Clinton's crossed another line today in her scorched earth campaign to destroy Obama and place herself above the needs of the party and the country once again. Today, in her desperation, she has made her appeal a blatantly racial one. That does it for me. I will do everything I can to actively oppose her if she steals the nomination -- still a virtual impossibility -- with these deplorable tactics. That now includes a step I wasn't willing to take before. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for John McCain and I will do so proudly. I'd be very interested to hear from Clinton's supporters and apologists on her quote today. Here it is, in case you missed it: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." "There's a pattern emerging here," she said. There certainly is, Hillary. And it is ugly as hell. Not no but hell no on that VP thing. Once again, she has gone far too far.
but can you dispute what she said? don't most white democrats support the Hilldebeast, and Black support for O'bama is something north of 90%? Sidebar: if O'bama wins, does this mean that Mr. Bill is no longer the first black president? that's almost enough reason by itself to vote for the O-dude
Of course David Kurtz at talkingpointsmemo says it far more eloquently than I. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/194069.php Pretty Black and White 05.08.08 -- 6:30PM By David Kurtz TPM Reader AB is having a hard time reconciling Hillary's remarks on Obama's support among working class whites: It seems to me that every progressive voice in this country should be outraged - jumping up and down - shouting in print and word - to repudiate Hillary Clinton's remarks that Obama "is having trouble winning over blue collar "white" voters... "white Americans"... It is a disgraceful, shameful tactic to justify her own non-candidacy. This is a remark I would expect from a politician from Mississippi or Louisiana - not from our New York State senator... I am outraged, I am deeply embarrassed that my children have heard this reported on the news...and I regret that have I ever gave her one hard earned nickel. All the while she touts the glass ceiling as a woman but when her chips are down, the racism springs forth fully formed. AB is right. Maybe it's general campaign fatigue, or the sense that the race is all but over now, but a month ago her remarks would have been a huge story, the dominant political story of the day. The political press spent weeks trying to divine whether the Clinton camp was really attempting to cast Obama as the black candidate, a favorite son candidate of the African American community. The Clinton camp vehemently denied it then and even as recently as a few days ago Bill Clinton claimed it was the Obama camp playing the race card against him. Race has been the subtext of much of Hillary's argument for her own electability. But now she's thrown it right out there in the open: Obama can't win because he's black. Vote for me instead. You don't have to believe that Hillary's a racist (I don't) to conclude that a combination of the rigors of the campaign trail and her own powerful ambitions have clouded her judgment and curdled her spirit. It has certainly soured what had been a historic relationship between the Clintons and the black community. Hers is not an appeal we'd tolerate from a Republican candidate, nor should we from a Democrat, no matter how sterling her progressive credentials might otherwise be. There's been a lot of talk about the damage Hillary will do to the party by staying in the race this long. Perhaps she should consider the damage she's doing to herself.
I mean, it's true to an extent...but that's not something that a presidential nominee should be harping on. Let CNN and Fox News make those observations, it's not anything we didn't know already. Her voicing it just makes her look terrible.
Hillary does have a broader coalition than Obama. Look at the stats. Look at the social classes, look at the races (Latinos, Asians, Whites). The only reason people think Obama has a broad coalition is because he repeats it over and over. That doesn't make it true, and it's not true. Yet another example of the Obama supporters buying his spiel over and over again, despite no facts to support it. Is Obama a uniter? Invite Hillary to be on the ticket. Unite the democratic party. Actions speak louder than words. Let's see some substance behind all that talk.
No Clinton as VP. The reason being as soon as Obama invites her on the ticket, you will label him a flip-flopper because he said that he wants to move past the Bush-Clinton era and that you know he is easier for John McCain to defeat if a divisive figure like Clinton is on the ticket. The motives behind your rhetoric are transparent.
Your concern for the Democratic Party is truly something special. Thank you so much for your advice. Coming from a person with your tremendous judgment and open-mindedness, this guidance is much appreciated. Please forgive us if we completely ignore it.
Join the club. The good thing about this is it will completely bury any chance of her being selected as Obama's running mate. IMO, she crossed that line a long time ago.
Since I guess I'm the resident Clinton apologist I won't defend the comment except to say that it is a fact. Polling does show that Clinton's support is much stronger among working class whites than Obama's and conversely Obama's support is much stronger among blacks. I still think it is being petty to not support either one as whoever wins, and yes I will say that Obama is very likely to win the nomination, is going to have to do some repair work to address this racial rift. Also before you blame the racist rift all on Clinton keep in mind Obama's campaign has played the race card before such as taking Clinton quotes out of context to make them appear racist.
That's exactly Wright. Shortsighted move on the part of Obama -- while the black vote clearly was the reason he beat Hillary, it will end up crippling that crucial independent vote needed to win the White House.
Obama's campaign played up the quote regarding "a dream", which I think actually Bill Clinton said, prior to the SC primary as him mocking MLK when he was actually referring to that it was a dream / fantasy that Obama's speech in 2002 against Iraq was equivalent to a vote in the US Senate for or against. The quote had nothing to do with MLK yet it was trumpted as being the Clinton's denigrating MLK.
Oh man, the hard core Hillary supporters are dropping some bombs today on the Obama camp. Read this from Hillary's backdoor campaign website, Hillaryis44.com!!! Hillary Clinton’s People Politics vs. Barack Obama’s Thug Politics Barack Obama’s “New Politics” are really quite extraordinary. Obama’s “new politics” can be summarized as ‘get votes for free which you did not earn’. The latest Chicago thuggery is a plan for Obama to get delegates in Michigan - a state in which Obama removed his name from the ballot! Imagine that. A candidate does not run for election but gets votes. This surely is new - and dangerous, and undemocratic, and unwanted. No doubt Obama violated the “no campaign” pledge in Michigan when he aired advertisments via surrogates asking voters to vote “uncommitted”. Obama also violated the “no campaign” pledge in Florida when he aired advertisments in Florida. But to get delegates from an election in which you did not run is well… thuggery. We are tempted to describe such odd election counting as Bush-like. But we can’t - Bush actually ran for office. Bush was actually on the ballot. So now, by the art of thuggery, Obama is demanding delegates from an election in which he received ZERO votes. John Edwards, still an official candidate, gets no delegates. In this new age of electronic voting machines (horrid things) voters have a clear way to express their preferences. If the candidate of their choice is not on the ballot - voters can easily WRITE-IN the name of the candidate they prefer. Electronic voting machines make it very easy to WRITE-IN a candidate name. Even old non-electronic voting machines make it easy to WRITE-IN a candidate name. Yet few in Michigan wrote-in Obama’s name. To repeat, Obama wants votes added to his tally, which he did not earn. The voters of Michigan did not WRITE-IN Obama’s name. So why then is Obama asking for delegates from Michigan? In the age of electronic voting machines and communications tools such as the internet and email a WRITE-IN campaign is simple and affordable and can be very effective. It would be very new but certainly doable. Why didn’t Obama partisans run a write-in campaign in Michigan? Absent actual votes Obama should get zero delegates from Michigan. Hillary will earn her nomination the old fashioned way - by getting votes.
I don't think Obama's campaign did any such thing. I think the media did in reference to one thing that Bill Clinton did. Obama could have blown up any of the race card comments that Clinton brought up, and refused to do so, time and time again. The most he ever said was after Hillary's poorly worded proclamation that MLK needed LBJ in the white house to get something done. Obama merely said that it was unfortunate and that he could understand why some might be offended by that. He didn't call it racist, nor did he continue to pound her on the issue. The media made the mistake of talking about Bill's fairy-tale comment as if it was race related. It wasn't. But Obama could have made the MLK comment an issue, he could have made the Geraldine Ferraro mess an issue, and he didn't. He could have made Bill's Jesse Jackson comparison an issue, and he didn't. Obama did not take the bait time and time again. It's not right that after rising above such things he's accused of playing the race card the same way that Hillary did. It just isn't true.
^ Obama's campaign certainly did nothing to disabuse the media regarding that comment and I recall that comment being mentioned by Obama's campaign and supporters. Although off the top of my head I'm not sure Obama actually commented on it himself. I will have to review the transcript but I also recall Obama bringing up race during the SC debate.
I guess you are officially out of ammo. These stupid claims have been refuted multiple times already. The Fla. one is the best. Obama did not run any commercials in Fla. He ran a regional ad, for other states. That region included a tiny part of Fla. The commercials were not geared toward Fla. in the slightest. You've already blown your credibility talking about MI. Because pushing the idea that states or govt. organizations don't have to uphold agreements they've made, which of course means Iraq wouldn't have to provide the paperwork showing they destroyed their WMD's. You can't have it both ways. You've been blown out of the water.
Every time I think Hillary can't disgust me anymore, she proves me wrong. I would cut off my own right arm before I'd vote for her. And that's exactly why Republicans are so desperately trying to get her the nomination. No other reason than they know that if she's the nominee, McCain will win. "Operation Chaos" proves that beyond doubt.
Too bad they are uneducated on the process (as are you). In the Michigan primary, write-in votes are not allowed. This was talked about extensively at the time. You'd think people would do some research before making these types of arguments - or copying them from other message boards and regurgitating them. Much easier to post and hope no one catches you posting uneducated crap, I guess.
Shouldn't you be screaming for your fellow Republicans to put Jeb Bush on the ticket as VP? Rocket River
