Politics – The Democratic presidential race runs on two tracks now, one snaking through the West Virginia primary Tuesday and the other mapped out by Barack Obama through battleground states in the fall.
You just have to wonder about all of the apologists that defended the Clinton's for 16 years and refused to open their eyes or honestly assess their actions and behavior
BOB HERBERT of the NYT really takes the Clinton's to task
The Clintons have never understood how to exit the stage gracefully.
He can't win! Don't you understand? He's black! He's black!
The Clintons have been trying to embed that gruesomely destructive message in the brains of white voters and superdelegates for the longest time. It's a grotesque insult to African-Americans, who have given so much support to both Bill & Hillary over the years.
The last time the Clintons had to make a big exit was at the end of Bill's 2nd term as president รข;; and they made a complete and utter hash of that historic moment. Having survived the Monica Lewinsky ordeal, you might have thought the Clintons would be on their best behavior.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10her...
nostalgia wrote: "The Clintons have never understood how to exit the stage gracefully."
Anybody remember the Black Knight skit from "Monty Python And The Holy Grail"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno&feat...
Somebody should do a Hillary Clinton voice-over for the bit. It's a perfect fit. It'd be a sure hit on YouTube.com
Why shouldn't they continue until August?
Until Obama actually has 2,025 delegates in his pocket, there is always the chance of an 11th-hour reprieve.
Should the Clintons refuse to help AFTER August, in the general campaign, that's a different story. Before the DNC, it's about securing hte nomination. After the DNC, it's about party unity.
P.S. Why did Obama run, if he's so big on party unity? Before he put his hat into the ring (and for sometime after), Clinton was the clear frontrunner in all the polls, and would have easily coasted to a nomination sans his interference.
They shouldn't continue until August because EVERY time they have done that in recent history, the Democrats have gotten absolutely slaughtered in the General Election in November.
1924: John Davis
1968: Hubert Humphrey
1972: George McGovern
1980: Jimmy Carter
1984: Walter Mondale
All lost in landslides. The superdelegates know this. Look for them to commit quickly after voting ends June 3rd. If something comes up between then and the convention that shows their pick is fatally flawed, they can always switch their vote. Even elected (committed) delegates are actually free to vote their conscience. They rarely do, because they are selected as delegates by the candidate and based upon their loyalty to the candidate.
But is a candidate were to die, or be incapacitated, or fall victim to serious scandal, the convention is perfectly free to reverse course in the fall.
The News media were the first to categorize and label people. Every time any reporter gets on the news he has to tell what kind of voter is supposed to vote what. He uses race and e.t.c. to tell his specifics. Hillary has only been repeating what the news media has been projecting to every American citizen. Shame on you, news Media for thinking that People can not see through you too. Does it really bother the News Media and the NEW YORK TIMES that all votes should be voted? Who is it, trashing the constitution now?
Actually, if you look at voter statistics Obama's support is heavily weighted in favor of African-Americans and the Leftist intelligencia. Over 90% of African-Americans in North Carolina voted for him.
Guess they've got better sense than some of those uneducated blue collar workers Hillary's always bragging about.
Actually I'm shocked that so many hard pressed blue collar workers would vote for the woman whose husband sent the last of the good American industrial jobs to Mexico and China. Bill Clinton may not have instigated NAFTA and GATT, but he signed the legislation letting American industry leave our shores. Blue collar workers are either woefully ignorant or actually believe that this rich woman really does care--which she doesn't. She'll just say anything to get votes.
Keep sneering at people who work for a living and we'll see how it helps you at general election time. When exactly did the African-American population become so highly educated as a group?
1. HRC didn't start life rich, or with any material advantages.
2. BHO did - he was mostly raised by his rich white grandparents (his grandmother was a VP of the Bank of Hawaii).
3. BILL Clinton was pro-NAFTA. As soon as the Clintons left the White House, Hillary started criticising it on the grounds of a "non-level playing field". I'd say that this means that Hillary felt obliged to not rock the boat while her husband was the President, but afterwards felt free to speak her mind.
4. Given Obama's "bitter" comments, and his flip-flopping on the 2nd amendment and gun control, its clear that he has even less in common with them than she does.
EDIT: Bleh, misplaced. This should be under "fempatriot"'s post.
You're right!
When will blue-collar Americans start voting their interests, and require that corporations be taxed what they owe this country? And be required to not pollute the air and water? And provide a decent minimum wage?
And then the real workers of America, filled with a renewed sense of awareness, could begin to take some power back from 'bushes base'.
That would be shocking, but hey I am for it, and for whoever leads the charge; Clinton or Obama.
Hahahaha. When was the last time the GOP was anything but a sneer at the working class? CON hack.
Think again. Most Republicans are working so that our tax dollars can support welfare recipients - who are overwhelmingly Democrat.
I don't "sneer" at anyone who is out there earning their own way. I save my sneers for the lazy, dependent "poor".
Take a look at the BUDGET, Frenchie.
The US gov budget, that is. Social spending is paltry compared to military spending.
Your tax dollars are spent rebuilding infrastructure & building palatial embassies in Iraq by private contractors - the vast majority of the welfare you support with your hard earned money is CORPORATE welfare thanks to Uncle Dickie.
"Social spending is paltry compared to military spending."
9 Trillion dollars is paltry? For that's what our government has wasted on social programs since good ol' LBJ enacted the "War on Poverty" (pause, for snicker and laughter) in 1964. Even a HUNDRED "palatial embassies in Iraq" would be a drop in the bucket, in comparison.
9 TRILLION DOLLARS!!! Yet poverty continues to increase, social programs continue to expand, government bureacracy has grown a hundred-fold since then, and homelessness continues its chronic swing upward. But let's keep spending those dollars. Surely there's an end in sight - we just need to throw more money at it. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I'd rather have my money go into Corporate welfare - at least it's doing something besides increasing government bureacracy and keeping the working class from working.
Honestly, Haypuke. You're a laugh riot! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Cherry pickin your data to support your moronic assertion that social programs don't receive 80% LESS funding than the military, Frenchie?
Specious logic is all you can muster?
Of course it is, its all you have.
Your unapologetic support of a continued failure exemplifies your sad state.
As for increasing government bureacracy - the Dumby administration has increased the size of our government more than ANY OTHER administration....EVER!
Nice try, though.
The funny thing is that the States that have voted overwhelmingly in the past for Republicans actually receive far more "welfare dollars" than the States carried by the Democrats!
Not a member? Sign-up today!
daviannewton651975
soulkeeper009
leeharris1969
MissLilyBug
mekhifranks1975
asolious
elliotthicks1965
harleyb761960
slashup67
hyooo25
sterlingburt19681962
alamala
himlebloy
JulianneFarmer
rolandslusher
rhettdejesus1975
dexlovex2
hatukabu
Grant774
yarrkz24
fyuuuuut
Lancaster1249
I-LoveYou
Arten
omma987
satansatan
jomarjarmo
kibasilasa
vinatamayo
ronron
_kam0_
Soccerman
windy01
Zubbie
y_soitenly
louchedamayo
newsarefree
Cherub5401
baldieadelphe
funkywallpapers
alllo
ChristineSm
mbalunan
janetsegarino
MidnightPrism
internetme
bizexpert
joedevil
neharocks
vvv63vvv
212)
Vote
the Clinton's are desperate and "white trash". She is likely ducking all those sniper bullets.She has lied but then she said she mis-spoke....what a joke!!!!!
Lol, I don't know how someone "accidentally" remembers being under sniper fire.
I agree, However Hill is a DEM and i am Against trashing her!
Why's that?
I was speaking to the dems slate, you are free to bash her all you want that doesn't matter to me. It's expected, i am just trying to unite the DEMS.
Nothing wrong with that, however, look at what the Rs have done, they didn't hold Bush's feet to the fire enough because of party unity and see where it lead. There is nothing wrong with pointing out any politicians flaws,,,,, to not do so is worse than pointing them out.
Ouch.
That is a slightly painful truth.
Well said, slate.
On the other hand, no one should be calling anyone "white trash". That is not criticism it is low mean talk.
That's true Crymtyphon,,,, but some that think racism is wrong if done to most groups. they have no problem being racist towards others.
Much the same way someone else doesn't remember 10 years of race-hating sermons by his pastor, I'd imagine.
Or, for that matter, then a week later does remember "a few controversial remarks".
Or, during the time period in question, donates an average of $500 per week to the church of said pastor, and then dumps him as soon as he's politically inconvenient.
Or denies NAFTA remarks that are on the record.
The list goes on. No-one is squeaky-clean in this race...
Right now, Hillary is savoring a win in West Virginia as Obama falls in the polls. He'll be weak by the general election. If he had to run right now in many of the primaries he's already won, he'd be the loser.
Keep dreaming drop. He is falling in one poll, and that's the poll run by the GOPers. That doesn't count.
Given the past accuracy, or rather lack thereof, of Dem pollsters, I'd say it does.
A different thought: Let's say that Obama wins, and Hillary is majority leader of the Senate???
Your thoughts.
Hill is not the DNC she will play ball or they will cut here out at the knees. Besides it's not in her best interest to destroy a DEM president, that would follow here to the end of her political life. More importantly, is your dislike for Obama soo strong that you wouldn't give him a chance to right the country, you are on to finding ways to sabotage his presidency. Now that's just UnAmerican.
I'm not talking about my opinion of either one of them. I'm asking about the political consequences.
Why do you assume my "dislike"? when I said nothing about that.
Yes; Obama is sinking fast, and the marginot line is holding steady against the damn germans, and next year we will turn the corner on the war, and the titanic will sail safely into dock, and gas will be 1$ a gallon again, -
I won't go on.
But Obama will.
Until the general election.