Can Obama Appeal to White Rural Men?

In a number of recent primary contests, white rural men have tended to support Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. And the renewed focus on the views of Obama's Pastor, Rev. Wright, certainly doesn't help. But the notion that Obama "can't appeal" to white rural men sells short both Barack Obama and white men who live in rural America. It also flies in the face of the facts.

There are five important factors that are critical to understanding the role these voters will have in this year's presidential election.

1). Contrary to popular belief, Clinton's advantage with this demographic has been far from universal. Remember that the entire primary season opened with Obama's surprise victory in Iowa -- not exactly Manhattan, unless of course you mean Manhattan, Kansas. (Obama also carried the Kansas caucus by 74% to 25%.)

And let's remember he also swept other states with major white rural populations. Examples include Nebraska (67% to 32%); Maine (59% to 40%); Alaska (75% to 24%); Wyoming (61% to 37%); Wisconsin (58% to 40%) and Minnesota (66% to 32%).

In Wisconsin, exit polls showed Obama carrying white men by 63% to 34% and rural voters 56% to 43%. In Virginia he carried white men 58% to 40% and rural voters 79% to 20%. In Georgia white men preferred Obama 48% to 46%, and rural voters preferred him 60% to 35%.

2). Clinton's own super-high negatives among independent voters -- including those in rural areas -- present her with a more difficult task than Obama in many rural states in the fall. Take Iowa, where the RealClearPolitics.com average of polls shows Obama up on McCain by 9.3% and McCain leading Clinton by 10%.

3). My mother used to say that you know that a romantic relationship has promise if the better you know the other person, the better you like them. The same is true in politics. When Barack Obama first ran for the US Senate from Illinois, many pundits laughed that an African American guy with a name like Obama had no chance at all in downstate Illinois. Wrong.

As people in downstate small cities and rural areas got to know Obama they warmed up fast. In the end Obama won almost 53% of the primary vote statewide against three other very strong candidates. When the original Republican candidate was forced to leave the race because of a sex scandal, Obama was so strong that the state GOP was forced to ship in Alan Keyes from Maryland to be their candidate. Obama crushed him in the general election.

I had dinner recently with the chair of the Scott County (IL) Democratic party. She described Barack's first meeting with her mainly rural, white male precinct committee people. It was safe to say that he didn't have them at "hello." They were pretty skeptical at first. But by the end of the meeting, most were sold on Obama's authenticity -- and on his understanding of people like themselves.

So it's not surprising that in the Illinois primary for president, Obama beat Hillary almost two-to-one in Illinois. Most of Illinois' 103 counties are rural or home to small cities and towns. Obama carried all but 14.

Does Obama play in Peoria? He carried Peoria County with 69.3%.

Obama won Adams County -- home of Quincy, on the Mississippi River -- by 60%.

He carried rural Henry County in northwest Illinois by 62%.

The fifteen counties in the far southern end of the state are physically -- and culturally -- closer to Jackson, Mississippi than to Chicago. People hunt, have guns, are predominantly white, and are committed to their churches. Obama carried far southern Illinois against Clinton.

Exit polls from the Illinois presidential primary show white men went for Obama 59% to 37%. Those men and women who earn less than $50,000/year voted 64% for Obama. People who live in small cities and rural areas supported Obama 53% to 43%.

Well, of course, you say: these people are from his home state. But that's the point. The more that rural voters and white men generally know about Obama, the more they support him.

4). Even where white rural men express their preference for Clinton in a Democratic primary, it doesn't mean they would vote for McCain in the general election if Obama is the nominee. Democratic primary voters almost always vote for the general election candidate of their party, and for good reason. They are Democrats because they understand that McCain's economic and foreign policies don't represent their best interests.

The real question is not primary voters -- it is how independent voters (people who don't vote in primaries) of all sorts would vote in the fall. Obama has shown that he is much more attractive to that all-important category of voter than Hillary Clinton.

5). There is one more fatal flaw in the narrative that Obama can't attract white rural men. You can say what you want to attack a political candidate, but if, in the end, it doesn't ring true, the argument generally won't prevail. Barack Obama is the furthest thing from the "elitist" that the Republicans and the Clinton campaign have tried to portray. In fact, at his core, he's the guy who went to work organizing unemployed steelworkers for a coalition of churches -- not a Washington insider like John McCain whose family is worth $100 million and owns nine homes.

The renewed media attention to the views of Obama's Pastor Rev. Wright may briefly distract attention from the real Obama. Of course the silver lining of Rev. Wright's three day PR tour is that it was conducted with such utter disregard for the interests of Obama's campaign that it serves to emphasize the great gulf between Obama and Wright - both in substance and in style.

And as voters come to know Obama, they realize that he has a huge quantity of the one quality that is just the opposite of elitism: empathy.

In her Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Abraham Lincoln, A Team of Rivals, Doris Kearns Goodwin contends that Lincoln's ability to empathize -- "the gift or curse of putting himself in the place of another, to experience what they were feeling, to understand their motives and desires" -- was one of the major ingredients in his success as a politician and as a person.

In my own book, Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, I make the argument that empathy is the key that allows progressives to win -- and is the keystone of progressive values.

Barack Obama is blessed with an enormous abundance of empathy. That empathy is the quality that will enable him not only to reach out to white men, but to bring people of different backgrounds and cultural histories together to create a common American future.

Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book, "Stand Up Straight. How Progressives Can Win," available on amazon.com

Comments

[RunningForHillary]

The perfect illustration of how reasonable people can look at the same set of facts and come away with opposite conclusions. None of the Clinton supporters I know doubt Obama's native abilities, his intelligence, and that as people come face to face with him they grow to like him. What we doubt is his ability to reach enough people to change their natural inclination to distrust whatever they do not know. Obama is unknown, because of his background, his lack of having had a tough, competitive election, and minimal national experience. His election to the Illinois Senate was largely uncontested in an ultra-liberal district. His "race" to the U.S. Senate was a cakewalk thanks to Republican scandals and a weak competitor at the last minute. He wasn't in the Senate long enough to run for re-election against Republican challengers.
In spite of Obama supporters' illusions that the Clintons are this "attack machine", the evidence is quite the opposite. This has been a gentle joust compared to many Democratic primaries I have watched in past elections, and, as Geoff Garin pointed out in the Washington Post, “The bottom line is that one campaign really has engaged in a mean-spirited, unfair character attack on the other candidate -- but it has been Obama’s campaign, not ours. You would be hard-pressed to find significant analogues from our candidate, our senior campaign officials or our advertising to the direct personal statements that the Obama campaign has made about Clinton.”

[Kirk59]

Obama's "race" for the US Senate was a cakewalk, since the GOP had neither the candidate nor the money, nor the courage to challange him. Winning the primary for the Senate race was where he had to battle among other well funded, better known Democrats, with downstate appeal that he initially lacked.
His win was a surprise to many, but in the end he proved the strongest candidate and he was able to persuade rural downstate voters to vote for him instead of sitting it out.
Illinois is for sure a very blue state. Chicago liberals are not the same as SF or NY liberals. Ours tend to be more working class, union people with midwestern values. Self educated in politics, many of them are, and skeptical, like our nieghbors in Missouri. Barack sells here because he is authentic. Hillary and Bill have never and will never be seen as authentic, except for their unquenchable thirst for power.

[hank48188]

The rich white guy that was favored to win the DEM Primary had some bad news involving domestic violence publicized and it caused him to lose. In the General Election the Rich Republican had his divorce records unsealed after a court fight and it revealed he took his wife to swinger-clubs. Obama's people were probably involved in this info coming public, you know how corrupt Chicago and Illinois is, they had access to court records

[Serfie]

I agree with you.

The Obama supporters love to portray the Clinton as the epitome of evil, because they think they are morally superior to everybody, though they are far from being righteous in their own campaign methodology. That is evident at the Huffington Post everyday, which is just a propaganda rag for the Obama campaign. And here, I have witnessed the most scurrilous attacks against the Clinton that can't be matched from other primary seasons. Either the Obama supporters are self-deluded or liars, I haven't made my mind up yet.

[Wiam]

Every dishonest attack on Obama from right-wing pundits has backfired. The lapel pin hoopla gave us a better understanding of why and how Obama IS patriotic, with a depth, complexity and passion many of us baby boomers feel. The Wright sound bites resulted in people hearing and being won over by Obama’s sensible and balanced “race speech.”

I’m surprised white men aren’t flocking to vote for Obama. How often does a black man show he understands their frustration with the inherent reverse discrimination of affirmative action? Middle and working class white guys are voting for Sen. Clinton even though the last Clinton administration gave us NAFTA outsourcing that destroyed America’s jobs. While Clinton claims she never supported NAFTA, her schedules reveal that she actually lobbied for it. She says she doesn’t agree with trade agreements now, but her husband and campaign manager just made over a million bucks to promote yet another trade deal with Columbia when the Clintons are back in the White House. Similarly, elderly people helped reelect Bush because he said he fixed Medicaid for them. They didn’t find out until after the election that he actually fixed Medicaid for the drug and insurance companies, not them. The question is now, will voters get fooled again?

I’m going to trust my intuition about Barack Obama. My gut tells me he’s a good person with great ideas to engage us in creating an America we can be proud to pass on to our kids.

[BigSid]

NOT AGAIN

This article is another SAD ATTEMPT to make Obama's problem someone else's problem. Obama definitely has a problem with some demographics and it would be nice if people just accepted that, rather than try to make it seem like someone's lack of desire to vote for Obama a weakness on their part.

[Kirk59]

He does have a problem. So does Hillary, and so does McCain, depending on which voting demographic you are referring to. Since Obama has won white rural males in the past, the notion is he could do it in the future. It is not a guarantee, and in fact, all Democrats have had problems carrying this group in past elections.
Obama may lose the general. He may lose because of this demographic. Over 80 % of the states have considered this and weighed in with their votes.
In order for any Democrat to win they are going to need new voters, heavy turnout, young voters, independents, and some Republican crossovers. Hillary will bring us heavy turnout all right, among Republicans.

[MaureenSharkey]

Your numbers prove that the real bias in this country is against women.

[jvarga]

Or warmongering politicians like Senator Clinton?

[allamericanboy]

I'm about as white as you can get, and my hometown in the farm country of Oklahoma has a population of 1,200. And I'm 100% supporting Obama. As is my Republican brother.

[PitchnCatch]

Of course he appeals to "us."

This white guy who lives in rural New Mexico couldn't be more supportive of someone who exemplifies honesty, integrity and our ONLY opportunity for desperately needed change. Another reason why our US Senator just added his credible name to the list of "white" men (and I really dislike having to label myself as anything other than a humble, middle-class American) who believe in Senator Obama.

The MSM continues to make issues out of non-issues. Give the guy the Democratic nomination, that he has rightfully earned, and he'll sweep Dems into office nationwide - himself included.

[HBeachbum]

Of course, Hillary won the NM Caucus.

[justobserve]

The answer is: the media were swindled by the Clintons!
The Clintons can't accept the lost of their entitlement to the WH so they did what they do best: SPIN! And as usual, the media just followed without a critical look at what lies being told to them and repeated the lies 24/7 until the lies told long enough became the truth. The Clintons, old foxes of politics, knew it. They had practiced it to the art form from the time in Arkansas, going through the WH to the years after that to gather hundred of millions. Of course she didn't reveal what they do behind the scene to be worth that much. Times and times again, these two people lied, cheated, intimidated and covered-up and got through whatever scandals they involved in. Even after a blue dress proved without a doubt, they still lied and intimidated to get out of an impeachment. Do anyone remembers the Clintons ever "boast" about his license being suspended? It's a smock of democracy when people such as the Clintons are still on the scene.
No one ever asks WHY DIDN"T CLINTON WIN THE RACE AS AN INEVITABLE? True to form of a masterspinner, it was the Clintons who spun WHY DIDN"T Obama close?
The media should have asked: WHAT MORE OBAMA HAS TO WIN AFTER HE ALREADY WON THE PLEDGE DELEGATES, and the INEVITABLE can't catch up?

[dcwblackhorse]

Amen, amen!!! Soooo true!

[BeingFrank]

Fantastic Article !!

I believe that the biased media knows the facts however slant them to Influence, verses to Inform.
To create doubt by sending out a man made wave, a false notion that those who support Obama, are
going against the common stance and are therefore out of step, which does make some reconsider.

I would also like to answer this reoccurring question as to why 90% of blacks would support Obama.

Would you ask the same question of a Native American if one of them were running for the presidency ?

Common experience of a struggle to survive overwhelming odds, creates a common response to raise up someone who can understand that experience.

Culture and Pigmentation are irrelevant.

Struggle is now a part of the lives of more Americans than ever before, White, Black, Brown, Asian, Female and Male of every age, and it’s that terrible unsecure experience that we all share.

Who better today to represent us all than Obama ?

[inmyopinion]

Robert: Please be advised that rural Alaska is not all that white, and in fact Alaska is not exactly a lily-white state. Alaska Natives -- Inupiat, Yupik, Athabascan, Tlingit, etc. -- make up a significant portion of the electorate. The Native population is especially concentrated in rural Alaska, where the villages (generally unconnected by any road) are traditional Native settlements, many of which have few non-Native residents. Non-Native Alaskans tend to be concentrated in the urban corrodior of the state: the road-connected "Railbelt" from Fairbanks to Seward. The Lower 48 stereotype of rural white residents just doesn't hold in Alaska. By the way, rural Alaskans (of all ethnicities) are predominantly Democratic and predominately left-leaning, as you can see by election results over the years and by representation in the legislature.
I'm not taking issue with your basic premise, and it's true that Obama did well in Alaska across the board (urban, rural, white, Native, Asian, black) and remains popular as the sort-of insurgent, anti-establishment candidate, but the idea that Alaska is an all-white state would come as a huge suprise to the Alaska Federation of Natives. It would also be a big surprise to our relatively large Asian population.

[dcwblackhorse]

Great comment! Hope the rest of the Native American population sees it this way too.

[EggsBolinski]

Obama is closer in values to white, rural blue collar folks than to Rev. Wright. Obama is a hokey, centrist Democrat. Us progressives recognize that immediately. What he said in San Francisco was Obama just being nice to us Progressives, playing to our stereotypes of middle America to make a point. Obama in fact thinks us progressives are a bit looney but likeable. That is how he feels about Rev. Wright a likable but looney preacher. Obama is a square and a jock. He is as middle America as they come. Still I will vote for him because at least he tolerates us progressives.

[xman100]

senator obama, speak out about separation of state and religion, and send this reverend back into his pulpit.

thank you.

x.

[Serfie]

I think Obama has done well with white men.

After all, he won in all the whitest of white inbred Red states, which were caucuses, and not primaries, so he basically had college students thug his victory for him.

How much appeal does Obama have in the cosmopolitan states? Except for Illinois, none. He has lost every major Blue state to Hillary. He has lost every major state with a primary system to Hillary. He has lost every major Electoral College state to Hillary.

Yeah, Obama has wide appeal, only to the self-deluded bloggers at the Huffington Post.

[idabamaho]

He's won. Get over it.

[dcwblackhorse]

He won the college student's vote! Great, it's their generation we are leaving our mess to. I hope he kicks HRC butt and then shows the Republican party the power of young America, the generation that will hopefully take our country out of it's segregated stalemate! I'm white, middle class, middle aged! Take it all the way to the White House Obama!

[Researchguy66]

News flash...white guys in Wyoming and Idaho are irrelevant in November for Obama or Clinton. White guys in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Massachusetts? you're kidding yourselves if you don't think they matter. I'll be interested to see how far this Rev. Wright thing goes over the next week.

I don't think it's Rev. Wright per se. We've heard far worse from Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, etc. I believe it's suspicion raised by his appearance of being sneaky. It appears as if he just wanted to sweep Wright under the rug...as Newt said (and I paraphrase) he entered the back door with the black guy, but left the black guy in the basement and walked out the front door with the white guy.

Add to his bitter comments, not the comment itself, but the perception that he thought he was confiding in a better class of people about their intellectual inferiors. There's a sense of betrayal and distrust that that breeds.

Do I think Obama can improve his image amongthis group, win the nomination and win in November? Yes. But distrust breeds more distrust and it's a tough job.

[idabamaho]

Obama can win Idaho, Clinton cannot. Do your research, research guy. More democrats showed up for Obama in the dem Idaho caucus' than the republican total turnout by a large margin. Before Reagan, Idaho had a dem governor and a dem senior senator.

Clinton on the other hand will get smashed in every red state across the country. Hence Rove and Limbaugh the latest freshman on the Clinton cheerleading squad.

[inmyopinion]

Similar situation in Alaska. Obama can at least keep it close, even if an outright win is a longshot. Clinton gets creamed. That's why Alaska Democrats, who are on the rise, are hoping and hoping that Obama tops the ticket. They're looking for coattails in the for-once competitive Senate and House races, or at least a presidential candidate whose name they won't be embarrassed to mention.

[Researchguy66]

I have no way of knowing who the Reoublicans would like best to run against. It appears McCain favors running against Obama since he's already taking potshots at him.

In any case, George Bush won Idaho 68% to 30% in 2004 and 67% to 28% in 2000. Voter turnout in 2000 was at a recent high of 77% of registered voters.

Likewise, George Bush won Alaska 61% to 36% in 2004 and 59% to 28% in 2000. Voter turnout in 2004 was 66% of registered voters. By the way, Nader took about 10% of the vote in Alaska in 2000.

Don't confuse your hopefulness with fact.

[mcw123]

Please explain to me why Obama's perceived inability to win over white, rural, men is such an issue, yet there is virtually no concern regarding Clinton's actual inability to win over upscale, educated, young voters of either gender? Doesn't she need those voters to win the general?

Since when does having a college degree or modicum of success disqualify someone from having a valid and valuable opinion in this country? Why not listen to us elites for once, instead of inflating beyond reason the importance of those voters with the least education and exposure to the world?

I was certainly smart enough to see through our self-entitled, corrupt, pandering, secretive, dishonest, political beast of a President and his scheme to take this country to war for oil. I see zero difference between her and our current President, aside from maybe a few IQ points, some DNA, and agendas.

Oh, that’s right, elites don’t count. And I live in North Carolina, so I double don’t count. I may be an elite, but if there is one thing I am certain of, it is that Obama is substantially smarter, more capable, a better leader and person than I can ever hope to be. He may not be perfect, but he is certainly better than we deserve.

[Franciscodeflores]

Well, I'm a white male from a rural area (Western Minnesota) and I wouldn't have any trouble voting for Obama if I thought he represented economic and social justice for working people. I have listened extensively to anything that the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr. has to say and have come to the conclusion that I'd like to be voting for him. I wish that Obama wouldn't distance himself from this gentle, prescient person.

It is difficult to wade through the barrage of crap coming from the fascist dominated corporate media and PBS. We need to find someone who understands that wars are fought for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful and their selfish interests and not the high and mighty justification presented to those who actually have to go and do the fighting and dying.

We want guaranteed, universal heath care. We want pension security and rock-solid social security. We want the Taft-Hartley Law repealed so that labor can regain its bargaining position. We want a tax on windfall oil revenues like they have in Venezuela. We want a fairer distribution of income and a meaningful graduated income tax at levels similar to the 1950's.

When the election is finally over, we should round up Bush and Cheney and turn them over to the International Court of Justice to be tried (along with their lieutenants) for war crimes.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

The election of a president requires each part of the process to hold up its end of the bargain. There's the candidate, the voters, and the media. The candidate can only do so much. She or he can meet with 10,000 voters and offer specific proposals and uplifting themes-- the media can then reach 100,000 voters with an irrelevant gossip which overshadows all the efforts of the candidate. And the voters can choose to be swayed by these sideshows.

The 2008 election is a real test for Americans. Suppose Wright does damage Obama to the point where Clinton becomes the nominee-- then the standard is set. What Clinton is benefiting from now could turn around and damage her too. The Politics of Diversion (as well as division) will come back to bite all of us at some point. Our own favorite candidate will be caught up in a silly story about her or his gardener or classmate from decades ago.

Obama's end of the bargain: run a positive campaign that focuses on the issues and is funded by the people. The media's end of the bargain: let Drudge do his thing, but separate real news from whose foot Britney ran over or what Wright said about Farrakhan.

And the voters: base our decision on our bank accounts, and, more importantly, the safety of our troops and integrity of our government, not on what the well-paid Joe Scarborough says in a comfortable studio high above the rest of us.

[HappyDae]

Oh, forget Pastor Wright. He's just a narcissist performer and will have no input to the White House.

Focus on the candidate. During Sen. Obama's questioning of the two most senior American officials in Iraq, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama took a minimalist view of what America could do to help Iraqi citizens regain faith in their government. Instead, the Illinois senator lowered the criterion for American "success" in Iraq, declaring that he could live with "a messy, sloppy status quo" in the country.

I don't think this is "in touch with America."

Happy Dae.
http://www.ShoeStringGenealogy.com

[RadCenter]

HappyDae:
He declared nothing of the kind. He merely asked the two officials whether *they* would be satisfied with leaving behind a situation as messy and sloppy as the current one or whether their criteria for our withdrawal were much higher, in which case we would remain in Iraq until Iraq resembled, say, Sweden. Which is to say, forever.

A fair question. And very in touch.

[DoTheMath]

Thank you for supporting your opinion with facts instead of simply echoing opinions from other media outlets or the candidates themselves. This echo effect, which dominates the media these days, explains the prevailing spin on the results of the Pennsylvania primary.

Clinton was always expected to win Pennsylvania, as a native daughter with the overwhelming support of the state's political establishment since before anyone there had ever heard of Obama, yet he cut her lead in half. Even though Pennsylvanians knew this was another last stand for Clinton, even though the Clinton and McCain campaigns, with much media assistance, milked "bittergate" and every other real or imagined Obama flaw for considerably more than they were worth, Obama captured 45.4% of this state that always belonged to Clinton. Yet we're supposed to believe the Pennsylvania results nullify all the votes cast before April 22, that no one who voted for Clinton in April would vote for Obama in November, despite such apparently insignificant details as the candidates' positions on the issues that affect voters' lives.

The worst part of the spin is that it appeals to the worst in people. It asks us not to look very carefully or to think very deeply. It asks us to assume Obama can't win Pennsylvania because there are too many racists there, to apply that assumption to the rest of the country, and to choose a nominee who can do a better job of appealing to this imaginary plurality of racists.

[Kirk59]

Clintonistas need to understand.
1. If she is given this nomination over the pledged delegates, the party will be broken, and we (a 49 yr old white male and his 53 year old Jordanian-born wife) will drive to Denver to be part of the protest and funeral for our party.
2. Over 50% of Democrats decided from the outset we DO NOT WANT Hillary as our nominee. That was before most could even spell Obama. Had she and her ego stayed on the sidelines we would be very close to nominating Biden or Al Gore right now.
3. We already have a Republican nominee, McCain, we do not need a second one named Clinton.
4. This primary has shown me, at any rate, that a third party is needed, and now may be possible, with the money raising we have seen. How much money would an Obama-Ron Paul ticket generate I wonder?
5. If, by August, we see that we truly have a flawed candidate in Obama, then DRAFT GORE as a compromise to save the party.

[dm92]

I've already booked time from my job to be in Denver if it happens!

[HBeachbum]

Democrat Conventions have the best riots. You'll probably make Chicago look like a cake walk.

[dadw5boys]

Over 50% of Democrats decided from the outset??????

What 50% ??? Who are they?? Where are they??

In the South we have a problem with Americans moving South only to try and buy property cheap then work in our government here to change zoning and anything to increase the value of their property so they can sell it at a profit.
We can spot CARPET BAGGERS a mile off!!!!!!!!

[Kirk59]

Not sure what the carpetbagging comment relates to but.....if you recall, Hillary was the presumptive nominee, with all the money and name recognition, and the polling data to show her inevitability. Iowa decided otherwise, where she only got about 1/3 of the vote. In NH about 1/2 the Democrats said no thanks, and the rest is history.
It is clear to me anyway, that having known her for all these years, and having had sufficient time to consider the options, our party said, "Let's not nominate her, let's find someone else." Obama is that someone else.

[Researchguy66]

Your point 2 is an interesting one. I don't know the answer, but Obama often appears to run far better among independents than Democrats. I'd wonder if non-party voters were stripped out, what the results would be in terms of actual votes and pledged delegates. I don't know if it's possible to know that, but it is an interesting question.

[qtcherry]

KIrk59, you go! That 3rd party Obama-Paul has a ring to it. It is time to think outside the box. Now I understand the Clintonistas are outside Obama's office dressed as chickens because he won't have a debate with her highness.
Grandstanding (Wright included) are not needed as we go into what will likely be an economic depression that we have not seen in our lives, even to rival the 1930's.
What do you think about the connection of using Harry S. Truman's words "heat/kitichen" and the "Dixiecrats"..."Keep Segregration Alive" in 1948 as it relates to Hillary's divide and conquer the Democratic Party through her last electability arguement through race against Obama? Powerful Thrid Party alert!

[Serfie]

Typical Obama Thugocrat.

Don't get your way, so throw a temper tantrum.

I have yet to hear a Clinton supporter say s/he would drive Denver to protest an Obama victory.

You Obama Thugocrats are really shameless. Your sanctimony and hatred of democracy never ceases to amaze me.

[Kirk59]

I would be perfectly happy to accept her as the nominee if she won by the democratic process I supposedly hate so much.
Protesting is our right as citizens and our responsibility when our rights are threatened. You can call it a tantrum if it makes you feel better.
Clinton supporters lack the passion, or are possibly no longer ambulatory enough to make the Denver trip.
Stay tuned, we will continue to amaze you.