05/14/2008
Race Rears its Head as Clinton Takes West Virginia as Predicted
Hillary Clinton won the West Virginia primary with 67 percent of the vote to Obama's 26%, but the primary changed little in terms of the delegate count. What it did reveal was a vote along racial lines:
"The number of white Democratic voters who said race had influenced their choices on Tuesday was among the highest recorded in voter surveys in the nomination fight. Two in 10 white West Virginia voters said race was an important factor in their votes. More than 8 in 10 who said it factored in their votes backed Mrs. Clinton, according to exit polls. With Mr. Obama solidly ahead of Mrs. Clinton in the delegate fight, the West Virginia results are unlikely to hurt Mr. Obama’s chances of winning the nomination. A strong Clinton victory in another general election battleground state like her victories in Ohio and Pennsylvania could raise fresh questions about Mr. Obama’s ability to carry swing states in a contest against Senator John McCain."
Obama, who spent the day in Missouri, dismissed talk of division within the party: "There is a lot of talk these days about how the Democratic Party is divided. But I’m not worried, because I know that we’ll be able to come together quickly behind a common purpose. There’s too much that unites us as Democrats. There’s too much at stake for our country."
Clinton's speech Tuesday night:
AFTER THE JUMP, Terry McAuliffe beats Chris Matthews over the head with "It's not over."
Posted 8:16 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:
Uh, race has reared its head in every single contest because Obama wins 90 percent of the black vote while the other demographics are much more closely split. Is it also wrong then that many black voters are clearly making a choice based on race, not issues?
Posted by: Chris | May 14, 2008 9:36:33 AM
Ditto, Chris.
Posted by: Mattia | May 14, 2008 9:39:30 AM
Oh, I don't know, I'm going out on a limb here... isn't it possible that black voters think that a black candidate represents their views best? Don't most gay voters think that a gay candidate represents them best?
Don't confuse that with racism. Racism is when you exclude someone for no other reason but their race. Like many voters in West Virginia did. And a couple of commenters who post here regularly.
Posted by: crispy | May 14, 2008 9:51:19 AM
CHRIS,
you beat me to that point. andy seems inclined to make it ever harder to comment on this site.
i am too lazy to paraphrase, so i will just cut and paste from my earlier comment on the MoveOn thread:
hillary keeps trouncing obama in heavily white, working-class swing states, and obama handily beats her in heavily black states. there is a huge elephant in our living room, and it is not the repug one. why is it that blacks go 92% for obama and whites 65% for hillary? why did hillary beat obama by 30+ points in w.va.?
we need to resolve this issue, because the reality is that hillary cannot win the presidency without the black vote, and obama cannot win w/o the working-class white and latino vote. we need to serious up.
this is the best chance in 14 years for the dems to take the white house and strong control of both chambers of congress. we cannot squander the opportunity. if we do, it will be to the detriment of the whole country. it helps very little to simplistically say, as andy does, that race rears it's head and apply it only to hillary. after all, she has been getting only 8% of the black vote.
Posted by: nic | May 14, 2008 9:51:19 AM
Senator Clinton will help Barack win "her people" in the general election--not all them, but maybe enough-- enough combined with his appeal to Independents...well, the impossible may be possible in 2008.
CHRIS & MATTIA, Black Americans have voted for White Liberal Democrats in higher numbers than 92% in the past. We have nothing to prove about being color blind in local, statewide and national elections (or American Idol either). Just 80 years ago, those of us who could vote, voted Republican 90%.
We've proven we can vote for white folks since 1867. Now, it's your turn to return the favor.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | May 14, 2008 10:07:35 AM
maybe, CRISPY. but 92%? i don't think so.
Posted by: nic | May 14, 2008 10:08:07 AM
I can guarantee you that more than 92% of the gay vote would go to a gay candidate.
Posted by: crispy | May 14, 2008 10:15:47 AM
NIC
Just like the other thread.....
The only logical conclusion from what you are saying is a joint ticket.
BUT since when did logic and politics go hand in hand?
:-(
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 14, 2008 10:18:20 AM
She seems to be running for 2012 now.
I should think that if she won the nomination she would get the black vote in the general election, the problem is that Obama may not get the white vote.
Posted by: anon | May 14, 2008 10:34:45 AM
Anyone who is equating white people voting AGAINST a biracial man chiefly because of his race with a black person feeling drawn to vote FOR a super-rare black candidate at the top of the ticket is objecting from a place that is at best an oppressive "team" mentality and at worst a (probably unconsciously) racist place.
I think it's disgusting that anyone could resent a black person for voting for Obama considering the lack of black candidates at all levels throughout the history of our country. If black candidates were as commonly seen as black people are, the same ratio of 11 or 12% or whatever it is, voting patterns might be different. In fact, judging from polls, most black Democrats were initially ready to stay loyal to the Clintons, since they didn't see Obama as a PRACTICAL choice. Once Iowa showed them that white people might be past the racial divide, blacks moved toward Obama in larger numbers.
There is no legit comparison between that and the ignorant hicks who represent minimally 20% of the West Virginia DEMOCRATIC (!) voters who admitted in exit polls that race played a major factor in their voting.
Derrick is right. The fact that he even has to spell that out should be embarrassing. If it's not, investigate Ron Paul because I don't see how anyone can consider him- or herself to be a Democrat while resenting black people for having a viable biracial candidate that excites them at the top of the ticket once every 232 years.
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | May 14, 2008 10:46:10 AM
Okay for starters, referring to West Virginians as ignorant hicks does you no favors in the fall. WV has a LONG history of voting Democratic in Presidential Elections. They voted for Clinton twice and even Michael Dukakis for the love of god. It wasn't until the Democrats abandoned the winning strategy of putting candidates up who knew how to talk to the blue collared workers in this country that WV became a red/semi red state.
While I have no doubt plenty of whites have voted against Obama because he is black in every single primary, his race has certainly helped him far more than hurt him in this process. Just like her gender has certainly helped her carry the female vote, well white female vote.
I think its hilarious that black people are allowed to vote for black people because they feel they best represent them but when white people do it, it's racist. There are plenty of reasons why Obama scares some white people and race is only part of it. 50% of those who voted in WV thought that he shared Reverend Wright's views. So it's not surprising that race was a factor there since Wright's sermons we've all heard argue that our government run by white men is evil. Finally Reverend Wright's influence shows and if you think it's going away before November, you're crazy.
She didn't just beat him, she TROUNCED him in WV.
Posted by: Jeanluc | May 14, 2008 11:01:41 AM
I guess this isn't an example of anti-Obama racism either:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051203014_pf.html
Can those of you who are claiming that black Obama supporters are being just as racist as white Clinton supporters give us an example of black people acting this way to Hillary campaigners?
Posted by: Wade | May 14, 2008 11:03:20 AM
I love this site, but I certainly don't come here for fair political coverage of this primary.
And that's fine. It's a blog. And in case you haven't noticed, it's been heavily pro-Obama for quite a while now.
Posted by: David | May 14, 2008 11:06:47 AM
you may not be reckoning the log cabinettes and the hrc. either way, you cannot guarantee anything of the sort.
my larger point pertains to the negative influence of facile, off-the-cuff comments like the one andy made. i like andy, and i like you. however, if we subscribe to the idea that "words mean something," then we must hold each other to account.
JIMMYBOYO,
sometimes logic trumps sentiment. obama will win, of course. but he will win with less than one million of 33+ million votes. i don't see an obama presidency w/o some major concessions to the clintons. while i would have preffered clinton/obama (he is a young man), i would be happy with obama/clinton. something needs to be worked out.
MATTHEW RETTENMUND,
i resent your implication and reject it outright.
Posted by: nic | May 14, 2008 11:12:54 AM
It infuriates me how Derrick posts "factoids" he pulls out of his own head and tries to pass them off as "facts," consistently and on a nearly daily basis. Here are some real facts regarding the black vote: 1984-Walter Mondale 90%; 1988 Michael Dukakis 90%; 1992 & 1996 Bill Clinton 83% and 84%, respectively; 2000 Al Gore 90. (Source: Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies; CNN).
For all the hype the black community made about Clinton being the "first black president," blacks voted for him in fewer numbers than any other Democrat in the past 28 years. And they have not exceeded 90% for ANY white candidate, ever.
The only reason blacks voted Republican in the 1800s is because Lincoln was the first Republican. As soon as social welfare became a platform of the Democratic Party, all loyalty to the Republicans vanished. (This is pretty typical for the black community.)
Pfft.
Posted by: abracadaver | May 14, 2008 11:17:42 AM
ok so blacks vote for Obama, Big deal~ MOVE OVER OBAMA...HILLARY CLINTON still makign her way through...DON'T COUNT HER OUT JUST BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN!~
Posted by: Bosie | May 14, 2008 11:26:17 AM
Thank you Derrick, Crispy and Matthew R.
Jean Luc, if 50% of white West Virginians would sway their vote based on media-manipulated looped clips, then honey I think labeling them "ignorant hicks" is quite appropriate, if not lenient.
I bet if grilled, they wouldn't be able to come up with a single quote that wasn't from media spin. And questioned hard enough, the truth would come out that they are not voting for Obama because of his race or media-induced fear or both.
And as for Hillary, she continues her shameful race baiting, even in her dying moments. She is sucking any chance of unity right out of the party by playing on base fears. NY Times article about it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10herbert.html?scp=2&sq=seeds&st=nyt
Posted by: soulbrotha | May 14, 2008 11:34:22 AM
Anon and others, how will Clinton get the Black vote. Do you think people have ignored the race baiting that she has done. Or the fact that if she is GIVEN the nomination that it will be going against the will of the people and how people actually voted?
There is no guarantee that Clinton could get Obama's voter, just as there is no guarantee that Obama could get hers. And please let's be honest, obviously Obama is getting more than just Black voters, if this wasn't the case, his numbers wouldn't be what they are. And if Clinton is nominated, despite most of the metrics not being in her favor, there is a good possibility that Black, young, independent, and upset Republicans will not support her.
One more note, the high turnout this season can be attributed to Obama. The Dems may not win the White House in November, but they can assure themselves of winning a controlling interest in congress if Obama is the nominee. Hillary's coattails aren't that long, and in fact, with the way she's been acting, the Dems could actually lose seats if she's the nominee.
Posted by: Cadence | May 14, 2008 11:35:00 AM
Rettenmund: Brava! Right on the money.
Abracadaver: Okay, so, by your own figures, blacks have repeatedly given white Democrats 90% of their vote. If Obama is getting 92% of their vote, I guess we might reasonably suggest that 2% of black voters in this cycle are motivated by either black pride or anti-white racism. Would that be offensive to you? What percentage of white voters in WV do you think voted for Clinton simply because she wasn't "the colored guy?" I'd guess it's considerably higher than 2%.
So your point would be?
Posted by: 24play | May 14, 2008 11:35:49 AM
CRISPY,
the first part of my last comment was to you. you're a smart guy and DERRICK is a wise man. i am a realist and a pragmatist. i hope that by now DERRICK and JIMMYBOYO know that i do not have a racist bone to pick. right now, obama or hillary are a means to an end. that may seem cold-hearted, but if either or both get in, our futures are somewhat safe. if mcgeezer gets elected, he will appoint more scalias and more thomases.
let's not fight one another.
Posted by: nic | May 14, 2008 11:35:56 AM
ABRACADAVER: if you're going to accuse Derrick from pulling out factoids, you should also REFRAIN from doing it. Black people did not vote for Lincoln simply because he was the first Republican. Republican politicians during reconstruction promoted policies to enfranchise African Americans. Are you aware of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments? They, respectively, abolished slavery, granted equal protection, and guaranteed the right to vote.
Given the fact that there was a war "over" slavery, it is unlikely that a Democratic congress at this time would have EVER passed these amendments so that they could be voted on by the states.
Additionally, the Republican congress passed many other measures during periods historians refer to as reconstruction and radical reconstruction.
With a Republican Congress ensuring voting rights for African-Americans, African-Americans were elected to state legislatures and even to the House and Senate.
Blacks voting Republican had little do with Lincoln. It had everything to do with them voting their interests.
In the same vein, African Americans started becoming Democrats in the Northeast part of the country when white Democrats started providing patronage. That's NOT social welfare. It's white politicians realizing that blacks were voters and that those votes could be used to win elections.
There's no credible historian or political scientist that attributes the shift of African Americans to the Democratic party solely as the result of "social" welfare. However, if by social welfare, you are referring to the New Deal and FDR's policies, you should remember that the support systems suggested by FDR were popular with ALL Americans and helped FDR to be elected president 4 times.
I'm not going to inquire or comment on your motivations for reaching ahistorical conclusions. However, I would ask that you not attempt to pass off these conclusions as part of legitimate discourse.
Posted by: Brandon | May 14, 2008 11:48:08 AM
media manipulated?
Um, I've seen the comments and the YouTube videos. Who cares if the media showed them to these people? Are you defending what he has said in his sermons?
Because if so, then I'd say you're the ignorant one.
Posted by: Jeanluc | May 14, 2008 11:52:59 AM
SOULBROTHA, CADENCE (lesbian, right? not that there's anything wrong with that.) and 24PLAY:
doesn't your self-righteous indignation become too heavy a cross to bear, once in a while?
Posted by: nic | May 14, 2008 11:54:49 AM
ABRACADER: Are you really chastising me about a few percentage points? And remember, I wasn't just talking about national elections.
"Factoids"? Humph! Well, the last sentence of your comment was a viciously, racially hateful "factoid"(I don't use the term "racist" anymore--it doesn't have any punch). Black folks started voting Democrat for the same reason Jews, many white ethnic immigrants & GAYS began voting Democrat: progressive social/economic policies that started under Franklin D. Roosevelt the Great (maybe initially thought of under Woodrow Wilson, the Johnnie Reb).
And ABRACADAVER, the Democrats' emphasis on "social welfare" wasn't the only reason blacks left the Republican Party. Brave Lyndon Johnson's stand on Civil Rights, and Dirty Richard Nixon's "southern strategy" were the final straw. The Republicans decided, "we don't need y'all blacks anymore, we'll embrace southern whites instead." Well, it worked for 40 years...maybe it's about to change with Beautiful Barack.
"...infuriates me how Derrick...."
Infuriate is such a strong word--all you have to do is come on the blog and make the MINOR corrections.
Oh, child, don't let me infuriate you like that...gracious.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | May 14, 2008 11:56:58 AM
24PLAY: My point was that I'm tired of Derrick's positing of factoids. I decided to provide some actual research to make the point. I am not offended by the voting trends of blacks; I'm offended by a specific person's intellectual dishonesty and their penchant for making up "stats" to back up their opinion(s).
BRANDON: Its called verbosity; look it up. Believe it or not, its possible to make a point AND be brief, all the while coming off as "intellectual" as your pomposity seems to suggest you need to appear to others. P.S. The Voting Rights Act wasn't passed until 1968, under a Democratic president & Congress.
Posted by: abracadaver | May 14, 2008 11:59:56 AM
Nic,
Consistently being right is actually not that heavy a burden. Sadly, you'll just have to take my word on that.
Posted by: 24play | May 14, 2008 12:15:06 PM
Thanks, BRANDON & 24PLAY,
this guy don't like me.
ABRACADER, you're being unfair, and pulling wabbits out of hats. I rarely use "stats" to post on this blog--I don't know any damn stats. I certainly wasn't serious about "92%", so don't ever take me seriously if I mention a fucking stat. Other anti-Barack (or anti-black) posters used that figure and so I "played on it"-- I don't give a goddamn if Dukakis got 90% or 80% of the goddamn black vote, he lost and so did America.
"Intellectually dishonest"?
I only have a BA, honey...never called myself an "intellectual". I do love Jewish intellectuals though.
All those stastistics from past presidiential eleections? You actually went and Gooogled all that shit?
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | May 14, 2008 12:19:14 PM
abracadaver: um, black people didn't vote for lincoln. he was assassinated in 1865 and the 15th amendment wasn't passed until 1867.
Posted by: psgoodguy | May 14, 2008 12:27:46 PM
Race has reared its ugly head in this contest from the beginning- as has gender. Don't fool yourselves. There is the audacity of hope- and there is reality. I was in Morgantown West Virginia the week before the primary on business. The strippers and drag queens and patrons in the Vice Versa bar tell the story of what it is like to be disenfranchised. They don't want hope, they want the .30 cents they'll save from the pandering gas tax holiday. They don't want accessible health care- they need universal health care. These are the people left behind by Barack Obama.
The questions for all Democrats now, is: Who's supporters will harbor the most resentment come November? The poorer, rural, less educated, older voters that support Hillary Clinton? or the more wealthy, urban, educated, young voters who support Barack Obama?
This election IS about all that divides us- and no amount of talk about change will effect that.
Posted by: dc8stretch | May 14, 2008 12:35:55 PM
CALM DOWN EVERYBODY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! who is a dem (there are concern trolls log cabinites trying to stir up dem against dem)
We are all on the same team.
The only real question now is if Hillary will be VP or a Hillary supporter like GEN Wes Clark or the like will be VP.
A Joint ticket of some sort is called for like NIC says. Though I am not sure Hillary would take VP but she might allow one of her own to fill it.
The white black thing is BS
Take out 6% of operation chaos limbaugh nuts
The rest on both sides will support the other candidate. Yes there will be hurt feelings BUT decades of whites only republicanism isn't going to see the african american community abandon the dems. Yes people will hold their nose when voting but Hillary's white voters will not flock to gays in the closet, abortions by coat hangers, etc republicanism
The irony about WV is that WV split from virginia because of the slavery issue.
WV was populated mostly by scotsmen who were anti slavery (big plantations not being practical for rocky mountainous areas might have been the reason) and split from virginia to join the UNIONISTS when Virginia went with the south
Personaly I think Hillary's appeal there has less to do with race and more to do with her ability to toss back a drink and APPEAR middle to lower class where as Obama comes off with a bit of the colege profesor thing no matter how many bowling games he plays or beers he drinks.
WV is very indipendent and over 70% do not have a college education.
Wether you like Hillary or not. Wether you think she does have a bit of the average person in her or she is totaly a great actress......she was able to convince WV DEMS that she was less of a profesor type than Obama.
The whole polling on if people will vote for the other candidate is total and utter 100% BS. Mccains supporters all said they would not vote bush in 2000 but they did.
Hillary has said quite a few times now that she will 100% support and campaign for Obama when all is said and done. the question is from the VP spot or some other position.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 14, 2008 12:52:31 PM
24PLAY,
the delusion of one always being right leads to stultification. sad, but true.
Posted by: nic | May 14, 2008 12:54:42 PM
PSGG: Learn to read, or at least increase your reading comprehension. Nowhere do I say that blacks voted for Lincoln.
Posted by: abracadaver | May 14, 2008 1:03:34 PM
Derrick, Good for you; please keep fighting the good fight. I have grown weary of talking past those who choose to wallow in ignorance. They do not want to be confused by a fact-based discussion. Their minds are made up and closed. Fortunately, their numbers are ever dwindling.
More importantly, the contrast between Obama and McCain could not be more stark. For the first time in many elections there is a viable candidate who offers a real choice against the status quo, antebellum.
Keep the faith shared by those of us working to defeat the intellectually and politically lazy--who offer little more than the same policies that have proven ineffective, at a minimum, and, beyond peradventure, disastrous for our community. Some do not want to help themselves but let us not abandon our efforts to improve all of our lives.
Posted by: rudy | May 14, 2008 1:03:52 PM
And the inability to take a joke? Where does that lead?
Posted by: 24play | May 14, 2008 1:07:21 PM
I AM A BLACK GAY HILLARY CLINTON DELEGATE. WHEN I TELL BLACK PEOPLE I'M FOR HILLARY I GET CALLED A "RACE TRAITOR". I ALSO GET ASKED "HOW CAN YOU NOT VOTE FOR THE BROTHER?!". GAY BLACKS HAVE ASKED ME IF "YOU DATE WHITE GUYS, HUH?"(BWT, I'M SINGLE AND WILL DATE ANYONE WHO ASKS ME OUT! WELL, OK, I DO HAVE STANDARDS, BUT, CURRENTLY I'M SETTING THE BAR PRETTY LOW, IT'S BEEN DROUGHT SEASON. BUT I DIGRESS.)
WHEN I ANNOUNCED AT OUR CAUCUS THAT I WAS GAY THE HILLARY PEOPLE IMMEDIATELY LAUNCHED INTO A VERY APPROVING PRO GAY STANCE. THE OBAMA PEOPLE PEOPLE ASKED ME WHY I HAD MADE "THAT CHOICE?". THEY THEN OFFERED TO PRAY FOR ME.
IT CANNOT BE THAT EVERY WHITE WHO'S AGAINST OBAMA IS A RACIST. IF IT IS THEN EVERY OF THE 92% OF BLACKS WHO VOTES FOR HIM IS WHAT?
ASK TAVIS SMILEY IF BLACKS HAVE LOST THEIR MINDS OVER OBAMA. HE IS ONE OF THE MOST PRO BLACK MEDIA TYPES OUT THERE. WHEN HE QUESTIONED OBAMAS LACK OF POLICY INITIATIVES ON BEHALF OF BLACK PEOPLE HE LOST HIS GIG ON THE TOM JOYNER SHOW.
BTW, OTHER THAN WHEN IT WAS POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT, WHEN HAS OBAMA SHOWN ANY INITIATIVE ON BEHALF OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY? AND WHY IS THAT AT HIS MULTI-THOUSANDS ATTENDING EVENTS YOU NEVER SEE A LOT OF BLACK PEOPLE BEHIND HIM? SURELY A FEW OF US MUST HAVE MADE IT TO THE CONVENTION CENTER? HE DOES SEEM TO FIND ROOM FOR A&F WANNABES, HOWEVER.
I THINK OBAMA IS A FRAUD AND A PUPPET OF THE KENNEDY WING OF THE PARTY. THE WING THAT SAYS THE SUPERDELEGATES MUST REFLECT THE WILL OF THE VOTERS BUT YET THE VOTERS IN MA AND CA AND MANY OTHER PLACES CHOSE HRC. SHOULDN'T MR. KENNEDY AND THE LOSER KERRY BE SUPPORTING HILLARY?
JUST ASKING.
Posted by: dw314 | May 14, 2008 1:07:32 PM
"...our efforts to improve all of our lives."
So true, Rudy. If we ALL could let that be our concern for this fall election we might not make the mistakes we've made in past presidential elections. Not electing Gore and Kerry were mistakes, and this country is paying for those mistakes now.
I'm still laughing about being accused of using "stats". ABRACADAVER: You mean when I used the stat that 56% of gay men have penises that are 110% larger than heterosexuals who are 26% on the "down low". Hell, I was speaking the truth on them stats.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | May 14, 2008 1:16:54 PM
Great post, DW314. Please continue to speak to truth. Its so rare anymore.
Posted by: abracadaver | May 14, 2008 1:23:37 PM
JIMMYBOYO,
i love you and your misspellings and bad grammar and whatnot. who woulda thunk that you would be the consistent voice of reason in this turbulent debate?
you and i get the process. we can dispassionately weigh the pros and cons. i am a mexican boy going for the white girl, you are a white boy going for the black boy. so what? our goal is the same. this country craves strong, principled leadership. i am content that either and/or both will provide it.
Posted by: nic | May 14, 2008 1:23:53 PM
LOL
Derrick
My stat is better
I am 315% larger than all men where it counts.
:-)
That might be because great great grandad was what they called high yellow back in the day.
Anyway; at least 10% of posters everywhere, not just towleroad, are repubs concern trolls trying to stir up dem against dem because they know they are fucked 100% in 08.
The pertinent (spell check) question is "Will hillary accept VP or not?"
Lets take bets.
1 Will Hillary accept VP (why or why not...and Obama must at least offer in private so none of the he won't offer crap from overzelous Obama fans which I tend to be one)
2 If Hillary decides not to take VP, will she try for Senate majority leader (why or why not)
Discuss
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 14, 2008 1:29:42 PM
Not electing Gore or Kerry. Well for starters I would guess most of us on here voted for both of them. It wasn't us that didn't elect them, it was the middle class white women who thought they were pussies.
See results from Ohio and Florida.
Now I am not saying Obama can't win. McCain is a douche and should be easily beatable. But all this nonsense pointing to WV and calling people ignorant hicks and racists doesn't win you an election in November. It only serves to piss of the Clinton supporters who think Obama supporters are being unfair. And that doesn't help you win in November either. If Obama or you expected there to not be people who were hesitant or outrightly indignent about voting for a black guy, then you were fooling yourself from Day One.
The shortest road to the White House is through Ohio or Florida. Two states Obama lags in in most polling against McCain. He's got only a slight lead over McCain in Pennsylvania, the state where all this talk of racism began (even though statistically Hillary was winning the white working class ever since Super Tuesday). Taking a look at the Electoral College, I think most Hillary supporters see her as the easiest ticket to the White House. We understand you might not like her because bigots favored her over Obama, but frankly that isn't her fault and the last two elections should prove that even a few votes in your favor can make a HUGE difference.
Ignore the white working class at your own peril. Race bait, claim they are bigots and ignorant and backwards and the only thing you'll get is ignored on November 4th.
Posted by: Jeanluc | May 14, 2008 1:31:11 PM
ABRACADVER: I won't address your personal characterization of me or my comments. I will however address another error. There was a Voting Rights Act passed in 1968. However, the 15th Amendment ORIGINALLY addressed this issue and the Voting Rights of of 68 was largely designed to address (a) actions in Southern States to deprive blacks of the franchise AND (b) to address court decisions that narrowed the intended scope of the 15th Amendment. Save the personal attacks and check your facts.
Posted by: Brandon | May 14, 2008 1:31:42 PM
LOL
NIC
My infamous typos, gramatical mistakes, and spelling errors.
:-)
Yes, the process = politics = compromise. politics is always about compromise
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 14, 2008 1:33:19 PM
24PLAY,
to me? ha ha! good one.
Posted by: nic | May 14, 2008 1:34:18 PM
Jeanluc
Actualy Gore = repub screw over in FL (still some boxes of votes floating in FL swamp ) and the supreme court
Kerry = shenanigans in Ohio with the voting machines produced by a company ran by a bush supporter. NOWHERE ever have exit polls so been different from actual vote as they were in Ohio which would have given Kerry the victory. The irony is that Bush himself called for revotes in a foreign country soon after because the exit polls so differed from results.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 14, 2008 1:39:26 PM
Jimmyboyo,
I see you're still holding down the fort, and doing a damn good job of it, Mr. ;)
Nic!!
Holding your own, as usual, verdad? Asi mero!
Posted by: Silverskreen | May 14, 2008 1:45:04 PM
GO, Jeanluc. Now we're finally getting some real posters; not knee-jerk reactionaries who assume that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a "log cabinette" and thinks their c*ck size is of interest to anyone.
Posted by: abracadaver | May 14, 2008 1:48:52 PM
abracadavar
concern trolling and in need of an enema.
A true dem would be working to unite the party not divide. You also need to lighten up.
Jeanluc forgetting that the supreme court ruled against the WINNER Gore, and a bush supporter owned and ran the company in charge of Ohio voting machines as as never ever ever have exit polls so differed from the so called results.
Anyway; this is how it is going to be
Obama / Clinton 08
or
Obama / hand picked by Hillary VP person
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 14, 2008 1:55:36 PM
SILVERSKREEN,
it's weird! i wondered about your prolonged absence from here earlier, and lo and behold, you pop up. thank heaven for serendipity. como has estado, buey? (buey, in a good way.)
Posted by: nic | May 14, 2008 1:59:25 PM
Chris & Co.,
Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry all got 90+-percent of the African-American vote. Historically, African-Americans voted for white candidates. Period. There's this guy named Clarence Thomas, a black man, who was opposed by most African-Americans for his appointment to the Supreme Court. More Recently, Ken Blackwell, who is African-American, ran for the governor's office of Ohio got slaughtered in the election, he was thoroughly ignored by black Ohio voters who voted for Blackwell's white opponent.
Michael Bloomberg, the then Republican mayor (he's become an independent) also won a substantial number of African-American votes in New York.
Also, Obama won Iowa and other heavily white states.
Don't you think that Hillary's polarizing use of racist stereotyping hasn't been a huge turnoff? Hillary had 70-percent of the African-American vote prior to her deciding to use the Southern Strategy to win. That spoof on Saturday Night Live over the weekend wasn't created out of thin air.
When a supposed Democratic leader uses coded words like "hardworking Americans, white Americans" non-white Americans, in particular, are extremely insulted.
Remember, the whole thing about whether Obama is black enough for African-American voters? Well, Clinton's attacks on him based on race, with the intent of making Obama a "black candidate" worked into pissing off a lot of people, of all races.
You might want to read americablog.com, a progressive blog run John Aravois, a gay, white American, who is PISSED at Hillary's race-baiting. Then head over to any of the other major liberal blogs like TPMcafe.com, Dailykos.com, or the Huffingtonpost.com to read more anger over Hillary's attempts to destroy the Democratic Party.
Also, this whole meme about Obama not being able to win Latino votes is a joke. In Illinois, Obama has a lock on Latino votes. The myth that Latino- and African-Americans don't vote for each other is false. Elections in New York City, Texas, and California dispel this.
Moreover, what's always not spoken is that there a LOT of "black" Latinos, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Cubans, etc. The majority of the African slave trade sent Africans to Latin America, not the U.S. Latinos can be any "race." Cameron Diaz is a Latina just as Sammy Sosa is a Latino.
Making a big deal out of Obama's success with African-Americans and painting them as somehow racist is an insult to truth and history.
Posted by: blake | May 14, 2008 2:00:44 PM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/14/rendell-obama-should-ask-clinton-to-be-vp/
Gov Rendell of Ohio = huge Hillary supporter calling for Hillary to be VP
I am liking this scenario more and more.
8 succesful Obama years with hillary as VP and then she segways into 8 succesful years of her as president. 16 years of Dems = a new golden age in america? YES we can (Obama saying) Yes we will (Hillary saying)
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 14, 2008 2:11:51 PM
BLAKE: You are incorrect. No Democratic candidate in the last 28 years has received more than 90% of the black vote. Clinton never got more than 85%. You and Derrick should take a course in statistics, where you'll learn that research is the first step. See my post far above for my sources.
Posted by: abracadaver | May 14, 2008 2:22:52 PM
Blake - referring posters to DailyKos and Huffingtonpost isn't exactly inviting other perspectives about supposed "race baiting" by the Clintons. Each of the sites you mention has been in the bag for Obama either from the start or since Edwards dropped out.
I find it amazing that anyone who has followed Democratic politics (even in passing) could entertain the idea that HRC is out to "destroy the Democratic party"!? That sentiment is absolutely absurd.
I mean what planet are we on where one of the standard bearers of the party - a lightning rod of right wing vitriol for over a decade - is now the archenemy of HER OWN Democratic party!?
Its this polarizing, willing suspension of reality by Obama supporters that is having the effect of turning alot of moderate Democrats away from their candidate - or at the very least - making people take a second look at other options.
Im astounded that people think the Clintons have engaged in race baiting - as if race was only became an issue BECAUSE of some comment made by Bill Clinton. The sad fact is that race was an issue the minute an African American man announced his candidacy. Lest we forget, before Iowa the main stream media dialogue was "is he black enough?", a conversation raised from within the African American community.
My point here is that blaming HRC (and Bill) for the current demographic breakdowns among voters is 100% wrong.
Its as if BHO, for all his supposed unifying potential, hasn't been able to connect with the voters a Democrat needs to win in November simply because of HRC. That seems to sell him short, doesn't it?
Afterall, if he's such a dynamic, change-oriented candidate, isnt it fair to point out he's already failing to deliver on his own promises - among his own constituency!?
No I guess not. I guess its all those race baiting Clintons fault BHO can't connect with Democratic voters.
If only there wasn't a choice, then they'd see how great he is!
Posted by: Aeres | May 14, 2008 2:23:44 PM
JIMMYBOYO,
i think ABERCADAVER is referring to you and me. pay no never-mind. i AM interesed in how big your cock is. and i still think that "log cabinettes" is an apt term for souless sissies that vote through their LV purses.
"knee-jerk reactionaries" was a term used by the left against the right. there goes amother phrase co-opted by the indolent repugs.
Posted by: nic | May 14, 2008 2:26:28 PM
To those not worth calling by name who insist that others who hold opinions different than theirs are Republican, and that a true Democrat would unite the party: ever heard of Moderates and Independents? You know, the people who actually decide each election? Oh, no, wait, I forgot....all you fetus-murdering liberals live in a black/white, gay/straight, old/young, up/down etc etc ad nauseum kind of world. Myopic.
[ED NOTE: IP OF COMMENTER HAS BEEN BLOCKED. PLEASE TRY TO CARRY ON A CONSTRUCTIVE, CIVIL DISCUSSION]
Posted by: abracadaver | May 14, 2008 2:30:17 PM
OK, ABRACADER,
in the future we will replace a precise high percentage number with the phrase "a whole bunch of..." Bill Clinton got A WHOLE BUNCH of black votes, so can y'all give Barack Obama A WHOLE BUNCH of white votes...please.
Oh, by the way, the degree was in Theater(worthless...but that's my fault), so you know I don't stand a chance in a course on statistics...unless the course had to do with statistics on gay men's love for Broadway Shows over the last 90 years. I'd take that course, CADAVER.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | May 14, 2008 2:34:58 PM
Abracadaver
you just gave yourself away
"all you fetus-murdering liberals"
Never was a dem. Never Ever in your life I would bet. That right there was far right!!!!!!!!!!!!!! pat robertson repub
Ughhhhh save us from log cabinites who claim to be indies because they know the repub label is dead in the water this cycle
Anyway; so Pat Buchanan and some other repubs are saying Romney will be mcsame's VP.
Just picture Hillary Clinton tearing romney robot a new arse.
LOL
This morning I was leaning Hillary won't take VP slot, but now I pray she does!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Obama must offer it to her at least in private and i pray to whatever fairytale gods exist (atheist here) that she accepts it 100% so she can pumel Romney into the ground
Obama/ Clinton 08
bye bye repubs
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 14, 2008 2:44:42 PM
AERES,
i agree. not in so many words, but i agree. i am more than a little disgusted that the term "racism" is bandied: after awhile, it loses its intrinsic value. it should not be used to bludgeon people who are not racist.
Posted by: nic | May 14, 2008 2:48:37 PM
Well, I tried to have a civil conversation, but since that's not possible, here goes:
I used the term "fetus-murdering liberals" to show you what its like to have someone automatically assume what and you you are, politically, without knowing a g*da*n thing about you.
I think you should stick to collecting diverse amounts of genetic material with your colon.
Posted by: abracadaver | May 14, 2008 2:50:09 PM
I think that the Clinton camp was unfairly accused of using racism until she completely blew it with the "hardworking white Americans" comments. That was racist and ugly, and would have ended my support for her if her husband had not already done that. I do not think she is still a viable Vice Presidential candidate because of this.
Posted by: Landon Bryce | May 14, 2008 2:51:09 PM
I agree with JIMMYBOYO and NIC that ABRACADAVER is an ABRACATROLLER. A simple check of the archives makes that pretty clear.
As far as the VP slot goes, I disagree with JIMMYBOYO and NIC. I can't think of a ticket more destined for failure in November that Obama/Clinton. Not only is there too much bad blood out there for that ticket to fly among Democrats, it would be a Republican campaign strategist's wet dream. I believe that Hillary should be a PRIMARY consultant to filling the VP position but, barring some unforseen revelations, I fear that having her on the ticket would be disasterous. I'm afraid she is just too polarizing; especially now that she has developed so much bad blood with African-American voters who will turn out in record numbers this year (if they're not given a reason not to). Regardless of whether Hillary is the VP nominee or not she is going to need to spend almost 100% of her every waking hour over the next 6 months convincing the 25% of her supporters who shamefully said they would vote for McCain if she didn't win the nomination to vote for the DEMOCRATIC nominee in November.
I personally think that John Edwards would be the best pick for VP. Of course I'm biased since he got my vote in the Florida primary. He has the credentials to bring in the working class white voters, Southern voters, Appalachian voters and Independents without turning off African-American voters. He has said that he wouldn't accept the nomination but I think he should still be heavily lobbied to reconsider.
Of course if (when) Obama is our nominee and he chooses Senator Clinton as his running mate I will support them 110% in the general election.
We simply can't afford another four to eight years of failed Bush/Republican policies.
Posted by: Zeke | May 14, 2008 3:04:06 PM
Hillary never said the phrase "hard-working white Americans." Specifically, she said referred to recent reports "that found how Senator Obama's support among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
Semantics? Perhaps. But words are important, and the addition or subtraction of them changes the entire meaning. What Hillary said is true; Barack's support among white Americans is weakening. The reasons for that, well...everyone is free to draw their own conclusion.
Posted by: abracadaver | May 14, 2008 3:06:51 PM
Post-script: One of my favorite African American authors said that "[y]ou can tell how effective a person or group of people are by the reaction of the populace to them."
Judging by the comments posted here about me, and generally only me, by others...I'd say my rhetoric is pretty darned effective!
Kinda hits ya where you live, doesn't it...
Posted by: abracadaver | May 14, 2008 3:09:29 PM
ABRACADAVER (how pop-culture, how banal):
you keep betraying yourself.
"I think you should stick to collecting diverse amounts of genetic material with your colon."
you are one pathetic piece of shit.
Posted by: nic | May 14, 2008 3:12:22 PM
JIMMYBOYO, thanks for poking at ABRACADAVER until he showed his true colors. Now it really calls into question why this conservative homophobe was pushing for the nomination of Senator Clinton.
A foot soldier in "Project Chaos" perhaps?
Posted by: Zeke | May 14, 2008 3:13:59 PM
See my post directly above. I love having my point proven by others.
Posted by: abracadaver | May 14, 2008 3:14:31 PM
Hey, Zeke:
We only slightly disagree here. Hillary would still get A WHOLE BUNCH OF African-American votes--in fact, now that we have the actual percentages from ABRACADAVER, I say, she'd get more votes than her husband did--even with talk of "stealing the nomination from Barack". I'm talking about those blacks who would STILL come out to vote in November after such an incredible occurence: Barack loosing the nomination at this point). Blacks who would still vote after such a mess would still vote Democratic for Hillary, but the turn-out would be too low.
Hillary as a VP for Obama? It wouldn't be the black vote I'd worry about. Obama/Clinton would still get 92%...I mean, A WHOLE BUNCH OF black votes. It would be those Independents who don't like Hillary or Bill-- they'd consider Barack a sell-out, a pawn of the Democratic Establishment (which surprisingly didn't seem to like Hillary, did they?) Politics is crazy.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | May 14, 2008 3:21:55 PM
Rendell is Gov. of Pennsylvania jimmyboyo. You must be tired today.
Blacks started moving to the Dems with Roosevelt in the 30's, but still voted for Republicans with a majority until around mid 1950's.
The vote for the Democrats in this primary year are almost evenly split. Hillary has gotten about 17 million(counting Michigan and Florida) and Obama about the same. This is why neither can win the nomination without the Supers. Some of you Obamabots need to wipe the stars from your eyes and look at facts. If the black vote split along the same percentage lines as the white vote(and along the demographic lines as well) then Obama wouldn't be the nominee.
Democrats are about to lose a sure thing. Obama has put together the same coalition of Democratic voters as McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry and Gore. Wealthy Liberal white elitists, the young, college educated males. He can't seem to get traction with white blue collar workers, those with a high school or less education, seniors, Hispanics and *value* voters. He once had a commanding lead against McCain among Independents, but that's gone now, McCain has almost 50% of those votes.
If Obama wants to win, he desperatly needs those **ignorent hicks** as some of you like to call them. And Jews( a group that has started backing away from him because of his past stances on Israel). The Democratic party has certain groups that belong to it. When blue collar workers leave the party(as they did for Reagan) then a Democrat can't win.
I know it seems like there are a lot of pointy headed Liberal's around, but not nearly as many of them as blue collar whites.
There will always be some who are racist and refuse to vote for a Black, or mysoginist and refuse to vote for a women, but there aren't as many of them as some of seem to think. The Wright tapes(not just the sounbites Derrick and Soulbrotha)and his speech's made a big impression on ordinary folks out there. Obama thinks he's ok over the Wright stuff because the people he surrounds himself with and he listens to(the MSM liberals, who are in the tank for him) all agree with him that Wright isn't an issue. But those average Democrats out there who are regular, consistent voters didn't like what they saw, and Obama hasn't made it clear why, if he disagrees with Wright on those issues, he stayed a prominent member of the church for 20 years.
All of you Obamabots like to yap on about the media LOOPING the same few clips over and over. Thats not true, large portions of at least 14 sermons have been transcribbed and Wright himself verified that he not only made those statements(like the AID's thing) but more. All of your flailing of arms won't take that away.
I wouldn't vote for Obama in a million years. Why? Because he's just another far left Liberal, who panders to each group, and whose idea's have already been shown to be no good for this country over the last 40 years. And it dosen't matter to me what colour he is if I don't take his ideas seriously.
Posted by: Joshua | May 14, 2008 3:32:09 PM
DERRICK, I would say that that's about right. At least as I see it.
I would like to hear more discussion on the positives of an Obama/Clinton ticket. Maybe I've missed something. I'm always willing to reconsider my opinion when presented with a sound and convincing and civil argument.
Posted by: Zeke | May 14, 2008 3:32:58 PM
Oooopps....in my paragraph about Obama's coalition I forgot the main one....the black vote. sorry :)
Posted by: Joshua | May 14, 2008 3:35:58 PM
JOSHUA: That's the most well-considered post I've read all day (although DW's comes in a close second).
Posted by: abracadaver | May 14, 2008 3:43:38 PM
JOSHUA, do you really think that disrespectfully calling those of us who support Obama "Obamabot" is going to bring the party together?
It's clear that your issue isn't getting a Democrat elected president. Your ONLY issue is trying to make sure that Obama ISN'T elected president. That's made crystal clear in your saying that you wouldn't vote for Obama in a million years. Even if by not voting for him it meant that we get McCain and eight more years of failed Bush policies?
With that one statement you lost ALL credibility with me. Anyone who would do ANYTHING that might help McCain get elected president has no business calling themselves a Democrat. Go ahead and cut off your arm to spite your rabidly anti-Obama face. You're no different than gay "Democrats" who voted for Nader in 2000 AND 2004 knowing full well that it was a vote for Bush. Now they whine and bitch about how screwed up the country is because of Bush. To them I say SHUT THE HELL UP, he's YOUR boy.
Posted by: Zeke | May 14, 2008 3:44:28 PM
ABRACADAVER, you've certainly lost all credibility here.
You don't support Hillary, you just support a fractured Democratic Party and any bitter continuace of this primary that might effect such a fracture.
I'm suspect that in light of your recent homophobic, anti-liberal outburst above, not even JOSHUA would welcome your endorsement of his commentary.
Posted by: Zeke | May 14, 2008 3:50:43 PM
"I wouldn't vote for Obama in a million years. Why? Because he's just another far left Liberal, who panders to each group, and whose idea's have already been shown to be no good for this country over the last 40 years."—Joshua
Well, then we must assume you wouldn't vote for Clinton in a million years either, since you couldn't possibly squeeze even a mouse fart between her "far-left, liberal" policy positions and his. And, in fact, Clinton's health care plan, with its required mandates, is more liberal than Obama's.
So there must be some other reason you find Hillary an acceptable candidate but not Barack. Qu'est-ce que c'est?
Posted by: 24play | May 14, 2008 3:53:58 PM
That's funny...you never know what's going to happen on this blog. JOSHUA, I really respected your comment, and believe much of it to be true. Of course, I didn't like anything you said, but sometimes the truth is uncomfortable.
JOSHUA, the Democratic Party was taking a risk this year with either Hillary or Barack. I'm proud of that risk, and will continue to dream the impossible dream through November.
Even if we loose JOSHUA, and have to deal with 3 more right-wing bastards on the Supreme Court, then we'll have to live with that. But the Republican Party will loose big-time in years to come. They got a mess of an economy, and a mess of an un-winnable war against Islam. John McCain's presidency would be one of the saddest in American history (for him and the country).
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | May 14, 2008 3:54:07 PM
I actually voted in the PA primaries for Senator Obama, and all delegates pledged to him. Your belief in that statement isn't required for it to be true.
Posted by: abracadaver | May 14, 2008 4:08:03 PM
Remind me. Which way was Limbaugh encouraging all the Repiggies to vote when PA went to the polls?
Posted by: 24play | May 14, 2008 4:18:06 PM
Please pardon all typos, gramatical errors, and spelling mistakes in this long winded post
Joshua admits to being conservative and though for the life of me I can't understand why, I do respect his honesty about it.
abraconfused who pretends to be sooooo concerned about the dem nominating process while being a far far righter is a whole other fish.
Zeke, Clinton as VP positives.
1- She has a ton of support. Most will vote dem in the end no matter what, but that 25% who claim they won't bothers me enough to think her as VP would take care of it.
2- The Clinton name is still a viable label (unlike anything repub). People love the clintons. Hell, I loved the clinton's enough to constantly defend Bill for years when I felt like a lone voice in the wilderness and everybody supposedly loved bush. I would even bet that if you distance yourself from the current primary thing you would admit to loving the Clintons at least enough to defend them against any repub smear.
3- The Clintons have a huge political machine that can rake in a ton of money and put tons of feet on the ground.........Yes, Obama has out raised her, but Obama is a phenomena of the new politics that NOBODY was prepared for. Where as no Obama and Hillary would have raised more money this cycle than any politician ever wether repub or dem. Yeah a bunch of her insiders were F'ups like Mark Penn, but I foresee the Clintons shaking the tree soon and getting rid of all that bad fruit. She'd have to because Obama won't want Mark Penn anywhere near his campaign
4- The vast majority of america hates hates hates everything associated with bush where as the die hard rethugloicans who despise the clintons are few and far between and growing fewer and farther between with the oldsters dieing off. I have a die hard repub relative that swore to his dieing father he would never vote dem, but he at least admits though he hated the clintons while they were in office they are a whole heck of a lot better than Bush and McCain. The old limbaugh hate of the clintons isn't anything like it used to be
5- Hillary is a great debater!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can'e see any repub VP (going to be romney I bet) ever beating her in a debate
6- Being former friends with McCain, you know the clinton machine has all the dirt on McCain and will launch it full force as Obama's VP
7- Hillary does pull indies. Far Less than Obama but far more than mcsame. The indies (particularly women) that Obama can't pull, can be pulled in via Hillary as VP
Yes we can AND Yes we will
Both catch phrases of both campaigns belnd so well together.
:-)
Yes we can and YES we will 08
Obama/ Clinton
Bill won't be a problem because Bill loves to be loved and will make a great team mate with Michele to tour the world mending bridges.
I too once was for edwards till NH and saw the writing on the wall. I too wanted Edwards as VP from that point on, but his siting on the pot and not "shiting" as far as endorsing either has turned me off to him. Attorney general would be good and or Supreme court justice. Edwards as Attorney General with Conyers as assistant deputy. A supreme court seat opens up and Obama appoints edwards moving conyers up to head of Justice dept as Attorney general.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 14, 2008 4:18:06 PM
PS
Joshua thanks for the correction. Rendell is Penn not Ohio gov.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 14, 2008 4:19:31 PM
Remind me...which party is it that could f*ck up a one-car funeral, even if the route was planned by the most competant of administrative assistants? Oh, yeah...the one that's most assuredly going to f*ck up not only their own nomination process but lose an election they should have easily had handed to them on a platter.
Posted by: abracadaver | May 14, 2008 4:23:13 PM
PSS
Hillary as VP is life insurance for Obama
The KKK types would be a lot less likely to go after Obama if they knew they would just be speeding the day of a Hillary presidency.
Edwards would be too much temptation for the KKK types to take Obama out so as to have a white guy in there.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 14, 2008 4:26:08 PM
Post Script Script? LMGAO
"PPS"
Posted by: abracadaver | May 14, 2008 4:33:24 PM
THAT'S RIGHT BLACK MILITANTS SPEW ALL YOUR SNAKE VENOM. KEEP SHOWING AMERICA WHAT YOU ARE ALL ABOUT.
NObama!!!
[ED NOTE: COMMENTER'S IP HAS BEEN BANNED. THIS KIND OF INCITEMENT IS NOT ALLOWED]
Posted by: CHURCHILL-Y | May 14, 2008 4:40:07 PM
JB, I won't go through the list point by point but I will say that I don't find any of those arguments at all convincing and I find that a few of them lack credibility. The things that she might be able to bring to the ticket (ie fundraising) are the very areas where Obama doesn't really need any halp.
Because of this I think Obama, and the Democratic Party will be best served with another choice for VP. I think Hillary should be offered a cabinet position like Secretary of State so that she can clean up the mess that Condi will leave behind.
She would leave behind a pretty safe Senate seat for the Democrats as long as the candidate was minimally viable.
As for JOSHUA, I don't know why he is respected while ABRACADAVER isn't. They're both conservatives rabidly attacking Obama while pretending to be for Hillary. Why is one respected for his honesty while the other is considered a troll?
24Play brought up an excellent point. There is barely a rat's ass difference between the two candidates on the important issues so why would JOSHUA not vote for Obama in a million years but has spent hours here attacking, shilling and name calling on behalf of Hillary? The answer; It's not really about supporting Hillary. He's not doing it for Hillary at all, or for the Democratic Party. He's doing it for McCain and the Republican Party, just like ABRACADAVER. I see nothing to respect in either of them.
Posted by: Zeke | May 14, 2008 4:56:54 PM
Where in GAY HELL did I attack Obama in this post? Geez, if you fagulas want to hate me, at least hate me for what I actually say. Pfft.
[ED NOTE: COMMENTER'S IP HAS BEEN BANNED]
Posted by: abracadaver | May 14, 2008 5:04:40 PM
Zeke, any of us with any sense respects you and what you have to say, and not just a single comment. This particular comment by JOSHUA had some historical truths, as well as truths about race relations. I'm just hoping we can over come much of what JOSHUA had to say.
CHURCHILL-Y, I'd like for you to meet someone named JOHNNY LANE. You're writing styles and perspectives are very similar. Maybe you already know him.
Damn, I haven't worked on one bit of the adjunct professors' summer payroll today. They're going to fire my ass. Maybe President Obama will help me out.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | May 14, 2008 5:10:39 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/14/obama-hamas-smear-clinton_n_101759.html
Hillary defending Obama!!!!
LOVE IT LOVE IT LOVE IT
Also, zeke supposedly at 7:00 tonight a big national endorsment for Obama. Speculation is that it is Edwards.
Let me toss out a what if. The above defending of Obama by Hillary. Hillary endorses at 7:00 and Obama quickly announces Hillary as his VP. End of inner house fihting and onward and upwards against mcsame.
A boy can dream can't he?
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 14, 2008 5:16:41 PM
"your writing styles"
Oh, why correct myself? He's only going to say, "haven't you ever heard of a dicitonary? Why don't you try spellcheck or grammar check?" Maybe he'll shout it in capitalized script.
"...militant blacks...." WTF!
Only a few blacks have commented on this particular thread. I guess they knew you'd eventually appear--they have better sense than me.
Damn, you see "vile blacks" everywhere, don't you? You queer KKK nut, you.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | May 14, 2008 5:20:06 PM
Since, according to that Dem sage, "All politics is local" I thought I would weigh in with the results of an informal survey of my huge, far flung, and politically diverse families (by blood and by marriage). I have hundreds (that's right hundreds of cousins and almost three dozen aunts and uncles. We range in age from first time voters (who just turned eighteen) to consistent voters who are in their eighties. We include carpenters, bakers, cattle ranchers, dairy farmers, teachers, university professors, accountants, engineers, doctors, lawyers, stay-at-home mothers, small business owners, government employees, union members, priests and nuns, actors, dancers, opera singers, perpetual students, pilots, soldiers and veterans of both genders (several Purple Hearts and Bronze Stars), enlisted men and graduates of West Point, the Naval Academy, and the Air Force Academy (no Marines, however, curious that) and consultants of almost every stripe.
We are predominately Hispanic and Irish but include Poles, Brits, Scots, Greeks, French, Italians, Russians, Armenians, Pacific Islanders, American and foreign born Blacks, and Chinese (who are not yet old enough to vote), gay, lesbian, and straight. Although predominately Catholic, we include Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Baptists, Buddists, atheists, and Jews in our ranks. Slightly more than one-third are registered Democrats, a little less than one-third are Republicans, and the rest are registered Independents, "Greens" and even "card-carrying" Socialists (their self-designation).
Some did not finish highschool, the majority have college degrees in various fields, and several have their Doctorate degrees. (My partner has a BA in political science, a Masters in Theology, a Doctorate in Renaissance History, an MBA and a JD.) We live in New Mexico, Pennsylvania, California, Texas, Colorado, New York (upstate and Manhattan), Arizona, Florida, Maryland, Virginia, DC, Louisiana, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Georgia, Hawaii, and Alaska.
The reason I mention the specifics of this polyglot that comprise my families is that in this huge and diverse group of almost four hundred people only TWO support Hillary for President. Significantly, the majority of my family overwhelmingly supported her husband and have correctly predicted the outcome of all presidential elections since the turn of the last century. Many initially supported Hillary (as a known entity) until they witnessed her campaign. They became "disgusted" (a recurring term) with her divisive, race-baiting, and us/them rhetoric. They have come to see Obama as the best opportunity in their lifetimes to change politics as usual.
Politics is our family "religion". I've already told the story that my paternal grandfather only consented to the marriage of his daughter (my mother) on the condition that she would never change her political party. I knew that both Gore and Kerry would lose when my die-hard Democratic aunts told me that they would refuse to vote for either one. A couple are supporting McCain (although I believe that I will be able to change their minds when I point out, inter alia, his anti-Catholic and homophobic bigotry). Not only is this familial group supporting Obama, they are doing so passionately.
I agree with Zeke (as usual, full disclosure) that an Obama-Clinton ticket would be weak and divisive rather than unifying. This election is the Dems to lose, I remain hopeful that the Dems overcome the mean spiritedness (yes, I know it is not a "real" word) that has characterized the Democratic primary/caucus process and unite behind the inevitable nominee, Obama.
Posted by: rudy | May 14, 2008 5:40:59 PM
After watching Edwards' speech I am more enthusiastic than ever for an Obama/Edwards ticket.
DERRICK, I appreciate the points that JOSHUA made in his post but he lost credibility with me when he started in with the "Obamabots" juvenile silliness and when he admitted that he would NEVER vote for Obama in a million years because he is "far left Liberal" (WARNING, WARNING WILL ROBINSON, ROVIAN CONCERN TROLL BUZZ WORDS SLIPPED OUT). That tells me that his incessant, rude and disrespectful anti-Obama rants are not a reflection of his support for Hillary but a reflection of his desire to hurt the Democratic Party.
As 24play pointed out, how could anyone who supports Hillary say that they could NEVER in a million years vote for Obama because he's a radical liberal? That statement alone gave his game away in my book.
I think he has been very effective in making people think he is a supporter of Hillary when in fact he is more likely a McSame supporter trolling for trouble like ABRACADAVER.
Posted by: Zeke | May 14, 2008 7:25:16 PM
JeanLuc, why don't you give some specific, contextual quotes of Rev Wright? Most of the Youtube clips I've seen are edited. Prove your superior understanding, won't you please?
..."But all this nonsense pointing to WV and calling people ignorant hicks and racists doesn't win you an election in November. It only serves to piss of the Clinton supporters who think Obama supporters are being unfair. And that doesn't help you win in November either. If Obama or you expected there to not be people who were hesitant or outrightly indign(a)nt about voting for a black guy, then you were fooling yourself from Day One."
That's true JeanLuc, but racist WV's calling Obama the n-word doesn't win an election for Hilary either. So what's your point? And let's just be honest here; Clinton supporters have been pissed for a long time now (just read the comments on this site, past and present, for proof.) They never thought that their candidate would be beaten. And more of her supporters have said that they will not vote for Obama than the other way around. How sour can grapes get?
And when did Obama or his supporters ever claim that prejudiced voters didn't exist? He has acknowledged it and refuses to dwell upon it. Why should he? He's focused on unity, not division. Hilary on the other hand is making it an issue, to the detriment of her own party. And after it's all said and done, her eventual endorsement will ring false and half-hearted.
Posted by: soulbrotha | May 15, 2008 1:59:03 AM
Nic!
Bien, bien, carnalito...y tu?
Just here burning the midnight oil.
Luckily work has been keeping me busy and away from the friggin blogs...for the most part. hehe
I'd be insane (well, more so) if it weren't.
Posted by: silverskreen | May 15, 2008 2:29:53 AM