Color-coded Hillary Alerts
If anyone has paid acutely painful attention to the political ministrations of Karl Rove over the past two and a half decades, it's me. And if there is anyone qualified to make comparisons between democracy's Darth Vader and Hillary Clinton, I stand at the head of that line, as well. And sadly, the similarities are so brutally obvious as to be disturbing.
First, there is this matter of her husband, a man I admired as president in spite of his teenage behavior. Sen. Barack Obama has run a campaign that has never mentioned race. In fact, ethnicity was not an issue until President William Jefferson Clinton made his comparisons of Obama in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson. We were on the verge of almost transcending such superficial nonsense until Mr. Clinton brought us back to 1968.
And presently, we have the first female vice presidential candidate ringing the bell on the same topic. Geraldine Ferraro is, of course, a part of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Senator Clinton plays the innocent on most of this by refusing to denounce these pronunciations. When she had the opportunity on 60 Minutes to tell the world that it is nonsense for the fear mongers to suggest Obama is a Muslim, she demurred with a qualified, "as far as I know" he's not. But she does know. Sen. Clinton and Obama have attended numerous Capital Hill prayer breakfasts together. Does she think he was playing the Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, perhaps trying to see what is going on with that whole Christianity thing? Isn't any person believable when they declare their faith until they have been vetted by the Clinton campaign?
She saved her campaign in Texas by acting like George W. Bush drunk on the ideas of Karl Rove. The 3 a.m. call ad that used fear to drive voters in her direction was nothing more than a desperate politician's attempt to tell everyone not even duct tape will save them if they vote for Obama. Created by Roy Spence of Austin, the ad was first deployed in 1984 in the Mondale campaign. (His ad agency also gave us, "You are now free to move around the country," and, "Don't mess with Texas," as memorable slogans.)
As Karl Rove has proven and as Orlando Patterson pointed out in the New York Times, campaigns and their messages are often more about image than substance. Was it an oversight or a design that the children sleeping safely in that 3 a.m. ad were white? Isn't everyone in politics astute enough to know these days that everyone who needs protecting isn't white? When Bush was running for president, Rove never let him be photographed without a rainbow coalition of children. Are we supposed to believe that Hillary's minders didn't see the racism implicit in her phone call ad?
The Clinton campaign doesn't seem to understand that the depth of Obama's appeal comes from his willingness to look forward with optimism instead of over his shoulder in fear. When he says, "We need to talk to our friends, but we also need to talk to our enemies," he is speaking for every mother and father who has a son in Iraq or one who might end up toting a gun for an amorphous cause that few can any longer explain. Who doesn't want to know why we are so despised that people will strap bombs to themselves to blow us up? Oh, I forgot, they hate our freedom. That's one Sen. Clinton hasn't tried yet.
It is also obscene in the extreme for the Clinton campaign to compare Sen. Obama to Ken Starr. Many voters from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunny shores of California want to know how much money the senator and the former president are earning, to whom he is speaking for large sums, and how he paid for his library in Little Rock. Do the Clintons really want to remind us what Ken Starr was looking for? As a friend of mine has suggested, this utter lack of judgment to bring his name back into the public discourse is "breathtaking."
Clinton is unwilling to sully her own hands with these absurd references. Like Rove, she relies on surrogates to go out and fire the gun. After the targets are wounded or dead, Rove had his clients come in and call for gun control and explain how they admired the political victim. Not Senator Clinton. She does nothing to denounce the nastiness. By pretending Obama is not prepared to lead, she proves her own desperation to acquire power and she denigrates the remaining historical reputation of her husband's administration. Historians might look beyond this dust devil she has spun, but the general public won't be able to see through the dirt flying through the air.
We are all tired of this. We all have Bush-Clinton fatigue. We need a hopeful, fresh start. Hillary might have made a fine president. But she has turned into an ugly campaigner.
This is not her time.
Follow James Moore on Twitter: www.twitter.com/moorethink
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The Obamanuts need to be careful By turning every little thing as a racism perpetrated against Hillary, they are turning off many voters and making others angry. If he wins the nomination, he will need them! Somehow, the nuts have convinced themselves that against McCain, Hillary needs all Obama supporters but Obama does not need Hillary supporters. Obama cannot win by just winning rich liberal, young and black voters!
As he is starting to demonstrate Jesse Jackson like victim mentality (he is no Jesse - he is a brilliant man for whom color and these petty racism non-sense should be non-issues but his campaign is making a serious mistake). Obama by charging everyone who speaks against him is a racist is reminding people of Jesse Jackson. As Mississipi reults show, 78% of the whites did not vote for him which is not good and is the highest so far. His best strategy should be to let the media talk about this racism chatter but remove himslef from the conversation by dismissing them as talk that does not matter. If he thinks the racism line is his way to show toughness and to get back at Hillary - he will lose either the nomination but if not surely the general election. Unfortunately many Obamanuts are Nadernuts - lose but go down as champions of their belief! We know what it gets - 8 years of George Bush!!
Funny, how a Clinton supporter makes GF's stupid comments BHO's fault.
Then again we are still debating the meaning of "is"... so I guess this is par for the course.
Does anyone with half a brain really want to go back to the "90's?
Yes we do want to go back to the 90's - record jobs, low inflation, declining poverty rate, budget surplus, Family Medical Leave Act and a 64% presidential approval rating!! What in there do you not like!
And you fullbrain - what are your qualifications?? Blog poster and Obamanut?
In fact, Senator Obama responded to Geraldine Ferraro's comments by saying that her words were NOT racist!
In fact, Senator Obama has not uttered the word "race" throughout his campaign, except perhaps when he was asked to respond to a racial remark uttered by either President Clinton or one of Senator Clinton's surrogates.
In fact, Senator Obama has NEVER charged anyone who speaks against him as racist and has never portrayed himself, either through his words or actions, to be a victim.
In fact, Senator Obama has insisted that race should not be a factor in the campaign, and that both he and Senator Clinton, as well as their surrogates, should focus on the issues.
In fact, he has responded to every inquiry about his experience and his platform.
In fact, at least some of the 78% of the whites in Mississippi who did not vote for Senator Obama, chose not to vote for him solely because he is black; and you're right: this is not good; but that is a problem within their own soul that they have to contend with, and not a problem that Senator Obama has either created or is responsible for.
In fact, it is not Senator Obama who is using the "racist line" to show toughness ... it is Senator Clinton and her campaign who are using the "racist line," not to show toughness however, but to create division.
Your perception of everything you have stated in your post is not only distorted, but it also seems to be shaped by your inclination to project your own attitude toward race onto Senator Obama, creating a reality that doesn't exist. But you can rest assured that if Senator Obama wins the nomination, he will win the general election as well, and neither John McCain nor Hillary Clinton will be in a position to give us another eight years of a George Bush presidency!!!
Excellent reply!
Perhaps you'd like to know that 24% of Hillary's white vote in Mississipi were Republicans. Gee, I wonder why...
Obama's campaign was the first to play the race card. They did it with the full support of the media in an attempt to turn all black voters against the Clintons. Any democrat that actively supports trying to turn the Clintons into racists after all that they have done for black america needs to become a republican.
The media in this campaign has done everything in its power to protect Obama and make Clinton look bad. A perfect example is the coverage of the Spitzer issue with lots of file footage of Bill Clinton and Monica. I have news for the Obama supporters. The free ride that your man has gotten in the press will end just as soon as the race begins against the Republicans. They will not pull any punches and the media will let them get away with it. Mark my words.
THANK YOU! Brilliant editorial. I only wish HRC voters would start to see the light. They are so blinded by her estrogen they're prepared to ignore the long history of ethics issues, the issues in this campaign where she gave her word to something and then turned around and did something else, the way she's changed her story whenever it was convenient, and the fact that at least FOUR times so far, her proxies have brought up Obama's race as an issue in this campaign, while she sits back and looks all innocent, but doesn't ever denounce their comments or actions. This woman will do anything to get the power. I have no doubt she'll do everything in her power to steal the nomination even if Obama finishes with a decisive lead in delegates, states, and the popular vote.
HE has removed people from his campaign who stooped to her level. HE generously defends even Geraldine Ferraro even after her nasty race-baiting comments. HE has taken the high road at every turn, and if HRC somehow pulled ahead in the primary votes, I have no doubt that he would graciously step back and ask us all to stand behind her. That's the character of this man.
But it's HRC's voters who can't stand the idea of him winning, who look at every gain he's made as a slur on womanhood or a diminishment of the aspirations of women. Nonsense. Give us a woman like Golda Meir and she'd win by a landslide. This woman is Eva Peron, and nobody should vote for her just because she's a woman.
Race is an issue here. Why is it when we ask an African-American person, who are you supporting? They say Barack, and we can't question that. But when we ask a woman, who are you supporting and if they say Hillary, then we say you're just doing that because you are woman and you are thinking about qualifications?
Barack removed people from his campaign, meaning they were his employees. (and meaning perhaps they weren't to step down?)
Ms. Ferraro was not paid by the campaign, she was just a volunteer fundraiser or someone "lending her name." Nevertheless, she stepped down.
Also, from Hillary's campaign.
“Geraldine Ferraro is not an adviser, she is not a member of the staff and we have made clear that we reject her comments, that we disagree with her comments, that she was not speaking on behalf of the campaign.”
Hmm. if you count Florida and Michigan's votes, Barack is behind by 30,000 votes. So perhaps he should step down... (I am not suggesting that, but I think it is dishonest to for him to say that he "has the popular vote" when he only "has the popular vote" if you don't count the 1.75 million voters in Florida's primary and the ~600,000 voters in Michigan's primary.)
HRC voters can stand Obama winning, They just prefer that the more experienced, person who has worked longer and harder for the people person get the job. It is experience versus popularity. It is someone who has worked for women and children and others versus someone who has not done as much.
And in the latest Rasmussen poll, it is the Obama voters that are "sore losers." Of MI likely primary voters, 35% of obama voters say they are "not at all likely to vote for Clinton" whereas only 25% of Clinton voters say they are "not at all likely to vote for Obama."
good points.
It's hopeless for me to tell you what a fool you are, Mr. James Moore, because the people at the Huffington Post, won't publish what I have to way. Apparently I'm not discreet enough. I won't kiss the asses of the Queen Bee herself, Arianna, or half-wit Hillary haters like yourself.
What the heck are you saying, John? Are you agreeing with the bone-headed statements that idiot Ferraro made? The same crappy statement she made about the Rev. Jesse Jackson?
Wow! What an insightful post completely bereft of hard data. Spoken like a true HRC supporter.
"We are so oppressed.
Yes, the supporters of the former 2-term 1st lady and junior Senator from NY are now the down-trodden. Only in "Hillary-World" (TM)
Well John, looks like you got your chance and blew it on cynicism. Too bad.
Mr. Moore.
A well written article. I agree with you completely.
Thank you,
Yes! It is not her time, but that's not stopping her. And if her sad tactics work, we lose.
Senator Clinton claims both campaigns have "supporter
In other words - one was designed to INCITE and not the other!
With regards as to the "why" of Ms. Ferraro's comments, I would suggest it was strategy. Given that their chances of winning in Mississippi were low, Ms. Ferraro's comments served as a buffer to Clinton's loss.
Because the insinuation his "blackness" gives him some kind of novelty edge leads to the conclusion that the only reason he won big in Mississippi is because of it's large black voting block (now that it has become "disloyal" to the Clintons). Thus, dampening the landslide results in his favor.
So take heart Clinton voters, Pennsylvania is coming, where little more than 10% of the population is Black.
I personally hate this kind of thinking - that is; "Black v.s. White v.s. Latino v.s. Women" it's not progressive and is only self serving.
I think they (Clinton Camp) thought they could get away with it for 2 reasons:
That coming from Ms. Ferraro (who earned campaigning stripes as the first woman to be run for V.P.) would stir righteous feminist feathers among those who believe a women's second class status experience is no different then the inequality of racism.
And secondly, the damage has already been done. Once again the seed of doubt has been again watered, in regards to Senator Obama's presidential qualifications (it's only because of his "crossover" novelty).
Finally, it is all of this old school politicking on Senator Clinton's part that completely turns me off from her campaign. She might be the female president, but make no mistake — she is not forward thinking. Her campaigning "style" proves that she is playing it by the entrenched rules of the "game" - why do her supporters think she will suddenly break out once in office. She will play at the same old power games, with the same old power brokers then as she is now. And while I am thinking about it, where is Senator Edwards? Is this not clear to him - the staunch fighter of special interests for the benefit of the middle class? Surely he knows Senator Clinton is playing by the usual handbook. What does he lose by publicly endorsing a candidate?
Funny, Hillary Clinton never mentions that her White House experience includes writing a COOKBOOK. See Invitation to the White House, Simon and Schuster.
And what is wrong with writing a cookbook - you Hillary hating Obamanut?
Nothing if you are running for president of the Food Network. That would be relevant experience. I imagine Hill used an uncredited ghostwriter for that book as she did for It Takes a Village Idiot.
I am surprised that you didn't go into more detail about how the Geraldine Ferraro incident followed the Atwater/Rove playbook.
First you start with a surrogate that is not an official spokesperson but has enough celebrity to get quoted in the news. Then you do not respond until the press tells you, and then act as if you have heard it for the first time and first start with something mild, like sayint that those were personal statements and not from the campaign, when pressed further say that you do not agree, then perhaps something like it was regrettable that the things were said while still saying nothing negative about the attacker themselves. Then if the thing hasn't blown over by the next news cycle you sadly accept their resignation. or issue a repudiation. That will finally shut up the opposition since there is nothing more to ask for. Meanwhile those swayed by the attack will take the slow response as...wink.
Meanwhile if the press is still paying attention after the repudiation have the surrogate continue to stand by the statement or have them 'clarify' it in a way that essentially repeats it from a different if perhaps softer angle.
I can't say whether Clinton ordered Ferraro to make the original statement but I will say that the response to it followed a well-worn playbook as to how to get maximum mileage from the actions of surrogates.
DRaymond, your analysis is bang on. I have nothig to add except the obvious; If Clinton is willing to enthusiastically use Rovian tactics in a primary she will surely be willing to use the un-constitutional and illigal "toolbox" assembled by Rove-Cheney-Bush.
First, Hillary's staffer quits after suggesting Republicans will exploit Obama's unknown background, such as the extent of his teen-age drug use. Then, Obama's volunteer advisor leaves after calling Hillary a 'monster'. Now, Ms. Ferraro resigns from the Hillary camp for making a reasonable observation about Obama's meteoric rise. Just when folks are starting to hear the truth about these candidates, the messengers are all getting the ax. A sad commentary. Having written this e-mail, I guess I should now resign from something.
This is good. I get tired of hearing spin and hype in the media all the time. It is nice to hear some rational thought. Thanks
The following excerpt is an example of what Geraldine Ferraro said about
Jesse Jackson in 1988.
"If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," she said.
Really. The cite is an April 15, 1988 Washington Post story (byline: Howard
Kurtz), available only on Nexis.
Here's the full context:
Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out
repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the
campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson
tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A.
Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if
Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."
Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed
ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath,
and said quietly, "Millions of Americans have a point of view different
from" Ferraro's.
Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, "We campaigned across
the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got
North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and
then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I'm making
history."
Thanks for info. good stuff. I am getting sick of the reverse prejudice and don't you say a thing true or false about a "Black America" or you will get sued or have a bunch of fearful White American turn coats giving you what-fore. I'm not for anyone who is running, and vote for Obama to try and run America would make as much common sense as shooting your Dog because your Cow died.
I'm curious how you catagorize a White American turncoat? Oh wait, you mean someone not affiliated with the KKK. Gotcha.
People ignored the resume of GWB too---- so I don't expect any great results from picking this PREZ either.
If a COMPUTER was picking the candidate HILLARY would win just based on ISSUES and EXPERIENCE TO back it up. .
A computer that wasn't fed color or gender that is. .
Obama has no foreign policy experience at all.
His flowery tongue is all he has going for him.
But do people care ? Not really---they are pretty dang stupid in this country---look at who they elected TWICE.
"Obama has no foreign policy experience at all. "
HMM, so the Lugar-Obama ammendment dealing with stemming WMD proliferation in former soviet states doesn't count because???
Only as long as you programmed the computer to accept that invading Iraq was a good idea. Otherwise, ZERO foreign policy experience is preferable to NEGATIVE experience.
As humans, we want the candidate with better foreign policy JUDGEMENT.
Folks need to learn the facts before speaking out about the candidates. When you don't know, one tends to speculate.
Neither Dem Candidate has good judgement to be in the White House.
One of them voted for the Use of Force Authorization on Iraq, while the other one initially opposed war with Iraq, but strangely saw fit to continue complicity in BushCo.'s crime by, along with Hillary, giving aid and comfort to war criminals by continued funding of the illegal war and occupation.
Just checking out Cynthia McKinney's credentials would cure Ms. Ferraro's out-of-control mouth. She has 8 years experience in the Georgia State House, and 12 years experience in the US House. And she had the courage to stand up to BushCo. with Articles of Impeachment that she sponsored in late 2006. The cowardly Dems saw to her defeat because of it. She is now running as a Green, seeking the party's nomination.
How about Ralph Nader? 40+years of looking after workers, consumers, patients, etc. all without the spin doctors and corporate benefactors pulling any strings--he'd just cut them right off!!!
Want REAL choices? It ain't between Obama and Hillary and McCain---it's really between Cynthia and Ralph. Go to either www.runcyn
And one other thing...co
Did you read Joe Wilson's piece on Judgement?
BEFORE he started running for President, Barack stated on numerous occassions that he doesn't know how he would have voted in the Senate because he wasn't there and didn't have access to the same information they did.
When he finally did have a chance to actually prove his sound judgment on Afghanistan as chairman of the senate subcommittee responsible for overseeing for NATO and Europe, he neglected his responsibility completely -- failing to hold a single hearing in the 14 months he held his chairmansh
On Iran, Barack has waffled on whether to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. He first co-sponsored a bill that contained language stating exactly that, but later claims to have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman resolution proposing the same thing (a resolution that he conveniently was not present to vote on).
and Barack's judgement on Healthcare is very very flawed. and a flip flop from his statements in 2007. He said "We must act. And we must act boldly. ... Washington no longer has an excuse for caution. Leaders no longer have a reason to be timid.” Yet his is the wimpiest plan of the 3 top candidates (Obama, Clinton, Edwards) and does not achieve universal healthcare
What experience does she have? Was she hired as a diplomat? And what would have been her credentials to be hired as a diplomat? I forgot -- she was married to the President. Nice feminist there, Hillary, Geraldine,. Geraldine, who truly was selected to be VP nominee on affirmative action. When Obama earned every election he ever won, and that's counting the impressive string of primaries, against a "Clinton", for God's sake, who has whined about being picked on for being a girl since Day One. Was she accountable to anyone for her advice? Of course, we don't know what advice she gave: in her version of reality, she was responsible for everything good, and not responsible for everything bad.
She went to cocktail parties and that makes her Ready on Day One. Right.
She wasn't ready for the Iraq vote. She certainly is ready to go to war with Iran. She didn't care enough to show up to vote against telecom immunity. She was more than willing to allow cluster bombs in civilian areas. She certainly didn't care about the securing of loose nukes as a Senator. Senator Obama did, and worked with Lugar to write a bill, get it passed and even signed by Bush, who wanted nothing to do with this issue. Yeah, she's certainly more effective than Obama.
What legislation has she written and marshalled through the Senate, against political will? When has she stood up to Bush?
She is so devoid of honor and decency, I am horrified that she might actually become president. She has appealed to the basest, darkest parts of the American soul. Hey, it worked for Bush. It can work for Hillary.
And we'll continue this nightmare.
If by "experience" she means having lived in the White House, Laura Bush can run the country, Chelsea Clinton can run the country, the cooks can run the country. And although she didn't live there (as far as we know), it seems the one who spent a lot of time there: Monica Lewisnsky can run the country.
We are still waiting for her to release her taxes, list of donor to her husband's library, list of pardons he granted, who is paying for his speeches. Before she ran this campaign Rove's style, I trusted her. Not anymore.
So, release your records. The public needs to know whose interest you have at heart.
While Sen. Obama may lack the experience of being a First Lady (and all that that entails), he never-the-less grasped that the terrorists responsible for 9/11 were not located in Iraq. It was Hillary with all her dubious at best experience that handed Bush the keys to drive the bus into the ditch. By Hill's logic regarding what constitutes experience, Laura Bush should drop her name in the hat for prez. After all she was also next to a what has been called a president for 8 years.
I doubt seriously if the people who are supporting Senator Obama voted for George Bush even once, much less twice!
As a point of curiousity, since we all know Hillary was a repub long before she was a Democrat, if she loses the nomination, will mccain decide to have a "cross-ticket" and have her as HIS VP? What a disaster that will be. In Iraq for a hundred years, no middle class left at all, no jobs except as servants to the repuke haves, have-mores, and have-it-alls. Oh well. The rich should think about the well-muscled poor (well-muscled due to doing all the work) who rose against the Romans and simply took what had been denied them for so long. It will happen in this country.
This is so real a possibility I bet she pitches this to superdelegates: vote for me or I'll run with McCain.
LOL McCain/ Clinton ticket, thats really funny I could see the bible belt republican heads exploding. The man who fathered a black child out of wedlock Running with the anti-christ woman.....
Hmmm......
I watched as Clinton got attacked by all the male candidates at every debate. I watched the media knock her & build Obama. I thought, well all color men got to vote before women did, it makes sense a black male will probably get in before any woman. I watched Barack's face closely as he attacked Clinton. I watched Barack keep getting free passes.
I wondered how long it'd be before it became gender/racist. I read this article & can not believe the spin put on it. I read the posts & see people who like this, & who obviously did not see the actual events, yet are only too happy to chime in with this crock. Whew! The Republican attack team is good......
Of course this has obviously become racist/gender. The black vote was Cinton's before. It's easy to destroy a woman, but a Tiger Woods is hard to beat. I am surprised that no one else has noticed the resemblance. Tiger won my heart, I root for him over all other golfers., if a woman came up & could beat him, it'd depend on who the woman was if I rooted for her or not. I am rooting for Clinton now that I've seen the unbelievable hatred being thrown at her for all these years & how she's still standing.
By the way, she said she has experience, McCain has experience, & Obama has a speech. It's a fact, not that McCain is a better candidate. And Gerry...yo
So if I understand this right, you will vote for Clinton because you feel sorry for her. People are being mean to her and making her cry so to make it all better we should give her the presidency? Hmm, no I think I'll skip the whacko theory of electing a president and stick with looking at what the candidates have actually done.
Obama opposed going into Iraq
Hillary handed Bush the keys and drew him a map.
Obama helped Illinois veterans get disability benefits that were being denied them
Hillary published a cook book as First Lady
Obama worked to create over $100 million in tax cuts for families in Illinois
Hillary accepted more money from the private health care industry then any other candidate from either party.
Obama travelled to Russia to learn more about what has happened to the old Soviet nuclear arms.
Hillary traveled to Bosnia with Sheryl Crow and Sinbad and gave a speech. Wait speeches are not really worth considering by your arguement, guess we have to scratch that one.
Hmmm, well you got me, Obama never published a cook book. He just successfully ran against one of the most politically powerful machines in current US politics, the Clinton Machine.
I agree completely, Hillary needs to get out of the race, she crossed the ' thresh hold when she make the dumb statement that she and McCain were ready to be commander in chief and Obama was not. She has tried everything she can think of to win but she continued to lose and the time has come to cut off this infectious rhetoric and go after McCain, not your fellow Democrat. Sorry Hillary you lose for the betterment of the country and believe me, I do think we are bush and clinton weary.
Until that point, I had proclaimed that I would vote for the Democratic candidate, whoever would win the nomination.
I'm not so sure now. Hillary's campaign is approaching a point where I can not in good conscience vote for her.
Stop this "If Obama doesn't win, I won't vote or I will vote for McCain." The next president will appoint 2-3 supreme court justices and if you value your civil liberties, care about minorities and women's rights, then you better vote and vote for a Democrat.
Let's all take a pact to come together. I wanted this from the beginning - the dream ticket ... and now it's coming down to destruction and possibly a win for the Repubs with that kind of attitude.
Ferra ro's comment are very,very TRUE. Why is Obama getting 90% of the black vote and Hillary gets 10%. That is a perfect exmple of been bias, he media is afrid to agree. they are afraid of Al Sharpton You all see it, but afrid to admi. Yu can't be blind. Allthe Union leaders that were supporting Hillary switched to Obama. One of them actually said "I have to do it for my contituents, Another was on TV saying that he actually cried before he swich but did so for his people. This race for the presidency is about race an gender. I voted Hillary for her 35-years experience in politics..
**Why is Obama getting 90% of the black vote **
What percentage of the black vote did John Kerry, Al Gore and Bill Clinton get?
I'm not afraid of a "strong woman". I'm afraid of a president who supported George Bush's war, supported Joe Lieberman's run for the Senate against a Democrat, and voted for Kyl-Lieberman. Among other things.
I'm also afraid of a Democratic candidate who is to political scandal what my old dog is to burrs.
I'm also afraid of a Democratic candidate who is to political scandal what my old dog is to burrs.
But Obama's dealings with a felon are ok? When Obama attacks Clinton for NAFTA - are you aware that his surrogates met with people in Canada to reassure them that NAFTA would stay. Do you realize that Obama WASN'T in the Senate when the war vote took place? Do you realize that Obama won his Senate seat from Alan KEYES?????
Do you know ANYTHING about this guy except that he's on the net and he's sort of black?
I've been asking the Obamaniacs for weeks on this blog - tell me why I should vote for Barack - Why I should vote for Barack - Why I should vote for Barack...
And all I hear is vicious, illiterate rantings about Clinton... what's WRONG with you people???
He is getting 90% of the black vote because Clinton is race-baiting and they can see it. She is disenfrachising all of her black support by allowing her surrogates to sling racist remarks for her. She only has herself to blame.
Geraldine Ferraro said, in so many words, that the only reason Senator Obama is in the position he's in is because he's black! What's true about that? The reasons Senator Obama is in the position he's in arefor many, but none that are based on the color of his skin alone. He is in the position he's in because of a brilliant campaign, because of his exceptional credentials (i.e. experience), because of his ability to inspire others to share in his vision for the future of America, and because of the integrity and substance of his character. He is also in the postion he's in because of the inept and degrading campaign of Senator Clinton, which has not only helped to put him in the position he's in, but as helped to put Senator Clinton in the position she's in as well. What Geraldine Ferraro said was as offensive as it was utterly false. BTW, both President Clinton and Senator Clinton enjoyed the support of the African American community since 1992, and many African Americans supported Senator Clinton at the onset of this campaign; however, the 10% of black voters that are still supporting Senator Clinton are probably the 10% that she has not yet offended. Senator Obama did not take the black electorate from Hillary ... she gave it away!
Have you forgot that 9 out of 10 African Americans voted for Kerry, Gore, and Clinton? Come on people!
One of Hill's Shills managed to get their stuff into the latest National Enquirer. There it was, staring at me at the checkstand - Obama terrorist/
Obama supporters may not be good at fairness, but a lot of them are quite good at following the Clinton Rules, as this poster has done. The Clinton Rules show it is OK to say anything about the Clintons, honesty and facts are not required..
DITTO the Obamaniacs - look no farther than this blog... (ironic, the Baracksters don't ever read their buddies postings!) And they have FAR out done anything that the Clintons could have to the precious baby.
I have a friend who answers when I ask why he's voting for Barack - he says 'he's cool'....
You people are insane
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
