Hillary's "stoking the flames of racism" is the problem, not poor Whites. | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)
Why we lose (none / 0)
exactly what did Clinton do to stoke the flames of racism? You keep saying it, prove it.

Fact is it was Obama'a people that played the race card just before SC. The Obama people claimed that Hillary was insulting MLK because she had the nerve to point out that LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. She had to be a racist and the media ran with it from there.

I am glad you brought up Mr. Sitora. did you read the article and all the hoops he had to jump though to paint whites as racist.

Honestly, prior to this campaign Clinton could depend on a large amount of support from the black community. Support she earned though years of working with and for the black community. Now she is losing the black vote to Obama at a 95% clip? What exactly has obama done for the black Community? Seriously compared to clinton what has obama done for the black community?

I suppose this anomily has nothing to do with race, correct. Obama said it best himself. If I were white I would be just another freshman senator.


yet all liberals can talk about are the 60% or so white people who vote for Hillary because they are racist. This is exactly why we are painted by Pubs as the minority party (who only cares about blacks and women).

Everyone around here likes to talk about math. But of course they ignore the method. Hillary won Texas but lost delegates. Our system is flawed.

I hate to break it to you but without those "racist" swing voters Obama loses

by LORD FOUL on 05/08/2008 09:59:29 AM EST


Oh, I'm sorry (none / 0)

You said, "Everyone around here likes to talk about math. But of course they ignore the method. Hillary won Texas but lost delegates. Our system is flawed."

I should have made clear I was talking about the real election, not the imaginary one.

You know, the one that will produce a nominee.  In 2008 we have to deal with the election we have, not the election we want.

Is the system screwed up?  Does it need to be changed and reformed?  Of Cooooooooouuuuuurse!

Does that matter in terms of who is going to run in 2008? Not a bit.

And I would point out Obama has beat her according to the rules they were both given.  If he had been given different rules he might have beat her under those as well.  No real way to tell.  This is like watching a football game and seeing one team win 26-14 and the loser insisting they get the W because they had more total yards.  At which point the winning team would say, "Then we wouldn't have kicked all those field goals now would we?" 

by ProfRich on 05/08/2008 11:21:52 AM EST


[ Parent ]
agree (none / 0)
Obama is winning under the rules both were playing with. he deserves credit for that.

Rules are rules right?

Also according to the rules, the nominee must obtain a certain number of delegates to become the nominee. Right?

If not then the superdelegates are supposed to nominate the candidate with the best chance of winning the general election. That was the whole purpose of their creation.

No where in the rules does it say that the superdelegates must vote for the leader in the delegate count.

Yet that is the interpetation of the rules according to Obama supporters. the SD must vote for the delegate leader or they disinfranchise the voters (yet they have no problem disinfranchising FL & MI).

I think we both can agree that Dem primary voters are more liberal than most.

The facts say that Obama has roughly 51% of Dems and Hillary has 49% of Dems (remembering that this is a Dem primary).

Who decides who wins in November? What group of voters has determined every presidential race since 1980?

Middleclass and poor whites. those swing voters or reagan dems, if you prefer. That is the Demographic we need to win. Who does better with that group, that demographic? Clinton.

Sheer logic and common sense would suggest that if you have two equally good candidates, you should select the one that matches best against your opponent, right?

Clinton stated as much today and is getting grilled as a racist (again) for simply speaking the truth (again).

Liberals want to believe that whites are racist fine but if that is indeed the case why are we nominating a man for whom these racists cannot vote?

I simply want to win in November, I don't really care who it is Obama, Clinton, Gore, Edwards etc. but considering the circumstances and the voting history it would appear that we are nominating the wrong person at the wrong time.

This is no disrespect to Obama, I think he is a fine candidate. I just think it is too soon for him. He needs seasoning and exposure. Most voters still don't know him. In my view he would be perfect at VP. it would get the voters a chance to really get to know him and become comfortable with him. It would also give him a chance to distance himself from some of his past. (much of which will not come out until after the convention).

I see a storm coming and we are not prepared for it.

by LORD FOUL on 05/08/2008 01:42:25 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Amen Brother Foul... (none / 0)
I know coming from me its probably the mark of the beast on this blog, but once again, you have so eloquently hit the nail on the head concerning this election...

The storm is coming... Just wait...

The Liberal wing of the party will never learn...

Thanks for your post

:)

by bobo1 on 05/08/2008 01:53:51 PM EST


[ Parent ]
I disagree (none / 0)

Obama does better with Republicans.

Obama does better with Independents.

Obama does better with voters.

Hillary is seriously crippled by voting for the war.  This is probably unfair and you can make all the arguments you want about it but at the end of the day the people you are arguing will decide this election just don't give a damn about the nuance.  Hillary is a war flip-flopper, Obama is not.  Reality has no place in this argument.  If this was a reality based election it would be 98%-2% Dem. 

The SuperDelegates don't "get to decide" if no one hits the magic number, they just cast a vote.  It counts as a delegate.  They are voting, no one is arguing they shouldn't.  They are voting more and more for Obama.  Hillary will be losing in SuperDs by WV.  I don't give a damn how they vote.  I don't really think Obama does either now.  He has won.  Its over.

I have no problem with Hillary.  She ran.  She lost.  Their is not significant evidence to believe she is stronger than McCain, IMO.  I would have no problem admitting it if she was.  My support for Obama is based solely on him winning the nomination. 

by ProfRich on 05/08/2008 02:08:02 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Respectful diasagreement (none / 0)
Liberals need to stop with "she voted for the war"

She did not vote to go to war.

She voted for an authorization to use force IF NECESSARY.

If Bush were a man of honor, a man of honesty and integrity this war would have never started. The vote was to back weapons inspectors and was not a validation of Bush's war for oil policy. Ask kerry why he voted for it.

and she has not flip-flopped in fact she has been grilled on this very page for not admitting the vote to be a mistake. She stood by her vote while pussies like Kerry did not. Her vote was not for the war

The accusation shows that you are greatly misinformed or deliberately decietful

by LORD FOUL on 05/08/2008 02:26:32 PM EST


[ Parent ]
When people (none / 0)
See  John McCain  (R) on the ballot   they are not going to vote for him. Its just not going to happen.

There is a shit storm coming alright and its the rout of the republican party. In fact Newt Gingrich   agrees with that assessment .

You think obama cant handle it? Wait till you see him and McCain on the same stage debating each other.

by Chinese Democracy on 05/08/2008 02:17:23 PM EST


[ Parent ]

Hillary's "stoking the flames of racism" is the problem, not poor Whites. | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)