02/11/2008
Obama Takes WA, NE, LA, ME, Virgin Islands, and Grammy Award
It was a brutal weekend for Hillary Clinton as Barack Obama took contests in Washington state, Nebraska, Louisiana, Maine, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Following the victories, Obama addressed a crowd at the Virginia Jefferson-Jackson Dinner (above). The wins allowed Obama to pull ahead of Clinton in a delegate count, according to CBS News: "In the delegate chase, Obama has pulled ahead of Clinton, even when the support of uncommitted super delegates is figured in. According to CBS News estimates, Obama holds a razor-thin lead with 1,134 delegates overall to 1,131 for Clinton."
Obama was down in all four pre-caucus polls in Maine yet pulled out a victory.
The Clinton campaign responded to the losses with a shake-up of its top leadership. Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton's campaign manager, said she was stepping down but would remain as a senior advisor.
Clinton replaced Doyle with longtime aide Maggie Williams.
Said Clinton on her website: "Patti Solis Doyle has done an extraordinary job in getting us to this point - within reach of the nomination - and I am enormously grateful for her friendship and her outstanding work. And, as Patti has said, this already has been the longest presidential campaign in history and one that has required enormous sacrifices of everyone and our families. I look forward to her continued advice in the months ahead. Patti and I have worked with Maggie Williams for more than a decade. I am lucky to have Maggie on board and I know she will lead our campaign with great skill towards the nomination."
Next up are Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia this Tuesday, but things aren't looking great for Clinton there either: "Obama has hearty leads and distinct demographic advantages in each of the three contests...[Clinton] has campaigned hard in Virginia, where her campaign has a strategy to keep things competitive, but it’s already looking ahead to March 4 contests in Ohio and Texas as a firewall of sorts. Obama leads Clinton in Virginia by 53 percent to 37 percent, according to a poll released Sunday by Mason-Dixon."
Obama's winning streak even continued at the Grammy Awards, where he beat out the other Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Maya Angelou, and Alan Alda to win a spoken word Grammy for his book "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream."
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 9:02 AM EST by Andy in Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
"Obama has hearty leads and distinct demographic advantages in each of the three contests"
Translation: they have disproportionately high percentages of black voters who were solidly behind Obama's opponent until they started swigging the Kool Aide members of his staff whipped up from a recipe they found in Karl Rove's Cookbook and falsely tarred and feathered the Clintons as racist that are paired incongruously with rich white voters who apparently see behind Obama's populist disguise.
Posted by: Larousse | Feb 11, 2008 10:52:11 AM
Bill Clinton being very much a leo makes me think he is more upset with personaly loosing the grammy to Obama than Hillary's weekend problems.
:-)
Yep
Tuesday is DC, MD, VA and none of them are looking good for Hillary.
Her next best firewall is Wisconsin on the 19th when Obama's home state (born in) Hawaii also votes.
After that it is all or nothing on Mrach 4th. Hillary has to win Tx and Ohio by LARGE!!!!!!!! margins where she looks good so far.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 11, 2008 10:55:14 AM
Larousse
Maine is 93-97% white
Nebraska has an even larger white population
etc etc
Your race baiting is foul and wrong. obama has destroyed that spin by winning Hugely white states.
You might as well be a repub if you have to resort to such bull shit
Yes DC has a huge AA comunity Virginia is not like SC where the dem voting population is 80% Black.
Seriously, it is nearing time for you to have your dem card revoked if you are resorting to such race baiting BS
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 11, 2008 11:00:48 AM
Hillary's problem isn't her campaign manager... its the candidate herself.
It its so sad that the only defense of Hillary I see on this site is racist comments against Obama.
Posted by: Rob | Feb 11, 2008 11:06:28 AM
Go Hill!
Posted by: Matty | Feb 11, 2008 11:24:03 AM
Thanks for proving my point so quickly (which only addressed DC/VA/MD) about the Obama-Rove politics of character assassination. Bill Clinton mentions Jesse Jackson and Obama trolls successfully crucify him as a racist. I guess you're calling Andy a racist, too, for quoting the Politico about "distinct demographic advantages." And the writers of that article who went on to say, "Those states, as well as the District of Columbia, have significant populations of black voters and educated, affluent whites – both top demographics for Obama."
I guess the US Census is "race baiting" for reporting on the number of blacks in those areas. Is simply mentioning that Obama is the African-American candidate "racist"? Really, if you pulled your heads far enough out of his ass your brains might get just enough oxygen to distinguish between such things. But then why should you? Such easy demonization of both Clintons in the way your own candidate has denounced (but you refuse to listen to) has worked so well so far. Did you hear the one about Bill Clinton joking about Obama being lynched? I heard that the other day. Only problem is it wasn't Clinton and the "joke" wasn't about Obama but about Tiger Woods by a stupid sports commentator who was appropriately forced to apologize.
And don't forget to inform black lesbian Irene Monroe that SHE'S a racist, too, for having correctly labeled Obama a "race card player" in South Carolina.
And how many times now have you wrongly declared Sen. Clinton politically dead, Jimmy? But thanks for revealing the real source of your political insights -- astrology. Obama's a leo, too. I guess that's why he looks like he wants to bite anyone's head off who questions him.
"In the debates, he's been a blathering mess more often than he's been inspirational. When pressed, he starts to look pissy and purses his lips like he's ready to burn Wolf Blitzer's beard with his laser eye beams or like he's going to wrestle John Edward's hair. He only looks presidential when he makes speeches and lots of people are watching. I really enjoy those times and find him appealing when he's in his element. Otherwise, he looks rather precocious and often very petulant when things aren't going his way. He comes off as very arrogant to me most of the time.” - Jerame, Bilerico
Posted by: Larousse | Feb 11, 2008 11:36:49 AM
I'm not crazy about Leo people. They're bossy, but maybe they make good presidents. I meant to say, "Leo people are bossified." Stepin' continues to speak on...and on...
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 11, 2008 11:45:36 AM
that's obsurd is the Clintons assertion that she doesn't do good in Caucus states because her supporters have to work!
Obama supporters also work! Pretty lame excuse for her "lack" of support.
NOW the Clintons are accusing Obama of being an establishment candidate. Wow! that's a strech! When it's Billary with the majority of the "super delegates". She's the wife of a former president!You can't be more "establishment" than that.
The Clintons have all but lost the African American vote...the vote that helped get Bill elected twice. Playing the race card that they no longer have in their hand backfired.
Bet they wish they could undo that!
Posted by: Marge | Feb 11, 2008 11:51:00 AM
Go Obama!
Posted by: marco | Feb 11, 2008 11:52:47 AM
The fact that the news casters breathlessly break down every vote by race, gender, age, income level, social political blah blah blah! Just stop it! Can't someone just vote for whoever they choose and be done? All this splitting hairs over who votes for who based on what is going to end up splitting the party. The only thing I'm worried about is the superdelegates (party insiders, big wigs, poo-bahs) flipping the vote. Now that would be a real problem. Enough with the race crap already!
Posted by: TroyTooner | Feb 11, 2008 12:15:49 PM
Larousse's comments are so racist that he, like 'Micheal Bedwell' could be channeling the late unlamented Leland Francis. Leland Frances was sent to Billary hack purgatory because he called Oprah a 'bitch' when she threw her not inconsiderable clout behind Obama. Francis also said that ‘black churches’ were ‘overwhelming’ antigay without a shred of evidence. He ignored the role of Euroamerican cults like the leaders of the catholics, mormons and evangelicals.
Speaking about Jena he venomously said 'Check out Toy Box for Brains Jasmyne Cannick's site where she proudly displays a photo of a table with individual pictures of the Six fronted by a host of votive candles as if they were dead not simply overcharged thugs. Let a thousand hip hop homages bloom. We should be glad, we suppose, that she didn't blame the treatment of the Six on the Racist Gay White Mafia. I guess they're too busy trying to figure out what more they can do to oppress her hero, poor shat upon Isaiah Washington. But I'm betting she wove the "lynching" of Michael Vick in there somewhere.’ Leland Frances | September 21, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Posted by: Bill Perdue, RainbowRED | Feb 11, 2008 12:24:11 PM
SEVEN very important reasons not to vote for Barak Obama:
FIRST, like Billary Clinton, he’s a Democrat, a political hustler in a right centrist party who’ll say anything to get elected. As Gore Vidal said says “We have one party - we have the party of essentially corporate America. It has two right wings, one called Democratic, one called Republican.” A vote for the Democrats or Republicans is a vote for a party that gutted ENDA, dropped the hate crimes bill and refuses to repeal Billarys DOMA and DADT.
SECOND, like Clinton and the Republicans he openly, arrogantly and unashamedly panders to gay bashing christian bigots although his gay basher friends like Mary Mary, the Rev. Donnie Mckulkin and Bush’s ‘spirit’ advisor are chump change compared to Billarys. Her admirers include her Senatorial bible class littermates Santorum of Pennsylvania and Brownback of Kansas. Pat Robertson admires her ‘tacking to the right’ and Faux News owner Rupert Murdoch gave her a $100,000 ‘donation’ for services rendered.
THIRD, like Clinton and the Republicans Obama is a candidate bought and paid for by corporate interests; his contributors are a virtual rogue’s gallery of parasites including: Goldman Sachs $430,578,JP Morgan Chase & Co $273,359,Exelon Corp $269,100, Kirkland & Ellis $256,089, Sidley Austin LLP $241,525, Lehman Brothers $241,090,Citigroup Inc $207,500, Skadden & Arps et al $206,271 etc.
FOURTH, Obama was the first presidential candidate to support the NAFTA Peru extension bill . Look at his list of donors above and his stand makes perfect sense. The AFL-CIO, all Peruvian unions and most environmental and anti-poverty organizations oppose NAFTA because it’s used to pauperize workers, bust unions and is an environmental disaster. Obama, Clinton and most Republicans support NAFTA. They have to if they want corporate money.
FIFTH, in spite of all his hype about the war one thing remains crystal clear, neither he, Clinton or the Republicans can or will end the war. A victory by the Iraqis will end it, just like the war in Vietnam was ended. Obama would spread the war to Pakistan, a nation with nuclear weapons. That’s simply retarded even for some who supports the resource wars including the oil piracy in Iraq.
SIXTH, like Clinton and the Republicans, Obama is a handpuppet for the HMO, pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Don’t get sick if one of them wins. The National Nurses Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO condemns Obama, saying “Obama has chosen to give more customers and more public funds to the for-profit insurance corporations. It’s an expensive gift and one that allows them to continue meddling in medical decision-making while raking in obscene blood-money profits.”
SEVENTH, and most important, if enough people vote for him he might win. Anyone older that eight or nine years old who believes campaign promises is not that much older than eight or nine. With Democrats like these who needs Republicans. A Republican candidate is a loud-mouthed baboon in a people suit with a theocratic christian attached at the hip. A Democratic candidate is a Republican in drag.
Posted by: Bill Perdue | Feb 11, 2008 12:26:03 PM
Derrick
Leo's are great in that they are so freaking charming. Heck, leo's can charm the undies off of jesus himself, but if they aren't the center of attention or don't win at something watch out.
Larousse
The demographic thing also covers uperwardly mobile middle class people trending obama, college educated trending Obama, etc which DC, MD, VA have tons and tons of
YOU and YOU alone injected race. Go be a repub.
You also are turning people off to your candidate. I have moved towards gladly supporting Hillary in the general thanks in large part to some of her supporters. YOU not so much. In fact you push in the opposite direction.
If you want to bitch about demographics then with Hillary ONLY dominating 40+ year old women, one could say you have to be a menopausal dried up old hag blowing dust out of your vagina to support hillary.
Stupid can work both ways.
I was trying to turn over a new leaf and be a nicer saner person, but all it took was one numbskull race baiting and I go all crazy again
:-)
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Feb 11, 2008 12:27:02 PM
Can we just pick someone like tomorrow and end all this nonsense?
It's getting tiring and the more I look at all of it, the more I think I'm going to be hearing "President McCain will be meeting with the Joint Chiefs..." on CNN next year.
Posted by: junior | Feb 11, 2008 12:35:43 PM
Bill Perdue:
I wholeheartedly defend your right to your opinion but man are you cynical...maybe you have a right to be.
This is a sincere question: what do you suggest we do about the stranglehold special interests and big business has on our political system.
I also think we have to be very careful differentiating actual characteristics of the candidates (and their spouses) and the characteristics the media has assigned to them. Is Bill Clinton a racist? No, I do not think so. I believe, if he had it to do over again, he would not have made that comment comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson. But let's make one thing clear -- the media blew that thing so far out of proportion that many now think Bil is a racist.
Posted by: David | Feb 11, 2008 12:50:19 PM
Yes, Jimmy, you're right. You have gone crazy when despite my doing the easy work for you and documenting that the race-related word trail in this thread began with Politico and was referenced by Andy and then you write, "YOU and YOU alone injected race."
So, 1. you're denying anyone the right of making any comment without being smeared with the "racist" label—that's called "Demagoguery"; and, 2. you look the objective facts about the story trail in the face and say, "I don't see anything."—that's another "d-word"—Disingenuous. And, 3. you simply ignore a black person denouncing Obama for "race card playing" for votes in South Carolina months before his henchman started accusing Bill Clinton of the same thing.—that's called Denial.
Tell us why we should vote FOR Obama again other than the fact that he's not Hillary?
Posted by: Larousse | Feb 11, 2008 1:27:18 PM
Just to set the record straight, the reference to the four pre-caucus polls in Maine is worthless. If you actually follow the link you'll see that the most recent one of those four was done in October of 2007.
BTW, I'm an Obama supporter, but I like the coverage of the race to be accurate. His win in Maine is big enough news without the misleading reference to out-of-date polls.
And FWIW, Andy wasn't the one who brought up the polls - he just included the information.
Posted by: Seattle | Feb 11, 2008 1:41:19 PM
So Hillary appoints a campaign manager that's just as secretive and deceptive as she and her husband, and who has a history of 'deny, deny, deny' until it goes away...surprise, surprise.
I'm not sold on Obama, but I will be voting for him in my state's primary as a vote against Hillary. I don't think I could bring myself to vote for John McCain in a general election, but this country cannot afford 4-8 more years of the Clintons.
Posted by: Another Matt | Feb 11, 2008 1:55:42 PM
Larousse you are racist bigot. Go Obama!
Posted by: Javier | Feb 11, 2008 1:56:00 PM
McCain against Obama, McCain must be laughing he will be up against a man whos a good preacher but really dosent know that much about politics. McCain would not relish to be against Clinton, old age against brains, and she is no ones puppet like Obama. Sadly the young generation will learn by their mistakes,´but America really need a stable person. Clinto is respected world wide, lets hope America can show the world some respect, after all the lies we have had to hear about Iraq. It was so sad to see 2 different innocent Europeans kidnapped from their countries and brutaly tortured by the CIA, one was raped and had his manhood cut many times, the backlash to America will come from Europe for the lies and deciet, go a head vote Obama, and give the world more reason to distance itself from you. Instead of working with the world you dont vote in a world wide respected lady, Obama, no one will give a fuck about.
Posted by: jinglebells | Feb 11, 2008 1:58:04 PM
larrouse
I am sorry that I didn't realize that
Iowa, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Alaska,Utah,Washington, Minnesota,Maine, and Missouri are 80% african american population states
LOL
Imagine the egg on my face thinking that those 93-97% white population states that went for obama are in fact predominantly African American and only 3-7% white.
Who knew Iowa, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Alaska,Utah,Washington, Maine, Minnesota, and Missouri were African American meccas.
DUDE! those are some of the whitest of the white states in america and yet Obama beat Hillary in MANY of them by double digits. White bread Maine gave Obama a 20% victory spread.
Crazy I am, but you larrouse are a delusional racist.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 11, 2008 2:05:42 PM
The Clintons cleaned up the mess Bush sr left, and they gave America money in their pockets, how quick you have all forgotten that. You could have voted for Al Gore and instead you voted for a stupid little cunt by the name of Bush. Let Clinton clean up again and put some money in your pockets again. Cant you guys figure that out. Operah is pulling Obama's strings, and Obama's wife showed how you to can be a stupid idiot with her running down on Clinton. Theres no dirt on Clinton, she has been vetted and double vetted, Yet CNN wont mention anything about Obama's partner who is being investigated why is that. IF a news channel decieves people like CNN has decieved America, theres only one thing to do, listen to your own intuition, either that or you might know someone at CNN, show them how you feel.
Posted by: jinglebells | Feb 11, 2008 2:08:19 PM
Junior, I'm neither cynical nor bitter, on the contrary, I think things are going our way. And that way is away from, out of, over and through the Democratic Party.
Cynical describes the Democrats who stabbed the antiwar movement in the back. Your Party was elected to end the war but supports Bush at every turn, funding and sustaining the genocidal fury of the bipartisan oil piracy that’s killed over a million Iraqis and killed or mauled thousands of GI’s.
Cynical describes the Democrats who stabbed working people in the back. They ALWAYS vote with Republicans to give tax breaks to the rich and pulled the safety net of unemployment insurance, health coverage and welfare benefits from working people. Their support of those polices along with union busting, the export of union jobs and NAFTA have sabotaged our standard of lining.
Cynical describes the Democrats who stabbed immigrant and imported workers in the back. The Democrats back NAFTA 100%. When people fled the devastation it caused to the economies of Mexico and Central America Democrats refused to support welcoming them and insuring that they’re treated equably and turned a cold shoulder to their plight.
Cynical describes the Democrats who stabbed us in the back when they gutted ENDA, dropped the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill and pigheadedly refuse to repeal DOMA and DADT. Barney Frank openly despises transgendered and transsexual people.
As Matt Foreman just said “Is our movement going to be once again seduced by lofty words, invitations to fancy cocktail parties and government appointments, or are we going to insist on tangible deliverables? Are we going to be satisfied with a few crumbs, or demand more?”
If you’re one of those willing to give them another chance, Junior, I think that’s suicidal. In any case wear body armor and watch your back. And don’t blame anyone but yourself if you get betrayed again – the odds are that you will.
The rest of us will sit out the elections, vote for any leftwing party on the ballot or, as we can in Nevada, for ‘none of the above’. And after the election as the Democrats shatter because of their unending betrayals, just as the Republicans are now doing, we’ll welcome the refugees with open arms and build organizations and a party that won’t betray us.
Posted by: Bill Perdue, RainbowRED | Feb 11, 2008 2:10:40 PM
PS
I guess I need to tell my mixed race nephews and neices to go live in Alaska.
Who knew that predominantly white wilderness freaks and white blue collar oil company workers were in fact all black.
Obviously since obama won alaska = all alaskans are college educated effite intelectuals from those Ivy league Alaskan universities and African American on top of that.
LOL
You are making me look sane. Thanks
:-)
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 11, 2008 2:13:21 PM
Glad to see Survey USA's polls of VA and MD are still looking good for Sen. Obama -- leading by 22% and 23% respectively (Survey USA is the pollster that flawlessly called the FL/CA races -- best accuracy record this election). Adding in D.C. and the "Democrats Abroad" race, there are 249 delegates up for grabs Tuesday that will widen Obama's pledged delegate lead beyond his current lead of approx. 71 to over 100 (possibly to around 120 if he gets 60% of the delegates Tues.).
Even if the results for Obama in TX/OH/PA are the same as his loss in California (roughly a 56/44% delegate split), that would still only net Clinton about 66 delegates -- not enough to take a pledged delegate lead. Plus, the schedule post-PA is pretty good for Obama, with him likely to do very well in RI, VT, NC, WY, MS, NC, OR, MT, SD -- 360 delegates in those states, that will probably net Obama another +65 to +70 delegates.
While everyone discusses which victories mean more than others, I'm just pleased that not only does Obama have the most pledged delegates, but he also is leading the popular vote by more than 200,000 (a number that will grow by quite a bit tomorrow).
I enjoyed this DailyKos article that pokes fun at the arguments team Hillary makes to discount every state Obama won, while ignoring the equally silly flip side of the coin.
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/11/121758/950/294/454307
I've read a good column or two that explains how there's no monolithic Latino vote, seeing as Obama got nearly the same % as Clinton in NM. In large part the articles argued that more recent immigrants tend to favor the Clintons (those who immigrated in the 90s when the Clintons were in office), while for those who have been in the country much longer, there's less disparity between Obama/Clinton, similar to white voters. Glad to see Rep. Charlie Gonzalez of TX just endorsed Obama -- a big Latino endorsement that was up for grabs down there, to go along with endorsements from every major TX newspaper so far (Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso).
Posted by: Chris | Feb 11, 2008 5:06:03 PM
Jimmyboyo, what are "effite intelectuals"?
Posted by: jmg | Feb 11, 2008 8:48:50 PM
For anyone…Dem, Rep or Indie…Who contrary to NATIONALLY TELEVISED DEBATES, WEBSITE INFO (INCLUDING THE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE SENATE RECORDS), AND PRINT NEWS, Sen. Barack Obama has been just as detailed as Sen. Hillary Clinton.
In fact, Sen. Obama has MORE experience as an elected public servant than Sen. Clinton. Sure, she has more experience being in Washington, but is that necessarily a good thing? I wish people would be more objective about all of this. And stop letting the media influence who you vote for (it’s even more ridiculous to vote AGAINST someone). Look at the facts, stop being lazy and depending on other people to research things for you, stop regurgitating campaign stump rhetoric and THINK!!!!!!
This is probably the most important election since the FDR days and we cannot BLOW IT OFF AS “POLITICS AS USUAL”! For those of you willing to sit this one out no matter who the nominees are, think for a second: When whatever happens, you will essentially given up your power as an American Citizen and will have NO VOICE in the next 4yrs. Choose somebody! Even if they aren’t on the ballot!
What we need is for someone to UNITE this country. We need someone who doesn’t just see themselves or their fellow citizens as a color, gender, southerner, northerner, rich, poor, blue-collar, white-collar….it goes ON AND ON! “Ready On Day One”, “Right On Day One”…both are important.
For the Dems, the fact is that there is very little that the two candidates differ on. What we should start looking at are the intangibles. Who actually has the broadest base and biggest coalition to win a general election? Who gives the opposition less ammunition to use against them? Who is the most likely to garner the bi-partisan support needed to actually ACHIEVE the goals set forth in there campaign platform once elected? Who can inspire and enlist the American People in there efforts to bring about A POSITIVE CHANGE IN HOW OTHER NATION SEE US AS WELL AS HOW WE SEE OURSELVES? These are all equally important whose answers can’t be reached just by mulling through policy specifics.
For the Reps, well, look at the last seven years…Seriously, who is in a better position to bring about a reform of how we do things in American politics. Who is truly better for this country? Not just for a specific tax bracket, but the country as a whole. Surely this great nation IS NOT GREAT BECAUSE 90% OF IT’S WEALTH IS CONCENTRATED WITHIN 10% OF IT’S POPULATION? Surely it isn’t efficient that the wealthiest Americans pay less in tax percentage than everyone else? Surely it isn’t to our benefit that the middle class is slowly disappearing and our workforce is rapidly shrinking due to the shipping out of jobs by greedy corporate giants (not referring to the nice one’s :-))? This country DOES NEED A HUGE CHANGE…WHO IS BEST EQUIPPED OVERALL TO BRING THAT ABOUT?
For the Indies, If you are truly tired of the bitter partisanship that has plagued and stifled our growth as a nation since God knows when, WHO IS BEST EQUIPPED TO BRIDGE THE DIVIDE AND INSPIRE ALL AMERICANS TO REACH FOR WHAT IS GREAT ABOUT THIS COUNTRY AND STOP SETTLING FOR “THE LESSER EVIL”!
We all have a part in the Greatness of this country…let’s not abandon it when THE WORLD NEEDS IT MOST!!!!
Posted by: K of TX | Feb 12, 2008 2:50:37 AM
This should be heard:
Hillary Was AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964
While a Republican and ‘Goldwater Girl’
I know and appreciate that Barack Obama has taken the high road, but as a black man it is important to me that we all know the TRUTH about Hillary. Read This…..THEN SPREAD THE WORD !!!!
A March 12, 2007 article written by acclaimed Washington columnist Robert Novak sheds a very revealing light on the true sentiment of Hillary Clinton during the peak of the Civil Rights Movement. Clinton recently was found to have minimized the great and monumental strides taken by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by stating that it was Lyndon B. Johnson, then president, who should receive the credit for the civil rights progress including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In an attempt to attract black support Hillary Clinton regularly shares her ‘civil rights experience’ during every speech given to black audiences. Novak writes of one such speech at Selma’s First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the ‘bloody Sunday’ freedom march there, where Sen. Clinton declared: ‘As a young woman, I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963. My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January night to hear [King]. . . . And he called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the civil rights pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union.’ But Novak’s article states that there’s a big problem with her statement.
The fact is, in 1963, not only was Hillary Clinton a republican, but she was also a staunch supporter of republican Senator Barry Goldwater, well known as a segregationist and one of the most vocal senators adamently against the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is why he lost in his presidential bid to Lyndon B. Johnson. Novak writes ‘…how then could she be a ‘Goldwater Girl’ in the next year’s presidential election?’ He continues, ‘…she described herself in her memoirs as ‘an active Young Republican’ and ‘a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit.’
Novak adds, ‘As a politically attuned honor stu dent, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined Southern Democratic segregationists opposing the historic voting rights act of 1964 inspired by King. Hillary headed the Young Republicans at Wellesley College. The incompatibility of those two positions of 40 years ago was noted to me (Novak) by Democratic old-timers who were shocked by Sen. Clinton’s temerity in pursuing her presidential candidacy.’ Novak adds, ‘What Hillary Clinton said at Selma is significant because it betrays her campaign’s panicky reaction to the unexpected rise of Sen. Obama as a serious competitor for the Democr a tic nomination.
Clinton’s plans were transformed by the advent of Obama, an African-American threatening the hard allegiance of black voters forged by Bill Clinton. On one hand, the Clinton campaign has attacked Obama and his supporters. On the other hand, she has sought to solidify her civil rights credentials.
While Clinton was re-inventing her past, her road to the White House is not going as planned. Instead of a steady procession to coronation at the Denver convention, she is involved in a real struggle against credible o pponents led by Obama. No wonder she and her handlers were tempted to imply the existence long ago of a young lady in Chicago’s suburbs who never really existed.’
We greatly appreciate Mr. Novak’s findings which bring one main thought to mind. Wake up Black America! DON’T BE FOOLED ! The fact is, despite her falsehoods, Hillary was AGAINST the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that Dr. Martin Luther King died for. As a ‘Goldwater Girl’ she was actually even against Lyndon B. Johnson, the very person she now gives the credit to for Dr. King getting to the mountaintop. She has worked extremely hard to hide many truths about her past, including ordering that her 92 page college thesis that she wrote at Wellesley College be ’sealed’ and unavailable to the public, an order forced upon the college by Bill Clinton while president, although all senior thesis’ at Wellesley have been available for public reading for over 100 years, except one….Hillary Rodham Clinton’s.
Posted by: K of TX | Feb 12, 2008 6:02:05 AM