries the flame forward for our nation and that she will need all of her base to energize with her in making this a historic moment in our nations history. If it is true that "hard working white Americans" are listening to her then it is her voice that needs to bring them behind Obama.
There will be few moments in our lives that define her or us better than now. Our future lies in building a unified party and nation.

Posted by: Dr Foulkes | May 21, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

This is the best election campaign I've seen in four decades. Unfortunately, based on the commentaries, and the various vote counts, the eventual winners are still likely to be prejudice, ignorance, selfishness, and denial.

CNN has been running an investigative piece that every angry voter should take a time-out and watch: "Out of Gas, We Were Warned". It's about oil and gasoline, but more to the point, it's about failure to confront the bigger problems we face.

Abraham Lincoln made a suggestion in 1862 that applies very nicely to our self-indulgent, self-absorbed nation today in 2008:

"We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we (might) save our country..."

If you believe we can survive another 4 years of business as usual in this country, you're whistling past our collective graveyard.

Posted by: ted in pdx | May 21, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Thanks liberal patriot.

Posted by: lcoleman | May 21, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I'd still like somebody to explain to me why it is when white voters go 60-percent plus for a white candidate,that's racism but if black voters go 90-plus percent for a black candidate, that's not racism. It seems to me that white voters are more willing to vote across racial lines than black ones.

As for me, I'm a typical white person ... you know, the kind that doesn't like to be stereotyped and spoken down to. And if he's the nominee, I'll vote Republican.

Posted by: Diane | May 21, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

I totally agree with Rove. I really don't understand why the Democratic Party has abandoned the candidate, Hillary who has a better chance of winning in November. I am very, very disappointed with the Democratic Party. Wehn we lose in November, they have nobody else to blame but blame themselves. We are going to prove to the Republican Party that we can lose three times in a row.

Think about it for a second, Hillary has won Texas, California, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, New York and other big States. On the other hand, Obama has won the traditional Republican small States, such as Idaho, Utah, Kansas, North Dakota, Wyoming, and other traditional Republican States. Do you think that he can win in those States in November? NOT! It's my opinion that the Democratic Party is fooling itself but members of Congress and the House would have to answer to the people when January comes and John McCain wins the White House.

Posted by: Carl | May 21, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

We may live in the best country in the world, but I am deeply saddened by what I have seen floating across the 'net in response to this Hillary/Obama thing.

Why can't people understand that this is a very important decision, and that it calls for wisdom and education rather than gut feelings? I have seen all manner of bigotry from both sides, but what I have seen more of is one side accusing the other side of bigotry. This is only making the problem worse. It's a "follow the crowd" mentality. If you shout that Obama supporters are sexist, some people might vote for Hillary to avoid looking sexist. Unfortunately, a great deal of people who are harboring an actual prejudice will look around and go: "Oh, so other people are sexist? It's okay for me to be sexist then." And then they quietly vote for their prejudices in the poll booth. Same thing for racism and the other side.

The best thing to do, in order to manipulate this "follow the crowd" thing, is stop with the name-calling and discuss the actual policy differences between the candidates (which are only very slight), because fair and frank discussion of issues leads to people wishing to look intelligent and informed. And then they vote for whichever candidate they think is more intelligent, so they can brag about it. Which seems to me to be a good thing. I desire intelligence in the leader of my country.

People are simple animals - quit feeding them manure.

Posted by: liberal patriot | May 21, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Well I am sorry but if Obama is the nominee then really doesn't he have to repair the Democratic Party to make it in November? Don't you think looking in the mirror means yourself to reflect on your own anger issues? Remember 17 million of Hillary voters are allot of disenfranchised voters to make angry. If they stay home where will Obama be then? Obama's followers might want to take an effort to connect with the party instead of dividing it with anger and name-calling. Obama's voters are not the one's being pushed down and told to shut up. So it seems to me that if there is any mending to do it should be started from within the Obama's camp first.

Posted by: garyt1708 | May 21, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

She will stay in through the convention. She is hoping for and doing everything possible to engineer a major disaster for her opponent. So far as money is concerned, they have been feeding at the public trough for their entire adult lives. That's all they know. They don't even think about it. They do whatever they want to do, and they expect you to pay for it. That's exactly how they regard their constituencies- you are there to serve them, however they decide they want to be served.

Posted by: davie | May 21, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Well I am sorry but if Obama is the nominee then really doesn't he have to repair the Democratic Party to make it in November? Don't you think looking in the mirror means yourself to reflect on your own anger issues? Remember 17 million of Hillary voters are allot of disenfranchised voters to make angry. If they stay home where will Obama be then? Obama's followers might want to take an effort to connect with the party instead of dividing it with anger and name-calling. Obama's voters are not the one's being pushed down and told to shut up. So it seems to me that if there is any mending to do it should be started from within the Obama's camp first.

Posted by: garyt1708 | May 21, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Well I am sorry but if Obama is the nominee then really doesn't he have to repair the Democratic Party to make it in November? Don't you think looking in the mirror means yourself to reflect on your own anger issues? Remember 17 million of Hillary voters are allot of disenfranchised voters to make angry. If they stay home where will Obama be then? Obama's followers might want to take an effort to connect with the party instead of dividing it with anger and name-calling. Obama's voters are not the one's being pushed down and told to shut up. So it seems to me that if there is any mending to do it should be started from within the Obama's camp first.

Posted by: garyt1708 | May 21, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Davie 11:49

Which part of these words written by his hand do you not understand?

From Dreams of My Father: "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race."

From Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

I did not create him or Bush. Obama is the racist. He has not tried to hide it. How daring to call your grandmother a 'typical white person' in a world wide speech. He dares anyone to condemn him. He will just call them a racist. That seems to put us all 'in place' real well

Posted by: Linda | May 21, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

First, HRC does not look like a President. Second, if 99% of African Americans voted for Obama, think maybe that they finally have someone they can believe in or they hate HRC too, or they feel more comfortable with him. See below:
a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

I think you whiteys are the racists, remember the toilets for blacks and whites? the back of the bus?

All who have said Clintons should be kicked out of DC, good job. MacCain too!

Obama is worldly, educated, motivated, and not polluted. He knows what is going on. By the way, I am a white Republican from Chicago. Go-Bama

Posted by: justpassingby | May 21, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Linda, I hope you feel better with all of those "quotes." Now try basket weaving because you certainly need another hobby.

Posted by: Lalita | May 21, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

I have a comment about what H.Brinkhuis said:

["I Am a Republican, and I do not trust Obama because in his church there was no white people allowed to enter."]

I'm a advocate of a republican government not a supporter of the so call Republicans of today. I'm a advocate of wisdom. I uphold Christian principles for myself, my family, my community, and the world. I believe in expressing opinions based on facts not unsubstantiated rumors.

I have attended church since I was 5 years old and have had an understanding of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ since I was 21. You find all kinds of people at church, I have attended several churches. I think a wise person does not label churches as "Black", "White", "Presbyterian", or "Assemblies Of God", God does not care about those labels, He sees each individual's heart. Every church has tendency towards a particular way of thinking in regards to politics. I dislike the fact that many preachers use the pulpit to support political candidates. I applaud preachers that expose the issues of today and encourage dialog based on applicable biblical principles.

The oppression, discrimination, and subjugation experienced by African Americans can not be denied. Obama is an individual who has decided to serve his community. Is his community perfect? Are they allowed to have their own opinions based on their own experiences? Do they all have to agree on everything? Is it right to label an individual based on the church he attends? I think we need to focus on the individual, his actions and the issues at hand. I have found myself in communities that needed servants, where I did not agree with the majority yet I loved the children and saw the needs of the community and put them first. Christ is perfect and we are not, has he forgotten about us?
If yes then we are lost.

["He should run for office in Kenya Africa there is a lot more trouble than here in the USA, and he would feel a lot better between his own people."]

Who are Obama's people, the people of Kenya, Chicago, or USA? How do we know where an individual feels more comfortable? Ones people are the ones one has chosen to serve. Ones country is the country ones one lives in and one knows where one feels comfortable.

There are people in need everywhere. The severity of individual problems is relative. A poor person in America is a reach person in Kenya. A middle class person in Kenya is wealthy person in Haiti. An unemployed father of four in Nicaragua, who has no money for the bus to go find a job, is not so different from the unemployed father of four in Chicago who can no longer make his car payments or buy gas to find a job. An American president can do a lot more to help people in Africa than many African public servants can.

Posted by: GFF | May 21, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

People have looked at Clinton's voting record and decided. She is a qualified person as a women but her voting record as a Senator leaves much to be desired. Just to recap:
1) She twice (that's two times) voted for the patriot act
2) she voted in favor of the banking industry for the bankruptcy reform act which removes rights granted to citizen and gives untold privileges to the banking industry
3) she voted in favor of military action in Iraq and then lied about it saying it wasn't what she thought it was--puleeze give me a break.
Basically--she has given the Bush administration everything it wanted much to the detriment of U.S. citizens.

We deserve better and that is why she didn't get the nomination.

Posted by: S.R. Moritz | May 21, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a shrill harpie; she has the audacity to claim Bill's accomplishments as her own, but in the same breath denies that she knew anything about the Marc Rich pardon, can you say duplicity ? I think that she is most bitter at the media; for years they kowtowed to their line and made tried to frame their embarrasments in a context that would lessen their impact. Well what goes around comes around, and I don't find it the least bit ironic that the same people who enabled the Clitons for years (and on that point how can feminist support her after years of being an enabler to one of history's most famous mysoginst and sexual preditors) are now the cause of her downfall. The Clintons have acted for years with impunity, thinking that the rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to them; well that was only the case when their opponent wasn't the incarnation of every left wing and liberal fantsy, they have been beaten at their own game

Posted by: DPS | May 21, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Also given that the only chance Hillary has to win depends on manipulation, deception, and deceit, I think the mainstream media is being quite generous by giving her preposterous ramblings *any* credence.

Posted by: Chris | May 21, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Dee Olson, your anger concerns me. Have you thought about professional assistance?

Posted by: calm citizen | May 21, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"He can only give good speeches", "I'm really ahead if MI and FL count", "I have a stronger base", "Even Jessie Jackson won SC". The Clintons and their base actually believe in these and all the other rants they're making. This is a classic case of how "Shock and Awe" is supposed to work. To put people in a total state of denial so that they're paralyzed from acting. Hillary and her team have been that way since the coronation on Super Tuesday didn't happen and they had to totally regroup as they watched another campaign show them how democracy works. Obama's staff established campaign offices throughout the US, not just the "Big States". That's why they built the lead; they went after all the votes. It was nothing Obama or anyone else did to you, so Hillary and Clintonites turn that finger you're pointing at everything else and point it at yourself.
Man in the mirror.....

Posted by: lcoleman | May 21, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

HC is campainging for 2012, I hope she will use her efferts to bring the party together, that is the only way I will consider voting for her, she now need to work on damge control.

Posted by: Inplanesight | May 21, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

A few thoughts on the victory speeches last night:

To avoid any claims of sexism, I'll start with Mrs. Clinton first (or is it sexist for ladies to go first?) Of course, that STILL leaves me open to the charge of racism, but hey, someone has to go first. I'll do it alphabetically,

1. She stated that she won the popular vote. Did she mean the KY popular vote? Or the national popular vote? If the national, well that flies in the face of reality.

2. She gave the speech in the state where she won the primary

Onto Mr. Obama

1. Different day, same words (change, blah, blah, blah, change, blah blah blah change)

2. He eloquently referred to Mrs. Clinton as a formidable opponent (I agree) and then very eloquently slammed HER for dragging out the nomination process.

Hmmm, isn't this too a slam on HER supporters who WANT her to stay in the race? Isn't this a slam against the democratic process?

3. He did not give the speech in the state that held the primary

4. He alleged that McCain wants to keep the Bush tax cuts "for the wealthy". FALSE: McCain wants to keep the tax cuts for everyone benefiting from them, which is well, everyone (Don't ya just LOVE equality ?)

Mr. Obama merely wants them on those making less than a certain dollar amount (hint: Not the "wealthy")

Posted by: None in 08 | May 21, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama has what? "A different group of advisers"? "A wider span of Opinions than Clinton"? That is typical coming from an Obambot. This is so far from the truth. He has almost all of Bill Clintons people advising him He has been bragging of being mentored by the biggest Left wing Liberal in the Senate (Ted Kennedy). I still don't see the change Obama is talking of. Everyone glosses over the facts about Obama. Read his book. Or is that as well another subject to stay away from. This is why people are voting in large numbers for Hillary in the democratic key states. Hillary People can't vote for Obama on just blind faith. We need answers and Obama has lots of questions he has been avoiding. He doesn't even hold open press interviews. Hillary has. What is the problem Obama you are afraid that people will not like what they see? This guy is already taking allot of lessons from the Bush administration about keeping the message on Que. I don't know about the Obambot's but I feel the Clinton years were the best years. We had so much going for us and if you lost a job due to NAFTA then he had retraining in place that gave the worker that lost the job a new carrier field. I took advantage of this and received an Associates degree in Computer Science and I have been working since 2000 in a White Collar job as a Computer Programmer. I am sure there are many more stories similar to mine. Bush by the way took the retraining program away when he made it to office in 2000. What a wonderful guy isn't he? So I really don't see the negative with another eight year of a Clinton in the White House.

Posted by: garyt1708 | May 21, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

I could not disagree more with the comments of Maryland, who stated the Democrats would be better at running the lives of Middle American citizens than they are at running it themselves. Those individuals from the heartland are the heart and soul of this nation while it seems the East and West coast think they are the brains. If they are, they are sitting on ther brains, and talking out their ***.
The central United States believes that we are individuals and can chart the direction of our own lives. We need for all the politicians and attorneys in this great nation to stop trying to create a law for every minor occurance that develops. We are over burdened with laws, and have no one in either the House or the Senate that has a lick of common sense.
From the moment they become elected officials there main concern is how to get money to get re-elected for the next term. Enter the large corporations and their lobby with funds as long as any vote that is benefical to the donors gets passed.
Then what happens to the opion of the loyal voters back home? Their voice is unimportant, and the political powers that be vote the money and then try to convince us that it was really in our best interest.
We are not that stupid, but money talks, and the politician hopes for short memories.
Therefore, Obama not having as much experience and maybe having some common sense, is a far better choice than having Billary again.

Posted by: Cedric in Nebraska | May 21, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has presumed that the Presidency belongs to her by some unspecified right. She has done and will do anything to get it. She has cuddled up to good old Bill for only one reason. She wanted to use him to get to the White House.

Her attack ads apparently did not work so well. She has claimed that misogyny is the reason people oppose her. It couldn't be her acidic personality, her unabashed grasping for power, her thinly veiled lies..(She claimed once that she had no desire to be president, we knew she was lying then too. Who can forget her famous statement that , "We are the President!" She was caught in this campaign faking questions at a campaign event where voters- real voters were supposed to get a chance to ask questions of her. And do we really believe that she had nothing to do with the financial scandals in Bill's Presidency?) When she ran for Senator of NY, she said it was because she wanted to help the people of NY. Um...she's from Arkansas. Why didn't she feel the need to help the people of Arkansas? Simple, Arkansas doesn't have enough electoral votes AND they don't have the kind of big money connections that New York has. Hillary couldn't give a fig about the people of New York or the people of the United States. Hillary cares about what Hillary wants and she will do anything to get what she wants.

Now, Hillary is proudly courting the racist vote in West Virginia, Kentucky and elsewhere. Sure they have all kinds of new, politically correct names for these racists. What is the difference between Americans who hate based upon skin color and Arabs that hate because of ethnicity? It is so enlightening to see who Hillary is proud to be endorsed by.

But, in the final analysis, Hillary will never quit because her ego and personal arrogance will not allow it. I would welcome a female President. I don't think that gender makes much difference, but NOT Hillary. I mean when you are $20 MILLION plus in the hole, maybe it's time to get out?

Oh, and that Obama-Clinton dream ticket , as some have called it, will never happen. How can you be President with a Vice president who will undermine you at every turn and seek to overshadow you? A good VP is in the background, Hillary will never do that, she's way to arrogant.

Posted by: Robert Davis | May 21, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

some people say that they are tired of the way bush is running this country. and i am in total aggrement. i also am tired of this. but to say that you will never vote for a balck man and would rather vote for macain, and continue to live the way you have been for the past 8 years is just dumb-founding. i mean hello, can we wake up and see a brighter day here.

Posted by: kalimba | May 21, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

What is happening in this primary election process is amazing! If you plan on voting for Hillary Clinton you are a feminist, racist and are ridiculed by the media and political hiarchy, and to hear the pundits speak, ruining the democratic party. Since when is a vote for a person who has the right credentials wrong for the party. My vote and the vote of hundreds of thousands of women and men across this country is being minimalized by those who have a different opinion and are being allowed to push their platform through the media, that has been biased toward Obama from the start. Of course, the media laughs at the idea that they have been biased, in much the same sarcastic and disrespectful way that Barack Obama has spoken of Hillary Clinton. Geraldine Farraro has been criticized for speaking the truth. I haven't heard the press laugh at Obama for his clothes, his laugh or his ideas. I haven't heard Chris Mathews, Keith Oberman, David Shuster or the other Obama supporters ridicule Michele Obama and her religious relationship with Reverend Wright, or, being proud to be an American for the first time, the way they have attacked Bill Clinton from everything to his support for Hillary, to tasteless references concerning Monica Lewinsky, to allowing Chelsea to campaign for her mother, who by the way, has more class than any one of these supposed journalists. This election is very important to me and others across this country who refuse to let the media or DNC decide for us who will be the next president of the United States. And it is the Obama campaign that has played the race card. It seems that the Obama campaign has deemed themselves the only ones that can mention race, anyone else who mentions race is a bigot. How incredulous that the Clintons who have spent their entire lives defending the rights of all oppressed people, now be accused of being racist. Not until recently, has there been any discussion about the sexism that has reared it's ugly head in this race. We constantly hear about how amazing it would be to have the first black male president, but we almost never hear about how amazing it would be to have the first women president. The pundits keep talking about how nasty this election has been. I don't know what planet they live on. This has been the most civil race I have seen in years. Every time a critism was made of Barack the media immediately came to his defense. If Obama criticized Clinton it was a "Good for him" moment. If only the powers that be, could have let this process play out as it should have, without interference, the terrible divide that we are now faced with would not exist. The behavior of some who chose to shortcircut this election has caused voters to dig in their heals and fight until the very end. In 2000 we had the republicans to blame for the outcome. It is so sad to say, in 2008, it is the media, the democratic leaders and the DNC who will ultimately be responsible for the outcome. Once again we have been fooled!

Posted by: SPClifford | May 21, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

All the democrats have become the Rat Pack, they have their own little Sammy Davis and Angie Dickenson in Obama and Hillary. The elite of America a rich black man fighting for the leadership of party made up of socialist snobs.When the guy who dragged half of them super delegates into office on his coattails and was known as the first Black President is looked on as a traitor because he recognizes the hypocracy of the masses. None of this bunch would have nothing to do with a poor black or a poor woman but have the arrogance to ask for their vote

Posted by: Gar | May 21, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

It's funny, watching the news, listening to them try to make the decision for us, dictating tat Hillary should leave as "pledged delegates" are voting Osama...

The fact is, there's no nominee till the DNC. PERIOD. Regardless of what the damned media wannabe king makers say, think or believe, what voters say or Osama says, there is no nominee yet and I hope Hillary stays in till the convention is over.

Something to remember is that this would NOT be the first time, far from it, that a nominee didn't have the popular vote. Also, delegates can vote basically any way they want to and there's nothing anyone can do about it. It's not so much who has the most votes in these party elections, it's the candidates ELECTABILITY/ Hillary has the electability.

Another thing to keep in mind is Michigan and Florida. MANY in both states have stated that if they aren't seated at the DNC then they will feel obliged to vote McCain in November. The Democratic leadership knows they stand a very good chance of losing a Democratic win in these two states if they dont accept the votes from there. Hillary won these two states, Osama knows it and so does the party.

I turned 45 this March. I have voted in every election I was able to since I was old enough to vote and without exception I have always voted Democrat. Now I am registered Independent. Come November, if I can't vote Hillary Clinton then I WILL vote John McCain regardless of what anyone says or thinks. If the Democratic Party wants my vote then they had better nominate Hillary.

Posted by: Robert Rowley, Tucson, AZ | May 21, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Dan, have you any idea how insulting it is to say that only white guilt could explain votes for Obama?

And you wonder why people cry foul. Is it "male guilt" for all the years of misogny that gets HC your vote?

You are all rationale and practical thinking. Everyone else is a reactionary idiot, eh?

A guilty white liberal might vote for Obama because they think a viable black candidate for president is long overdue.

But a guilty white liberal might vote for HC because they think a woman has as much right to president as any man.

What the hell is the difference?

Posted by: Phillyjose | May 21, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

You people act like the only voters that count are the ones in Kentucky, West Virgina, What about all of the voters in the states that Obama won? I'm sick of hearing Clintonistas say that he can't win the white vote. Excuse me, but does a state get much whiter than Iowa? This is just another example of the divisions that Clinton is happy to exploit (along with her statement that she represents "hard-working" voters, as if the only hard working voters are white, old women or those whites that can't make more than $50,000 a year). We need unity and she has shown time and again that she is not the one to bring it. Personally, Bill being so close to George HW Bush gave me pause.

Posted by: Tina | May 21, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

dee holson

hillary isn't going anywhere. if she does. her supporters are going with her.

bye bye bama

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

There's no doubt that Hillary is good at getting the old George Wallace vote which usually goes Republican in the general election. And as for the white male vote -- which Hillary captured so overwhemingly in Kentucky and West Virginia -- a majority of those guys haven't voted Democratic in a presidential election since 1964. That saying "politics makes for strange bedfellows" makes sense to me now.
Sterling Greenwood
Aspen Free Press

Posted by: Sterling Greenwood | May 21, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

patriot - that's real sick. like most obamabots. no interest in voting for someone you would vote for. sick puppy hanging from the obama teat.

ick ewww

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Its sad that liberal left chose this all important year to push a newcomer nobody and take such a huge risk when the country clearly cannot afford another 4 yrs of republican rule.Clever marketing,caucus stampeding,racial/cultural/socioeconomic polarizing all may have helped the candidate of blacks,liberal "educated" whites (? "guilt")in the primaries but unless middle America also fall in to this media circus republicans are set to rule for another 4 years.Sad.

Posted by: Dan | May 21, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama has more delegates, more states won, and more popular votes.

HC has won some big states and has shattered previous records for total votes, etc. But Obama is still winning.

Her only hope is to convince the superdelegates to disregard Obama and give her the nomination.

I suppose those that advocate this think that the Obama supporters will just go along. The millions who donated $5 and $10 dollars to his campaign will just shrug and change their votes to HC? Get serious!!

If HC can claim that over 17 million people would be disenfranchised by nominating Obama, how does she think Obama supporters will react to their candidate being essentially robbed of the nomination.

And no folks, it aint just black people that would feel disenfranchised. The majority of Obama supporters are white. But even if it were just black folks, could Clinton expect to win in November without them?

Lets face it, Obama is winning this campaign and he's done it by the book. Clinton's only shot is to try to break the rules to her favor.

That is a recipe for disaster in November.

Posted by: philjose | May 21, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

If the DNC and super delgates and Nancy Delay Pelosi, and Pat Delay leahy, and John Delay Kerry and Chris Delay Dodd, and on and on -

If they all want to wear their blinders, ignore and refuse to see 50%++ of the voters in their party. If they choose to TRUMP the Will of We The People. If they don't count our citizens in Florida. If they think they can hand pick the nominee for the Democrat Party over 50%++ of it's members.

If they don't see us today or when they vote - then they CERTAINLY won't see us in November.

That is a big fat important Reality Check they better make real soon.

We won't be drinking the kool aid. We won't be swayed by the tactics of POLITICS OF FEAR WHICH THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN AND DEMOCRAT ELITE INTEND TO BEGIN to get us to vote for Obama.

Won't work.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama, Clinton, Misogyny, Racism
By Doug Feaver
May 21, 2008

Montreal, March 22, 1995

President William Jefferson Clinton
President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20500

Mister President:

Please allow me to take the opportunity of your visit to Haiti, as President of the United States of America, on March 31, 1995, to pay due tribute in all sincerity to you and your distinguished wife, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

You honor Haiti and the Haitian people with your presence and support.

Thanks to you and your allies in the United Nations and the Organization of American States, the return-to-democracy process has been successfully carried out. Now that the legitimate President, Jean Bertrand Aristide, has been reinstated in his official status, it is with legitimate pride, I am sure that he welcomes you to his country. For you, as well as for us, the "Uphold Democracy" operation is truly a beautiful historical moment.

Mr. President, I come from Haiti, that underdeveloped country.

With underdeveloped tools -- a camera and a few films -- I have tried, in order to serve my country's cause, to demystify the word "light" and denounce Newton's Theory of Colors.

With that same desire to serve constitutional legitimacy in my country, I have written the enclosed book entitled "Haiti, Let There Be Light!" I hope that you and Mrs. Clinton will accept this privately produced copy, especially intended for you, while you are getting ready for your trip to Haiti.

May I make a confession to you, Mr. President? I followed, closely and with intense interest, your electoral campaign, election, and swearing-in ceremony as 42nd President of the United States. What a great nation you represent! Please believe me: your courageous commitment to facilitate the restoration of democracy in my country has escaped no one. On the very day of your swearing-in ceremony, I wished to send you my book, "Haïti, Que La Lumière Soit!", which questions Newton's Theory of Colors. I did not do so, because I felt an English-language version would be more appropriate.

Since I could not send you a copy of the yet-to-be-published English version of my book, I contented myself with dreaming -- dreaming that on one of your first evenings in the White House, you were seated in the Oval Room with Mrs. Clinton and your daughter Chelsea. You were reading "Haïti, Que La Lumière Soit!" I imagined you carefully examining certain passages of that work in its English version, which is now in preparation -- typed by a sightless, multilingual Haitian. Those paragraphs deal with the so-called missing matter, darkness in space, "black holes" -- in a word: the invisible mass of the Cosmos. You notice Dr. Carl Sagan's research on Exobiology and the DNA found in the dark matter in the universe, and you suddenly remember a Time article from April 10, 1978 entitled "Black Holes and Martian Valleys", which contained the following passage:

"A while later, astronomer Carl Sagan (The Dragons of Eden) found himself lugging his slide box into the Vice President's big new house and, after coffee, taking the Mondale and Carter families on a journey through the heavens.

"Jimmy Carter is the closest thing to a scientist we have had in the White House since Thomas Jefferson.

"Nixon could not run a tape recorder.

"Johnson could not fully figure out his alarm wrist watch.

"Not Jimmy. He was fascinated by the discussion of "Black Holes" and the speculation that they might provide answers to what holds the Universe together."

"Well," you exclaimed, "O.K. for former President Carter. It is normal for the President of a star-spangled republic to choose between 'Star Peace' and 'Star War'. As to the former President's inclination toward Einstein's physics and/or Planck's Quantum Theory, there is a great temptation to apply certain laws of the Cosmos to politics and diplomacy. Consider the 'Tunnel Effect', the way that energy escapes from black holes".

"Carter goes back to the sources and draws inspiration from them. That makes me think about Aristide -- both of them are well at ease in both the Western world and the Black world: the visible and the invisible. However, there is one difference: the Haitians follow Aristide everywhere, like a comet's tail. If Aristide is considered as a 'Black Sun', then the Haitians are 'space refugees'.

"Yes, Haiti! We are pulled down to earth. Democracy... the exodus of the Boat People... with the Law of Probabilities, whether we think about Planck or Carter, it doesn't seem that a solution will be found tomorrow...

"What business did the Haitians have in that 'boat'?

"Say, there above, the Black Twin! Is it still broad daylight in the shadow of the 'Black Sun'?

"Oh God," you say aloud to Mrs. Clinton: "Eureka! I have found it! Fiat lux! Let there be light! Que la lumière soit! Black Holes, Black Sun, Tunnel effect, Aristide effect, Boat people, Space refugees, Carl Sagan, Jimmy Carter... six of one and half a dozen of the other."

There is loud laughter in the Oval Room.

Bill a ri
Bill laughed

Hillary a ri
Hillary laughed

Chelsea a ri aussi
Chelsea laughed too

Humor is American, Mr. President, and so are dreams. Let my book Haïti, Que La Lumière Soit! be the "dark matter", arguing in favor of the development of the Black world -- visible and invisible!

In the area of science, high technology, creative innovation, and space exploration, I think there is nothing that America cannot deal with. That is why, in that spaceship of universal energy, I dare sail with a dream.

In my dream, it is your first trip inside your SPACE AIR FORCE ONE, propelled by the energy of invisible and concentrated dark matter, like black holes. A " Mini Black Hole " of an avant-garde design whose motor sequence develops inertia, spectral speed, speed equal to or higher than that of light, and scientifically controlled reversibility of the phenomenon.

What a new synthesis, but also what a liberation!

Synthesis and analysis are two wings of the same bird -- contracted and unfolded at the same time, following the heartbeat of the Universe tamed inside the infinitely small: "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind!"

This would be the natural and constructive counterpart of Newton's Theory of Light and Colors, which slows down that impulse. This is a necessary change in the name of development and progress humbly submitted on behalf of Haiti: a testimony of gratitude toward mankind. Let us go further, to the other side of the Universe, as suggested by an eyewitness: the Hubble telescope, with its camera.

"... Hubble focused on the centre of the galaxy [M87], an area 500 light-years across. The pictures revealed a spiral structure formed by fast-moving gas clouds being drawn toward the centre, rather like water going down a drain."

"Dr. Harms said the Hubble spectrographic camera was then focused on points 60 light-years across on opposite sides of the spinning disc. This camera breaks down light into its wavelength parts, rather like a prism separates colours in sunlight." (The Globe and Mail, Thursday, May 26, 1994)

Let us in the long run, replace the camera by a motor run by the ENERGY OF THE YEAR 2000, transforming the DARK MATTER from the invisible to the visible and vice versa. We would there by take advantage of the sequence of colored and colorless light speeds, so as to better visit the Universe, where law and order are transcendent, just as in democracy.

I have decided to write this letter because your leadership, Mr. President, like an inevitable and immeasurable energy, has practically absorbed me, allowing me to express myself.

Your trip to Haiti is the strongest confirmation of that sequence of events, and illustrates an unprecedented chapter in the annals of Haiti, as well as in the life of the Haitian people.

Thank you, Mr. President, for associating Haiti with your Strategic Development Initiative (S.D.I.) at the dawn of
the "Star Peace".

Lucien Bonnet

Posted by: Lucien BONNET | May 21, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

I heard the endearing story about the old woman Clinton supporter who voted by mail in ballot for Clinton and then died before primary day.

Perhaps we can hear this same story about many more Clinton supporters.

It's time for change.

Posted by: patriot 1776 | May 21, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

As always, I find myself astonished by the ignorance of those who post. If you can't do math or get your facts right, then you're better off not writing anything at all. I won't profess to know all of the numbers concerning voting blocs and demographics, so I acknowledge that I may be fully wrong about all of this. To claim otherwise would be incredibly closed-minded.

Obama received the vast majority of the black vote. I think one could argue that many in the black community are very excited at the prospect of the first African-American president, and yes, this has influenced many voters to choose Obama. No matter who you are, however, it would be a sign of a striking lack of intelligence to deny that many voters are equally excited at the prospect of the first woman president. Consider the proportion of older, white women who have chosen Clinton over Obama. Now, let's be clear - neither is a bad thing. People talk about glass ceilings, and realistically, a glass ceiling exists for both blacks and women at present. It is no more racist to support Obama because he represents the aspirations of the black community than it is sexist to support Clinton because she represents the struggles of generations of women.

With regards to the future, how can anyone be so bold as to claim that Obama will be crushed in the general election because of his inexperience, or that Clinton will be crushed in the general election because of a strong, negative public perception of her? Who is more important - the black community or the working class, white community? Honestly, that isn't even a fair question, and for those of you who point out that the Democrats can't win without one or the other and that that seems to be the choice confronting us, I'd like to submit that maybe, just maybe, you're wrong. Show some backbone and admit that you might be wrong, because when push comes to shove in the fall, I'm hedging my bets that the Democrats will be united, and that Clinton will throw her overwhelming support behind Obama or vice versa. Am I naive? Perhaps. But at least I'm not so cynical as to believe that sexism and racism has doomed us to four more years of Bush's failed policies.

Posted by: Eric | May 21, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

It's truly disgusting that black admit to voting for Obama based only on his Kenyan roots. Obama counted on that coming in - to divide and conquer. He played the race card early on - we all saw him trott Oprah out in Iowa and we all knew what he was doing. It was ok. He also banked on the media being hands off the black guy and not mentioning race unless he did. Really clever - but not admirable or a symbol of a unifer. He used divide and conquer tactics as he did in Chicago - it's his history. And he has proceeded to hold the black vote hostage against the party. Nice guy. That's why we all don't like him so much.

But, hey - look over therer - there seems to be a double standard that is fine and dandy when whites choose Hillary because she is brilliant, articulate and informed.

We aren't voting for her because she is white. We're not voting for her because he is black.

We are voting for Hillary Clinton because we have HIGH STANDARDS.

Mr. Obama used DIVIDE AND CONQUER effectively.

He can hobble forth on one leg. She does have the other half of the party supporting her - no matter what the manipulative and power hungry media says or prints. Mr. Obama has the media hanging from his teat.

Obama is a house of cards.

I'm so looking forward to the next breeze.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Hillary needs to go away! She is ruthless & could care less about any one of us or our health care or any other issue or concern the American public has right now! She's using any pitch she can come up with to get what she wants! She is only running for president to accomplish her own power hungry ambitions! The Clintons are ruthless, cold, & calculating people! They will go to any lengths to get what they want politically. If they don't get their way, they start eliminating those that do! I cannot fathom why the American public currently voting for & supporting Hillary Clinton would even considering wanting them back in the Whitehouse is beyond me especially after all the scandals these 2 monsters generated while they were in office the first time around!? The Clintons disgraced their positions and disgraced the Whitehouse. Their behavior by trashing the Whitehouse when Bill Clinton left office is very much proof of what kind of people they really are! They should NEVER, EVER be given another chance OR allowed to grace the doors of the Whitehouse again! Come on people - Bill Clinton is a pig! He held the highest office in our land but slapped every American in the face by defiling the Oval Office with a 19 year old intern and a cigar! The thought of Bill & Hillary Clinton back in the Whitehouse is both disturbing and frightening to me as an American!

Posted by: Dee Olson | May 21, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Why are you not counting all of the white votes for Obama. Why are you not mentioning all of the non emotional intelligent dems who will realize that the democratic agenda will be moved forward for the next four years by democrats being the majority in as many of the branches of power as possible...Presidential, judicial and legislative. Where is your common sense man? For years we have been voting for the lesser of 2 evils. Now we have to be smart and level headed enough to not fight amongst ourselves. Don't you realize that the right is counting on us to destroy our own chances? Pull it together. I will be voting for our agenda come november, no matter who our nominee is. Please, I beg you not to play into their hands. We may argue and have family feuds, but in the end, you've got to save each other to save ourselves!

Posted by: 1sttimeblogger | May 21, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

"Good point. Black voters are so racist that they often cross the aisle and vote GOP when the GOP puts up a black candidate against a white DNC Candidate.

This is why Michael Steele is now a Senator for Maryland. The Racist black vote."


What? Michael Steele isn't a senator in Maryland. He lost to Ben Cardin... a white male Democrat. Please check your facts before making idiotic statements like this.

Posted by: Huh? | May 21, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

For years and years African-Americans have supported the Democratic Party,often having to hold our noses and temper to vote for people who we knew didnot give a damn about us.It is time for democrats to start showing loyaty and patiotism and unite behind Obama.As a republican once said"In your heart you know he is right",forour country at this time in our history.

Posted by: T.C.Anderson | May 21, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

To answer the comment:" 90+% of blacks voting for a black man?? Can there be any way to explain this other than Racism???"

Yes there is another way to explain it. Black voters have been loyal to the Clintons and the Clintons turned on them in this campaign with racist comments trying to marginalize Obama as a black candidate. They blew it. Plenty of white voters also took offense. We happen to be sick of this crap.

Besides that, your logic if applied to women voters would have to include the statement that women voters who vote for Hillary are sexist. But I doubt you see it that way.

Posted by: mo | May 21, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

As they always say, every country deserves the leader it elects. The country let Bush and his friends take control of the U.S, and look at the mess we're in. We are all to blame.

If you are a true conservative like myself, then you realize that the Republican party is not the party of the conservative movement (i.e., small government, fiscal responsibility, states rights, non-intervention policies like the Nixon doctrine, protection of civil liberties, the rule of law, etc.). The Republicans don't want even libertarians like Ron Paul around.
The "Republican brand" has been severely damaged, so all of the true conservatives need to leave the so-called Republican party and form something new, leaving the troublemakers (Bush, Cheney, Card, etc.) behind. As Gore Vidal remarked recently, "when the American people can't tell who the stupid people (i.e., politicians) are then it is time to close up shop." Let's try to prove him wrong and vote for someone who is capable of unifying both sides in solving real national problems (who cares if you feel like having a beer with them).

Posted by: Midwestern_raised | May 21, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Linda @ 11:30-
Elmer @ 10:41-
A black man is running for the highest office in the land and it scares us to death. However, behind our worst demons, in the tiniest part of our subconscious, behind all the walls of defense, we all know he is the one. We created him- all of us- just as we created Bush- evolution is to make mistakes, to learn, then to make more mistakes and to learn again. We have to recognize this and embrace what is already in the works.

Posted by: davie | May 21, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

I'm a multi-ethnic American; Irish, Dutch, Croatian, African, Indigenous. I'm a male. I'm a baby boomer.

My concerns:

1 billion people who are willing send their children to die in the name of a murdering, misogynist, pedophile, pathological liar of a false prophet. Islam in NOT a religion, it's an evil cult complete with "Temple of Doom" type zombie/slaves.

A dangerously ignorant journalist cadre that distribute (like crack pushers) the notion of moral equivalence between Christ and the aforementioned pariah.

100 pompous-arsed senators who would should ALL be swept out of office in favor of new blood.

3 insipid candidates for the office of president of the United States of America.

City people -- who are ok with 13 heavily populated U.S. regions voting/calling the shots for all Americans. Like you urban-ites have really done nice job running your cities -- smog, murder, urban pattern rudeness, etc...

Last concern: As a former Demoncrap, I've been in the belly of this neo communist party. If they get what they want, the difference between the "haves" and the "have nots" will be gaping abyss.

Posted by: tradamerica | May 21, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

If misoginy played a role, we should reasonably expect to see traditional values-- in terms of gender roles and the discomfort of a woman in power-- correlate to Obama. The demographics don't fit. Who's voting for Clinton? Industrial working class voters, voters who have fewer years of education, white southern voters. Wouldn't you expect a misoginy claim to correlate to the demographic indicators of misoginy? Or are we now saying that the well educated and affluent are more misoginistic?

And the flip side of it seems convincing as well. Who would we expect to vote against a candidate on the basis of race? Hillary's constituency or Barack's?

Posted by: rob | May 21, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Cease your bickering! The fact that your choices are an entitled, power-hungry former First Lady, and inexperiecned, charismatic lawyer and the former whipping boy for the Republican Party clearly indicates...YOU CAN'T RULE YOURSELVES!

Your endless excuses and self-victimization bores me. Come to me on your knees when you are prepared for a REAL Ruler. And I do mean Nader....

Posted by: Zod | May 21, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

readers have a right to know. commentators should sign their names, their residences, whether they are paid or voluntary bloggers, their backgrounds etc so their comments may be properly evaluated. i am a 79 year old attorney from new jersey. i will support the democratic candidate. i believe dean should be impeached because he misused 2008 Democratic primary rules as will appear at May 31 hearings on fla and michigan primaries. The media failed to report the rules which were adopted in 2006 and their lawless disregard by the dean dnc. the convention rules committee has the power to rectify this reckless disregard of the party rules. back to the days of the eisenhower-taft convention fight. but neither barack nor hil is an ike. it looks like four more years.

Posted by: sanford konstadt | May 21, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

I'm with you disgruntlednewsreader. Reader comments posted under opinion articles are just trash, almost entirely without exception, and if google brings me to another "news" article such as this through it's top stories I'm removing that box from my homepage...

As hard as it might be for you guys to understand no one cares at all about your anonymous opinion...

Posted by: shutupallofyou | May 21, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

To Elmer Goldman.

By your estimation, (and explanations)the rest of the nation's vote dosen't count. You obviously have a bias for feminist math and do not realize that it is not the leadership, but the people that vote in primaries to select a person to run.

Further your skew of data dosen't even work on a pre kindergarden level. If you have a population of 100, then 15 is 15% and 13.5 would equal your 90% percent of the subgroup population. Spread that out through an uneven distribution of states and they become less than effective in any area except those of dense population of the subgroup. Your ignorance only highlights the truth. A LARGE NUMBER of people outside the subgroup (black) have voted for Obama, not Clinton.

When you do go to vote, you won't need the curtain pulled, The white robe and hood will hide your features.

If your new candidate McCain is elected and keeps you at war for the next 100 years, explain it to your grandkids and leave a video for their grandkids, so they will all understand your bias and know why they are still in a war that has no end.

Your baseball analogy is weak and fails to remember those that changed the game and won championships with little or no experience by sticking to their strengths.

God Bless America, and Everywhere else

Posted by: James M | May 21, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

i am a 36 yr. old white male. i dont care if the canidate is purple with three eyes. mccain is bush lite. everything about bush is a lie. his economy and foriegn policy is terrible. when the clintons were in office i had a decent job making what i am now an hour. gas was $1.25 a gallon. diesel was a buck. cost of livin was cheap and life was good. now i lost my house, cant afford to drve to work. i want the clintons back. will settle for obama over more of the same. go dems.

Posted by: thedude59526 | May 21, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Why one should vote for Barack Obama

Not since Robert Kennedy has America had a realistic chance to see an idealist in a Presidential Candidate. And this year we have one in Barack Obama.

The candidate pool in both parties over the previous four decades are full of so called "realists" or "pragmatists" which are just feel-good words for people who cannot go beyond conventional thinking. It is time for us to be inspired by the energy of a candidate who believes in the face of all odds that we can achieve true greatness. What does Hillary Clinton or John McCain have to offer in the way of inspiring an America to achieve greatness? Absolutely nothing but a petulant desire to win power and continue the same old ways of the past.

A new multicultural America needs a president who wants to change things and understands that he is not infallible (unlike George Bush who thinks he can do no wrong), and yet does not want to cower or be indecisive or take the easy road. Witness how Obama addressed issues of race head on, when the conventional thinking would have asked him to wait it out hoping for the news cycle to end. There is no job in the country that prepares anyone to be the leader of the free world, so let us stop pretending that Hilary or John McCain have any experience that is relevant to the job. They may know Senate procedure better but that does not mean you have good judgement. Good judgement does not lead to McCain becoming bankrupt and being on life support before his campaign became alive. Good judgement does not create a 30 million dollar debt for your own campaign. In fact the only time these candidates have had to lead something on the national level, i.e. their own campaigns they failed miserably before limping in.

Barack Obama is the only one that has fought a 50 state campaign, is tested by the Clinton attack and proxy machines and has not just survived but has emerged victorious without being seen as yet another power hungry camdidate. And that is why I hope that all American citizens realize that he is the most qualified candidate to truly lead, to truly inspire this country like Roosevelt or Kennedy to achieve greatness.

Posted by: Navin | May 21, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Just to refresh those old memories that may or may not have anything to do with Sen. HRC's recent statements. The Fifteenth Amendment was ratified before the Nineteenth Amendment.

No matter what your stance on sexism is being professed by Sen. HRC and her supporters, it was Bill Clinton who first started with the racialism in SC, the third state to vote.

I agree with an article today, as you are falling down a deep cravat you look for any twig as small as at may be to lessen the blow! It would be a shame if Sen. HRC continues to grab at these twigs for as she misses them or they do not support her decent, her and her husband become greater tragedies in history. I think more Americans that voted for Bill are now re-evaluating there vote and are started to put his presidency in question.

As for Sen. HRC, I believe she should go on to fight, but I would suggest that they put it in context toward a greater party that could take on all the issues she believes in if she continues to fight for them in an appropriate manner. Many do not believe she is heading down that path at this point in her speeches. I still respect her and I would vote for her if she represented the ideals I believe should happen to this great country.

Leading the world, Sen. HRC should be your cause!

Posted by: jerry rubin | May 21, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

The problem is Uneducated White voters never had the fine points of race and racism explained to them by learned professors. Not having a higher education to reply upon they must substitute common sense.

1.They have a very hard time understanding why Whites voting for whites is racism but it is not racism for over 90% of Blacks voting for Obama.
2.They have a hard time understanding why when Whites kill Blacks it is a hate crime but just crime when Black kill Whites.
3.Why all Blacks Colleges and and All black Miss American etc. etc is not discrimination.
4.Why being Black is more important than than Ability, Character, Motivation or other qualification in getting in Schools, Jobs, etc. etc.
5.They have a very hard time understanding how one can sit in Church for 20 years and support ones friend and mentor week after week, month after month, year after year with your money, family and attendance while listening to Hate American, Hate whites, Hate every thing rants, means that you have not endorsed and do not believe in the Message and you have not endorsed and do not believe in the MESSENGER.
6.They do not understand why believing in God, lovering this Nation, supporting the second Amendment, supporting Article IV Section IV of our Constitution against Invasion, and supporting the rule of Law, makes them intelligibly infer and bitter and the object of scorn by their educated betters!
7.Finally they just cannot comprehend how 2 very big wrongs make one great Right!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

The fact is, while Obama has been taken to task for Wright and Rezko, Hillary has been treated with kid gloves.

Why don't we discuss her feminist credentials?

Most feminists I know would not look up to any other woman who put up with Bill's repeated infidelities, sometimes while she and Chelsea were in the house. She is obviously in her position due to Bill success. Do feminists now embrace sucking up to an abusive man just to get ahead???

How do feminists square that???

Of course there will be no answers because the feminists are blind with rage and are busy signing up with McCain.

Posted by: BeerBubba | May 21, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

This is reply to Snowy2, who wrote "Given the choice between a smooth talking lawyer and an old soldier whom do you think will come out on top?" Who normally ends up on top when its a man and a woman. The US would rather put a robot in office than a woman or a black man. They are forced to consider a bi-racial man as long as his skin is not too dark.

Posted by: Vib54 | May 21, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Think it about it, think about it long and hard, McCain committed adultery on his first wife, and after returning from Vietnam he divorced his first wife. He met his adulturess wife Cindy McCain in 1979 and both lied to each other about their respective ages, in the meantime his first wife was recovering from a severe auto accident. He divorced his first wife in 1980. The opportunist dumped his first wife very soon after he returned. If this the type of person you want as President?

Posted by: Larry | May 21, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Welcome to Democracy.
Once again Black people are stooges to white vote mongering. How do Hispanics historically vote? Yes, I will vote for Obama, only because Hillary was outperformed, oursmarted, outplayed, out stratigized, out husltled, out media-ud, out planned, just outed!! I dont care if Democrats lose! When you (Democrats)win it's with the Black community, but when push come to shove, when its time to pony up, Black Folks have experiance in how the wagon circles. I do have pride because he's Black, just as Kennedy was Catholic (Irish), Carter was a Country Boy, Gore was (and is) decent, and I voted for GB 1 because he was also decent. I did not vote for Jesse just because he's Black. So I say it again America, vote for whomever you want, while you have the liberty to do so. Who knows, the vote outcome might be rigged anyway!! Only in MY AMERICA...ONLY in MY AMERICA!!

Posted by: walterrock | May 21, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

This is great - no matter who becomes President cries of discrimination whether racial, age, or gender will abound throughout the Lefties' media. On second thought, forget the age thing, the Lefties only care if it's one of their 'fossils'. Too bad Teddy didn't get in the primaries then we could discuss the horrors of age discrimination as well.

Posted by: Bob D | May 21, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

I think that the reason Hillary will lose this nomination is that Barack Obama has run a very effective campaign.... He never criticizes Hillary, because there are enough people out there to do it for him. She has changed her strategy for winning as often as she changes her socks, he has not. He knows how to spend money, she does not. She is so close, that it must be driving her crazy. She is not losing because Obama is a better candidate than her.
She is losing because his campaign has outsmarted her in every way. The headlines this morning aren't talking as much about her big win in Kentucky, as they are trying to figure out if Obama was taking a victory lap in Iowa. Obama has the talent to excite people.... she does not. He knows how to raise money... she knows how to spend it.
As I look at that 75,000 people crowd in Oregon who showed up to see him.... I am impressed.... Some are saying that those people were already going to be there because there was a rock concert and all he did was set up a stage to give his speech. I don't believe that, but if it's true, his campaign is brilliant.

Posted by: Ron | May 21, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

To Donna1000 | May 21, 2008 10:58 AM:

Your comments are very narrow minded. By claiming no latinos and asians on Obama's team, you want readers to inccorectly conclude that Obama doesn't value diversity. This is a fallacy and wrong no different than Bush's team would include Condi Rice, Alberto Gonzalez, John Yoo, Powell, Elaine Chao and others, and that is you want us to believe represents the best administration and management of this country.

Posted by: Ali | May 21, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

People can sit there and argue racism, sexism, or anything else they want. The fact is that, from a purely mathematical standpoint, Hillary has lost this contest. Put plain and simple, even if she wins the same landslide victories that she won in Kentucky and West Virginia, she will still have fewer delegates, superdelegates, and less of the popular vote than Obama.

The funny thing is that I was torn between them for the longest time, and it's only after it's clear that Hillary lost that I can finally decide that Obama is the better candidate.

Why? Because Hillary clearly does not care about what happens to the democrats this election. She's going to continue to fight, and do as much damage as she can before she goes out. An admirable objective, were she not doing the damage to members of her own team. As it stands, it looks almost as if Hillary is setting up Obama to lose so she can say "I told you so" and run again in 2012.

She in recent times has proven what her critics have said about her before, that she is a politician in the worst sense of the word. She will, and has flip-flopped on many issues simply for herself to look better in the eyes of the public. And now she makes it clear that she's even willing to take potshots at her own teammates to improve her own image. She is willing to bend (and try to break) Democratic party rules when she deems fit (Why does Michigan keep appearing in Hillary's tallies? hmmm).
This shows the contrast between Obama and Hillary. When the party said "Michigan is out," Obama had his name taken off the list. Hillary defied her party and ran there anyways, and now is trying to make the votes actually count.

When Americans give up on democracy and decide to elect a dictator, that's when I'll vote for Hillary.

Posted by: Kevin | May 21, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

I watched Hillary walk with an air of "nobody can touch me, since I am far ahead in polls" attitude during the early days of the campaign. She dismissed every state she lost by sayig that state is not representative of the entire United States. Now she is celebrating in W.Va and Kentucky as if those states are representative of the whole of United States. I've been living in this country for the past 40 years. The only reason we know a state like Kentucky exists is because of Colnel Sanders and KFC. Otherwise there is nothing from Kentucky. W.Va is even worse. I don't know what W.Va is famous for. They are not typical American states.

Well back to Hillary. It will be a relief to see her pack her bags, and also Bill's bags and go back to New York. I am so tired of the Clintons prancing around the country as some kind of King and Queen. Their legacy is now written off. They are sore losers in my books.

Posted by: Jill Sweeny | May 21, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Obama the "Man of his Word".

Presuming educated voters make educated decisions on actual things a candidate has said or written then these must be what 'they see in him'?!?

I am so sorry I was "so boneheaded to let Rezko help me with my house purchase" but I was sure it would be too much for "typical white people" that are "...working-class lunch-pail folks cling to their guns or religion, antipathy to people not like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment has made them bitter". They won't see that I mock them to their face and as I shake their hands. I told them they were 'likeable enough', what more do they want. But that is alright I have the strength to persevere because I have been prepared for this long road by my mentor and Pastor Rev. Wright. He will stand and "GD America" for me if I ever need him to. He will band the brothers for the 'riots' if I am denied. He is forgiving and has said I must forsake him because "I am a politician, doing what politicians must" to be elected. Now I am thankful that before he retired I had the opportunity to take my wife and children to Church each Sunday to hear his word. I am thankful my children had the opportunity to hear 'the truth' about America. We can rejoice that we know the exact day and moment Michelle was finally lifted up enough to be proud of America. But for now I press on....hey "Sweetie" bring me some arugula and get Ayers on the phone, I need some advice.

Or try on his written word:

From Dreams of My Father: "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."
From Dreams of My Father: "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race."
From Dreams of My Father: "There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white."
From Dreams of My Father: ; "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."
From Dreams of My Father: "I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, Dubois and Mandela."
From Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Posted by: Linda | May 21, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

I am not black or white. I am an immigrant with US citizentship. I have read that GOP will be advertized the pastor Wright semons to damn US ... with Obama wife cheering on stage in the Nov election. Obama said lay off his wife in the news lately. Is it related and will DNC be lost in Nov election?

Posted by: joe | May 21, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse


Please refrain from posting comments at the Washington Post until you have completed Junior High.



Posted by: Lexrst | May 21, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Racial pride = racial identity = racism.
Black or white or brown, if you vote based on racial identification, you are a bigot.
90+% of blacks voting for a black man?? Can there be any way to explain this other than Racism???

Posted by: johnl | May 21, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

I got here via the top of the Top Stories feed from Google News. I think it's a sad state of affairs when the top "News" story is a essentially a blog post that is a collection of comments to columnist opinion pieces on what might potentially be considered news.

Posted by: DisgruntledNewsReader | May 21, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Hillary will explain to her followers that if they don't vote for Obama in the fall and if the polls reveal this, she's toast.

Hillary followers will have to vote for Obama if they want her to have a shot in 2012 or 2016.

Get a grip folks.

Posted by: Mr Judgment | May 21, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Obama is the only candidate we have now who even comes close to setting this country on a course AWAY from the road to hell. As far as turning the election into something about Arab nations (as one commenet did) - that is a stretch - but many people ascribe to that train of thought. It's easy to point fingers at others - just remember when you do that there are 3 more pointing right back at you. The U.S. guzzles most of the petrol used in the world and China is not far behind. What an example "we" have set for the world - and worse yet there are millions of citizens in the U.S. who still don't have a clue about anything other than SUV's booze, sex, and drugs and getting rich - the ones who are screaming the loudest. Hopefully, the rest of the nation has a clue; but don't count on it.

Posted by: Dave | May 21, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Oh let's just stop this nonsense. I speak of you above, Mr. Goldman.

Initially the black vote was quite spread out over both candidates, but a shift occurred when Hillary and Bill started being rather dismissive with Obama, and comparing him to obviously inadequate candidates. The desire was to pain him as a lightweight.

So after some 300 years of America existing, no black person in their right mind (and when both candidates have virtually the same views), will stick with someone who is attacking you personally.

Then onward we go, as Obama wins among some white voters, we have Hillary and Bill going round the country (while skipping entire states) proclaiming the Obama cannot when among whites. Hammering that point home.

Don't even begin to spread the nonsense that Obama went there first. Thtat's the last thing that a black candidate who wants to win the election is going to do.

And finally, some states, like California and New York and likely New Jersey, will go Democrat even if a parakeet was the candidate, so Hillary winning them in the primaries (and barely in some cases) is not reflective of the different reality that a general campaign would reflect.

Finally, Hillary has lost. She has used every argument: race, class, sex to push forward a case, and without actually winning the needed states, voted delegates, or now even superdelegates.

But for the first time in history, and with candidates with almost similar platforms, Hillary voters suddenly can't take it upon themselves to vote for Obama who one a square campaign. Gee, why is that?

They would rather shoot off their own faces than see Obama win. Please.

Posted by: Finn | May 21, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Its all over and ain't over
People may be wondering why Hillary is still in the race. Here is what I think, She is in it because she knows Obama will lose the general election miserably to Maccain and she can then bolster her chances in 2012. She is by no means a person to go away. If she cannot achieve her dream now, she will be back in 2012.
That is how smart she is. Don't underestimate the Clinton's. They are far too matured for the Obama's of the world. Good luck Hillary, Like to see you back in 2012. The country needs you.
Hillary Clinton Supporter
Prakash Kolluri, NJ USA

Posted by: Prakash Kolluri | May 21, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

This is reply to Snowy2, Given the choice between a smooth talking lawyer and an old soldier whom do you think will come out on top?" Who normally ends up on top - a man or woman? The US would rather have a robot running this country instead of a woman - face facts! Or they will settle for a bi-racial person, as long as he is not too dark skinned.

Posted by: Vib54 | May 21, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

H.Brinkhuis show me the facts on this Please...back this up. And are you saying black people should only be around black people....IGNORANT

Posted by: freespritedislandgirl | May 21, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Obama is an arrogant self-centered,phoney egomaniacal, Baffoon and clearly not a good candidate. He has spent most of his time maligning the competition instead of the issues at hand. Just about any other candidate would fare better then him.

Posted by: kc Interiors | May 21, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

The comment above is DILLUSIONAL. STOP hating.

Common sense tells you--whereas your own words came back to bite you--"if the African American population only excels to 15% and Obama is ahead in the nomination process--then who are the remaining 85%?

Stop making this a "race" issue. If you are educated enough, then the statistics are showing you that--people want and need change and it's your own--that will put Obama in the Whte House--you're correct --quote "not African Americans".

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

It is a sad reflection of Dem primary voters that the color of a man's skin overrides all other considerations.
Take away Obama's pretty face, and half-black skin,and you have another liberal lawyer from a big city(and a front man, empty suit to boot).
If he was not black, and hadn't played the race card, he would not be winning.
If he was not black, and had handled his preacher situation as he did, he would be TOAST.
The media which sees our salvation in the election of a "black man" is projecting guilt and shame onto our world.

Posted by: johnl | May 21, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

I am a white man who will not now, nor ever, consider voting for Hillary Clinton. While I'm quite sure that there are some men, and probably a few women, who wouldn't vote Clinton simply by dint of her gender, I don't fall into that catagory.

I am not a sexist. I've voted for women in the past and would vote for a female president if I thought the candidate worthy.

I am, however, a filthy-liarist and therein lies my antipathy towards Sen. Clinton.

Posted by: Andrew23Boyle | May 21, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

I don't want Bill in the White House again. You may think, wait... your not voting for Bill,,, your voting for Hillary.
Um... guess what... Bill will be in the White house. We've delt with Bill before.
If Hillary went and Divorced the bum initially, then I would have supported her. It's so interesting how people forgot all about the political problems this couple had in the past...
sorry, but as long as Bill is in the picture, I'm not interested at all.

Posted by: Lisa | May 21, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

I voted for Obama I am BLACK AND a WOMAN so what does that mean ...I chose my skin color over my gender? I think this race/gender thing is stupid, I was a a Clinton supporter and then I switched to Obama. When I voted I didnt think about race, gender or even age. Its about the issues and who I feel I can trust and support me as a citizen of this country. Obama 08.

Posted by: freespritedislandgirl | May 21, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

I Am a Republican,and I do not trust Obama
because in his church there was no white people allowed to enter.
He should run for office in Kenya Africa
there is a lot more trouble than here in
the USA,and he would feel a lot better between his own people.

Posted by: H.Brinkhuis | May 21, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

I'm going to scream if I hear another Hillary supporter claim she won Michigan and Florida. She "won" two contests where the other competitors honored their agreement to withdraw, and she broke it and went campaigning. It's dishonest and manipulative to claim that those states should count without a proper do-over.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

You know....this constant comment about Obama's inexperience needs just a two word rebuttal - Dick Cheney. His decades of "experience" both inside the beltway and internationally have resulted in the worst domestic political crisis in U.S. history, a foreign policy in shambles, a loss of credibility worldwide, and disasterous 8 years by any measure. Give me inexperience and wisdom. Anyday!

Posted by: Mark McVay | May 21, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I don't really care what the frenzied Clinton women say, what the ignorant Right says, or what the clueless pundits say. The math says Obama will be the Democratic nominee so Democrats will either line up, or become traitors to the party, to their own causes, and to America's future. McCain is just a speed bump, 10-15% of Repubs are still showing up to vote Ron Paul.

Posted by: Chris | May 21, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

HRC or BHO have nothing to worry about, in the general election, either one will beat McCain. McCain's practice of throwing his supporters under the bus, on a daily basis, insures this outcome.

Posted by: starryperdun | May 21, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Clinton has proven and reproven she is not worthy of the trust of the Citizens of the United States of America nor the World. Plus her husband is member of the TriLateral Commission (google it) responsible for the ONE WORLD ORDER that for years we have heard about in church and that President Clinton signed the NAFTA which served the TriLateral Commission well and all those sweet, nice unemployed people from Kentucky and all other states that have lost their job to overseas can thank the Clintons for their unemployment. HILARY CLINTON IS NOT WORTHY OF THE TRUST OF THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES NOR THE WORLD. PERIOD.

Posted by: MissClarity | May 21, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

God bless those Clintons! Ol' Hill and Billy are roaring out of the hills of Kentucky, fired up on the moonshine of victory, driving their trusty old rattletrap Ford all the way to Denver if she'll make it!

While you've got to admire their gumption and conviction that the South Will Rise Again, reality bites. While the ol' engine keeps sputtering along, real regular like, them darn wheels are about to fall of that tired old truck and soon it'll be back to the hills (Capitol Hill) for Ol' Hill and Billy after all.

Shucks, pass that jug of moonshine, will ya? I'm gonna crank up the ol' Victrola, put on Stephen Foster's Greatest Hits, sing along a mite and cry me a crick of tears! "Oh, Beautiful Dreamer..."

Posted by: Ma Kettle | May 21, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

"Naturally they are voting out of racial pride but the race card is raise when 90% of the black vote is for Obama."


Good point. Black voters are so racist that they often cross the aisle and vote GOP when the GOP puts up a black candidate against a white DNC Candidate.

This is why Michael Steele is now a Senator for Maryland. The Racist black vote.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

So goes Democracy...
We insisted on free elections in Palistine and then cry when Hamas is elected. G Dub had less popular votes than Gore. So if Obama is the candidate it means that he won enough delegates according to agreed upon rules. So everybody stop whining about delegates, race, important states etc. You have aright to vote for whomever you like for your own personal reasons, period. If some dont like blacks,then dont vote for Obama. I still think that we will see his Tiger Woods Chesire Cat Grin on our TV sets for some time. At the same if he loses to Mccain dont whine about the direction the Republicans take us. This country is missing a major issue: this guy has bought millions of young people who were stuck on the net, lost in their ipods, and very apolitical into the process. Now that is what is really irks both the Democrat and Republican old guard. Not only that, it is mobilizing all "liberals" that are not Clintonites, especially African Americans that are voting for the first viable Black candidate who sees us all as one country, one people. It is amazing that people believe the hype that Obama is to inexperianced to run a country. Research what our presidents did before they were elected! All you have to have is vision, good people, and common sense, all of which has been in short supply over the last 6 years. He's ran a campaign that has blasted the annointed Hillary out of the water and people are mad, crying foul. I hope he gets elected out of spite--pure--American--Christian--Racist--Bigoted--Us against Them--Lock up your Woman--spite. Only in America....Only in America!!

Posted by: walterrock | May 21, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

I think it is necessary to make an important distinction between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans want a dictator for a President; Democrats want an administration that goes in a direction they have chosen. Unfortunate as it is, many US citizens still live in the past, in a world run by dictators. But the thin majority of these obsolete voters is disappearing. As the current primaries are showing, the election process is dominated by those who want to decide the country's direction, in other words Democrats. The Democratic candidates have emerged with significantly different visions that are the only relevant options for an improved future. It really doesn't matter which Democratic candidate wins, because the real decision is to leave the past behind and create a new world that runs in a different, more reasonable way. Republicans keep saying, "that's not how the world works," and Democrats respond, "we see that and we can make it better." Republicans can still be expected to sabotage Democratic efforts, but their numbers are dwindling. Remember, if you don't vote for a Democrat, you are a Republican.

Posted by: L.Kurt Engelhart | May 21, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Hello everyone! I would like to say that it would be nice for Obama to win, not because he is black but just because he seems to be more accurate while Hilary tries her hardest to prove that she is. But whoever wins is fine with me, im not going to argue because there is nothing that I can do but give my opinion so that is my opinion.

Posted by: Jhenea B. | May 21, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Why is it that McCain supporters tend to be overweight, under-educated, racist, old, or greedy folks who think they are going to "Heaven" and sit besides Jesus.

Posted by: right wing | May 21, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

The US has driven itself into the ground for more than 25 years with excessive military spending, spending on high tech toys, plus Greenspan's increased social security taxes for the boomers, the proceeds from which were then diverted into the general account, an increasingly corrupt and venal medical culture, etc. Bush and his evil henchmen were abetted by a Congress that saw no evil, heard no evil and refused to take a stand on anything.

Now come the Democratic primaries. We have a choice between another Clinton term with the same loyal advisers that made a mess of foreign policy and Congressional relationships in the 90s or a new face that might take the government in a different direction. Certainly Obama has a different group of advisers with a wider span of opinions than Clinton. What does the press do? The idiots trivialize the Democratic contest to an anti-black versus anti-woman thing and ignore the massive problems facing this country. As Kevin Phillips points out, the government has falsified official statistics for some time to overestimate growth of GDP and underestimate inflation and unemployment. The experienced Clinton would slide in behind these false figures and loyal Clinton advisers. The charismatic but cautious Obama would do something different, but won't say what his priorities are. He can't deliver on all his promises. Neither the Clinton nor the Obama health plan can work without large tax increases; both assume that somehow the insurance industry would be regulated (by a fairy godmother). The Congressional record of accommodating the insurance and drug industries, the Medicare advantage program, etc make this very dubious.

We can't find a new economic balance with educational and healthcare fairness until we cut back defense spending and stop trying to control the Middle East. McCain can't see either the economic or the foreign effects of our policy, just as foolish as that of the Soviets in Afghanistan. Why do the media convert real problems into symbolic jousts? My black friends told me in January: Obama is not one of us, he's not a white politician, we just don't know. Bill Clinton's foolish linking of Obama to Jesse Jackson brought them to Obama's side. Today's question is do you want another Clinton term?

Posted by: bobsnodgrass | May 21, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

I like the comment about Hillary pounding the pavement and we all know she delivers coffe and donuts to some folk working the 5:00 a.m. shift. A reporter assigned to cover her campaign in Pa. had to leave a sign on his seat: Please don't wake me up at 4:30. I am not covering Hillary!"

Obama caters to a hip, young techie, male-cultured audience with no clue as to the realities to be faced in this world. He is a debutante in politics and we all know what he did to knock off his mentor Sen. Alice Palmer in Cicago--his gang of high-paid legal eagles and pushy organnizers forced this great woman off the ballots! Now, this (black) now retired senator is endorsing, who else? HILLARY CLINTON! Why why?

His condescending, gaily arrogant ways and attitude toward his female opponent, going on stage in N.C. and "giving Hillary the F*inger" (see Youtuber and L.a.Times) is disgraceful adn he should have resigned as result of this ignominious display of ignorance and IMMATURITY.

Getting BArack elected (Zeus forbid!) is like giving your teenaged hormonally challenged son the keys to your brand new Mercedes (if you're his supporter, you probably have one!)!! NO WAY!

Posted by: mary | May 21, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Is it elitism to say that white lower income voters who don't vote for Hillary are women-haters and that those who don't vote for Obama are racists? Of course it is. Maybe these voters have considered the positions of the various candidates and concluded, once again, that they don't want to elect a liberal to the White House.

If McCain wins, the Democratic establishment will once again blame the yahoos in Middle America who just aren't smart enough to know that a Democrat can run their lives better than they can. Those racists and women-haters don't know what's best for them, they will conclude.

Posted by: Maryland | May 21, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Where is the diversity on Sen. Obama's team? I pulled a list of his stop staff and advisors from wikipedia which shows no obviously Latino or Asian names and very few women. Check it out:

Campaign staff and policy team
On January 14, 2007, the Chicago Tribune reported that Obama had begun assembling his 2008 presidential campaign team, to be headquartered in Chicago.[17] His team includes campaign manager David Plouffe and media consultant David Axelrod, who are partners at Chicago-based political consulting firm AKP&D Message and Media.[18] Communications director Robert Gibbs was previously press secretary for John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.[19]

Other members of the campaign staff include Deputy National Campaign Director Steve Hildebrand,[20] New Media Director Joe Rospars,[21] speechwriter Jon Favreau,[22] national press secretary Bill Burton, travelling press secretary Dan Pfeiffer, policy development Cassandra Butts, finance director Julianna Smoot, research director Devorah Adler, and pollsters Paul Harstad and Cornell Belcher.[23]

A number of Obama's top aides have backgrounds with former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle,[24] who left the Senate due to re-election defeat at the same time Obama was entering it.

Obama's economic advisors include chief Austan Goolsbee, who has worked with him since his U.S. Senate campaign, Paul Volcker, Warren Buffett,[25] health economist David Cutler and Jeffrey Leibman.[26] His foreign policy advisors included a core of nine people: Gregory Craig, Richard Danzig, Scott Gration, Anthony Lake, Denis McDonough, Samantha Power, Ben Rhodes, Susan Rice and Daniel Shapiro[27] until March, 2008 when Samantha Power stepped down. A larger group of 250 advisers is divided into subgroups of about 20 people, each focusing on a specific area or topic.[28] His legal affairs advisors include Martha Minow, Ronald Sullivan, Christopher Edley Jr., Eric Holder and Cassandra Butts.[29]

Among his field staff, Paul Tewes and Mitch Stewart led Obama's winning Iowa caucus campaign and one or the other of them directed field operations in many other crucial states, including Nevada, Minnesota, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana.

Posted by: Donna1000 | May 21, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Look we can blame racism, sexism, and every other ism in the dictionary. The fact is Hillary lost because of her idiotic campaign personal. I love Hillary, but not Bill. I thought her strategy was stupid. Not doing caucus states was a mistake. We've got to come together as a party. McCain is out there running a National Security platform that has no merit. Personally I could care less about the Middle East. Israel can handle thier own. Plus they don't have the restraints on its retaliation agenda as we have. Far as the Arab countries, F-them. I hope they kill each other. We have far more pressing needs at home then to worry about a group of people that could care less about anyone.

George W. Bush went over thier to ask them to release more oil, and they turned him down. Talk about being ungrateful. That nerve of them. That just shows the level of respect other countries have for the US brand name.

Cuban exile's want to keep isolating Cuba, with no regard for the people suffering in that country. They live here free from turmoil. We need to do something about that as well. What's wrong with dialogue, it can't hurt. America stop being so dam conceited and stubborn and start moving in a new direction. What's the point of having freedom here and promoting freedom around the world if you can't enjoy it, let alone afford it.

Posted by: Antoine | May 21, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

My take on the Democratic primary situation is one of utter disbelief and a journey into political suicide.

Take this scenario. Suppose you have an opportunity to win the National League baseball title. In order to win that title you make preparation for the playoffs. You choose as your pitchers your least experienced and men who has the greatest disabilities. These pitchers are touted by an extreme minority who represent only 15% of the experts in the field. Within the 15% of that minority 50% do not agree with that minority. Now after waiting eight years to get into the playoffs you send this group of untried and inexperienced players to go out there and win the title.

The Democratic Party is on the way to nominating as it's standard bearer a guy who has been on the national scene as a senator for five years; he has no depth of experience in foreign affairs or national needs on a larger scale ; his supporters are essentially the black community which is only 15% of the American population and they have been supporting him by 90% of their vote in second-level states; he has won most of those states by mostly narrow margins which have been contested in the Democratic primaries and Clinton has garnered almost 50% of those votes; in the national election the national Black minority that has been supporting Obama by 90% of their votes are not enough to win the national election; even those who have voted for Hillary have taken to position that they cannot support Obama and in all probability would vote Republican. Obama, as the Democratic nominee may have won the nomination in a cutesy manner by leveraging the black vote in the Democratic primaries but will not stand a chance in the national election where most of the country is already divided and the Republicans who will control 49% at least of their base in the national election. The defection of Democrats opposed to Obama will make the difference. The black support that Obama is now getting in order to win the primary have never voted for the Republicans in the first place. In the November election even 100% vote by the black constituency will not put Obama over-the-top.

Hillary has won the major Democratic heartland vote. She has captured California, Ohio Indiana, Kentucky, New York, New Jersey, even New Hampshire, Florida, Michigan, a West Virginia. These are states that a Democrat would have to win. If a second rater can't capture them in a primary, how in the heck is he going to win them in a knockdown drag out major election donnybrook.

I am distressed that the Democratic leadership have deluded themselves into thinking that Obama would even have a chance. Regardless of what your political opinion is you cannot overlook the racist attitude of at least 50% if not more of the American voting public.The racist card was not raised my Hillary would rather by Obama and his supporters. The almost unanimous support of Obama by the black community has sent the message that he is our man regardless of what he says or does. Naturally they are voting out of racial pride but the race card is raise when 90% of the black vote is for Obama. If the Obama black vote was 45 to 50% the race card would have not been so obviously presented.

This sophisticated situation could only have been developed by one political operative who I must admit, if he did in fact engineer the situation, has no superior. If the Republicans win we would have to take our hats off to Karl Rove.

Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food.

Posted by: Elmer M Goldman | May 21, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company