The Same Old Story: Discrediting Hillary
Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Pennsylvania Primary
Here we go again. Stomp on Hillary for winning.
Last night Hillary Clinton picked up the sixth big state out of the seven the Democrats need to win the fall presidential contest. Obama has only won one big state, Illinois -- and that is it. She has won California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas and now Pennsylvania (and, yes, Florida and Michigan). Yet in today's newspapers and partisan websites, the critics are downplaying Clinton's victory (even her erstwhile supporter the New York Times criticizes her in its lead editorial for running a dirty campaign), dismissing any triumph as meaningless because of Obama's lead in elected delegates, and suggest once again that she drop out so she does not further hurt the "inevitable" nominee, Barack Obama.
How many times have we heard these sorts of admonishments, starting back with the New Hampshire primary? But despite her stumbling start in the caucus states, Clinton has come on strong and has now created a solid coalition that Obama cannot, for all of his money and his eloquence, break into.
Let this drama play out now and let the Super Delegates make up their own minds in due course without interference from on-line critics or hot-headed columnists or TV prognosticators or panicky Democratic Party strategists. Let the delegates in Denver play their proper role in deciding the outcome of this contest. This is after all a democracy.
Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Pennsylvania Primary
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
Stephen, Stephen, Stephen. If you new anything about marketing you would know how hard it is to break into a marketplace once someone or a company has established their brand and knock them off top spot. The Clinton brand is well established. The real questions is how come Clinton could only win a state made for her by 9.3% when she lead by over 20 points 6 weeks ago. The answer is the Clinton brand while strong and well established is fading and the Obama brand of hope is resonating with many voters. It will only get stronger when he is the nominee.
Well, I "no" something about marketing, and what happened in Pennsylvania wasn't just that. Everyone knew that a 20 point lead wouldn't last, given the large African American population in Philadelphia and the elite whites in the surrounding suburbs. Yet Barry spent 3 times as much as Hillary and lots of time. He couldn't close the deal.
That Obama lost by 10 points in PA, a state John Kerry won by only 2% in 2004, after all the time and money he spent indicates that he will have some heavy lifting to do if he is the nominee.
I'm a loyal Democrat and I voted for Hillary Clinton. But if Barry gets the nomination, he'll have my vote if not my heart.
Good for you - Loyal democrats will get behind their nominee regardless of who it is. Fools will stay at home or vote for McCain - They'd sooner vote against their interests than swallow their pride. It's the party we should be loyal to regardless of who the candidate is.
Oh I forgot Kerry won because neither he nor his opponent has a well established brand and even he lost ground - early polls had him up by 6-8 points.
"This is after all a democracy.
C'mon. for Hillary this isn't about democracy ... it's about winning.
And it's not about winning for Barry???
What do you think he was trying to do with the millions he spent in PA, the time he spent here, and the god-awful situations he put himself in, e.g. , bowling and cheese steaks at Pats in South Philly. Cheeze whiz...ugh
Well, at least he didn't go to Joey Vento's place across the street.
The point is that if Obama was in Hillary's position, we would all be telling him to get off the bus. Do you doubt he won't? He will have to, but Hillary is using up the good will she and her husband built up over the years and resisting calls to drop out. I personally don't give a shit if she drops out or not, but she has to stop throwing elbows and trying to cripple Obama in the general election. Why can't she elevate the dialogue, and try to beat him fair and square?
" This is after all a democracy" Exactly what is demacratic about the primacy of the Super Delegates over the popular vote? Who are the elitists? Desperation is no excuse for irrationality
What is Democratic about Super Delegates is that they are in the rules the DEMOCRATIC Party established before this race began. I'm sure you have heard many, many times about the rationale for Super Delegates, just like everyone else. Is it possible you don't like them because they might mean that your candidate doesn't win?
Some people are selective about rules: follow them regarding FL and MI, but disregard them when it comes to the raison d'etre of the so-called super delegates.
Well, if the super delegates should reflect the "will of the people", please tell Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to respect the citizens of MA and cast their votes for Hillary.
Indeed, those are the rules because this isn't a general election. This is a party election, and the party can make whatever rules it feels like. You can't have it both ways, saying this is a democratic election comparable to the general election and trying to apply the same mentality like "let all votes count, this is a democracy", and then at the same time say "that's party rules" when we point out the power of the super delegates. Then Hillary once again switches back to "this is a democracy, let all votes count" when we point out why Hillary agreed to the rules that MI and FL will not count and yet she is now protesting about that, all while she happens to be losing. That is the height of hypocrisy.
Oh, yeah. Obama supporters are all about "democracy" in those individual cases where it helps their candidate, but what about Michigan (where he dropped out of his own volition) and Florida (where he was on the ballot along with everyone else). Obama supporters and surrogates routinely say "Michigan, where Senator Obama wasn't even on the ballot" as if he was somehow cheated out of being on the ballot. He and his handlers made a political calculation and determined he couldn't win there anyway so they removed his name from contention to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire. After Iowa, it looked like a good move; after New Hampshire, not so much. Obama supporters and surrogates routinely say "Florida, where Senator Obama didn't campaign" as if anyone else campaigned there. Senator Clinton didn't campaign either, but she won. In fact, Senator Obama ran "national" ads that played in Florida. One more thing, Senator Obama has been proud of his success in caucus states and many of his victories have been in caucuses. Fine. But if you want to talk "democracy," military coups are less democratic than caucuses but only a little less democratic. Primaries are the most democratic indicators of appeal and in the biggest states, Senator Clinton has kicked ass in the primaries.
Game, Set, Match - Obama.
It's over folks. After being pummeled for 6 straight weeks with Rev. Wright, Bitterness, flag pins and Rezcko, Obama bettered his Ohio result in a state whose demographics favored Clinton even more. He took her best shot and thrived.
That’s why the question shouldn't be why couldn't he close the deal. The question should be why couldn't she take advantage of the anti-Obama hit jobs that the MSM kept handing her on a silver platter.
Bring on McCain.
Obama doesn't look like a winner anymore.
Sorry, but he is NOT turning out to be the tougher, more capable candidate.
Say what you want about Hillary, but NO ONE can dispute that she won't bust her ass to do a good job once she's elected.
She's like the Female Terminator.
And Obama is a flash in the pan.
Please cite examples where she busted her ass and did a good job in. Anything in her CV to demonstrate what a capable, competent and industrious person, all of which you are claiming she is.
Hmmm... The female terminator who let her 25 point lead in Pennsylvania, in which the demographics are made for her, dwindle down to 9 points?
She sure busted her ass in running her campaign into financial ruin. Her campaign is in debt and now you want to let her try to run the whole country? Name one thing that Hillary has ever been in charge of during her entire life that has been successful.
I think you meant to say PRESIDENT Obama is a flash in the pan, didn't you?
Starriana you said that back in December. Has not turned out that way. I guess you judged wrong like your Hillary did in the war in Iraq. Conversely Obama judgements have been on point. The war and this campaign. I'd say he is "Ready On Day One".
OBAMA 08
Actually, there's a little thing you overlooked re: PA...it's called Philadelphia (50% black, several large universities), and the outlying burbs which are populated with quite a few of the wealthy, "educated" class (and more college students).
That's a big chunk of the vote in PA. So, it makes sense he bettered his Ohio results in terms of overall percentage, but he still lost an important part of the base. Seriously, Kerry won PA by only 2% and that is clearly an indication of what many Pennsylvanians feel about candidates whom they perceive to be elitist.
And like it or not, Ed Rendell was right: there are white people who will not vote for a black candidate. Most of them will be voting Republican, of course, irrespective of who the Democratic candidate is.
Sorry, but that's the real world.
It truly is pitiful on the part of some media. The long faces at MSNBC were really something to see.
I truly believe that Hillary Clinton has a better chance of beating McCain than Obama does---the reason?? He's black and his name suggests something foreign and Islamic. Go ahead and come after me with every mean and hateful slur that you can think of. So what. I'm speaking the truth. No, it's not right or "fair", but it's the truth.
And a damn sad truth it is in 2008.
'fraid Im gonna do just that. It is thinking and comments like that that will only add cement to the already huge racial wall that exists in the minds of (the folks in PA, obviously) so many people. You are a quiter and just the kind of person the Neocons (and Hillary fanatics) are looking for. Don't be a loser! We are better than that low form of thinking.
Are you including the 90% black vote Obama received as part of the "already huge racial wall that exists in the minds of (the folks in PA, obviously) so many people? I hope so, because we all know who they'd be voting for if the race were between Hillary and one of the white males who ran earlier in the primary.
And thank you very much for drawing so many of the needed Hillary supporters to your cause by equating us with Neocon fanatics.
you are expressing the truth--the white middle and blue collar class will never accept a black President at this time in history--if the new and elitist geeks for obama studied history they would know that only in very good times,like 1992-2000,are people willing to try something new,like a black candidate--we are in terrible times and their is no give to be given!!
what are you talking about
terrible times bought on by the status quo.
You're making a fair point and it's clearly heartfelt, but you are underestimating how much the Republicans and the far right truly hate Hillary Clinton. It is true that they have held back - but that is not going to happen if she is the nominee. I am an independent, and I would not vote for the Clintons - even if it were December, before the Clinton campaign decided to take the Lee Atwater road, I could not vote for a co-presidency. In particular, I could not vote for a co-presidency when one of the two had lied, on camera, to the American people.
Hillary discredited herself with her Rovian campaign tactics. She had a shot at my vote after Edwards dropped out and it took her campaign no time whatsoever to embrace the Neocon way of politics. Fake newscasts in my state? The whole NAFTA lie? I have never been so turned off by any politician in my life since Dubya.
Hell, she gave an interview to Scaife where she based a fellow Democrat - Richard Mellon Scaife the man who spent millions to get her husband impeached and spread the rumour that her and Bill killed Vince Foster. Now she's the darling of Fox News? Did ya ever think that maybe Fox wants Hillary to be the Nom because every single poll shows her getting her assed kicked by him in the general?
That moment in her political life makes John McCain hugging Dubya after what Rove did to him in 2000 look like an innocent first date. Hillary has done all of this to herself. Don't blame Obama, don't blame his supporters or the millions of Democrats absolutely disgusted with the Clintons at this point. She's no 'picked upon' candidate at all.
I have read no poll that even suggests that McCain will kick Hillary's ass. It's all within the margin of error, and -as Obamanistas know - races tighten as election day gets closer and people start to pay attention.
I suggest that Barry will have the harder time in November. The election will be between two men, one a war hero and one a law professor. And in that picture, the war hero always wins. And the press is even more enamored of McCain than of Barry O, so he will face more fire like he got in the Philly debate and which clearly throws him off his stride..
With Hillary, the war hero thing is neutralized. The press already hates her, so the public is less likely to be swayed by the swoon that the MSM is in regarding John McCain. And while Hillary will motivate the Republican base, she will also have the loyalty of Obama supporters behind her, people who put their country over their personal disappointment. I can not imagine that members of The Movement would allow the country to fall into the GOP hands for another 4 years, so I know we can count on their support if Hillary is the nominee. I know they can count on my support if Barry wins the nomination.
the war hero thing will be neutralized by the fact that he is weak on economy. and the truth about his foreign policy experience and his embracing failed bush ideals.
What Steven Schlesinger leaves out of the NYT editorial is a lot. He states ".... the New York Times criticizes her in its lead editorial for running a dirty campaign..
But the most disturbing element of the Clinton message was that, as a Democratic candidate, she said that we would "obliterate" another nation, if necessary. OBLITERATE, as in: wipe away existence. She is talking about civilians. She is talking about women and children. She is also taking a position that is to the right of Bush, McCain, and George Bush Sr. The last one, at least knew something about diplomacy. Is this the way she intends to handle the Middle East? I find it astonishing. When Clinton was running in California, a reliably blue state, I do not recall any talk of "obliterating Iran." The NYT had every right to take the position it did, and although I am an independent who often leans Democratic, I would never consider casting a vote for a Republican neocon disguised as a Democrat - one who made such an incendiary and foolish statement.
Exactly. HRC is now the Ahmadinejad of American politics. She'll wipe Iran off the face of the Earth!
Oh, the humanity!
Get a grip, girls!
I'm not from South Carolina but I do know a Lee Atwater campaign when I see one, i.e., the 1988 presidential contest. Nothing in Hillary's campaign has come close to what Atwater did to Michael Dukakis, a weak candidate to begin with but a candidate who came out of the DNC with a double-digit lead over G.H.W. Bush.
And just what would Barry do if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel? Go bowling with the mullahs?
Obama's surrogates and the MSM did his dirty work so he could look like Mr. Clean. But he knew what was happening and he could have stopped it but didn't. Every politician is a politician, including Obama.
and her surrogates were innocent . oh please. he apologized or they stepped down. and clinton did what or lied about their status i e mark penn.
I can't argue with your assertion that we should let Hillary continue for as long as she wishes to do so. However, I will personally hold her to a standard of good behavior that exceeds what I've seen from either of the Clintons thus far.
If the negativity coming out of her campaign continues as it has up until now, and if the super delegates should choose to contravene the will of the electorate and stick us with Hillary, my personal protest will be to pull the lever for every Democrat running for office with the exception of the Presidency.
At the moment, and based on my fervent belief that character does count, I can't vote for her any more than I could vote for John McCain. I want to be proud of my country again, and I want to be proud of its leader. I'm not proud of the woman Hillary Clinton has turned out to be, and the thought that Newt Gingrich might have been right about Bill all along makes me queezy. There's a stunning amount of intelligence and expertise sitting in the Clintons, but none of it counts for much without a moral compass that points due north.
Is there a difference between Clinton and McCain? They are both underhanded republicans.
That you could entertain anything that Newt Gingrich has to say about any Democrat is stunning. You would believe the man who blamed the Susan Smith murders on Democrats?
Your high-falutin' tone is really off-putting, not unlike Barry's unintended dismissal of Pennsylvanians who hunt and believe in God.
You need to hold yourself to a standard of good behavior by voting for the Democratic candidate rather than permit the country to suffer another 4 years under GOP control.
Your pique is rather unbecoming and hardly indicative of a moral compass on your part.
Stephen, I thoroughly enjoyed your comments,"Here we go again. Stomp on Hillary for winning." Clearly, the convoluted logic of some Obama zombies is breathtaking. Facts are facts! The popular vote spread between Obama and Clinton is now less than 1%. I did say 1%. Of course. the additional fact that the only large state won by Obama is his home state should not cause concern for those willing to ignore reality. It is imperative that America knows the recurring theme that Obama is ahead in the popular vote is, of course, designed to depress Hillary supporters in the nine upcoming primaries. Clearly, it is time for Obama to acknowledge that Hillary is ahead because of her substance.
And we can't forget that Michigan and Florida (which would have been a huge Clinton win) don't count. Odds are, with a re-vote, she would take the lead. Definitely in the popular vote, and the delegate count would be incredibly close.
If not for gerrymandering and bizarre delegate allocations, she'd be winning, anyway. In 2012, the Democratic Party will need to completely re-evaluate it's nominating process.
No, the Democratic Party will need to completely re-evaluate its nominating process BEFORE 2012.
We need to jettison parceling out delegates according to percentage of the vote, or even worse by percentage of Democrats who voted in each district in the previous election, or by having both a primary AND a caucus.
We can learn something from the GOP. Winner takes all, no super delegates, the will of the people unimpeded by party leaders. Will we lose some elections that way? Sure, but we've lost quite a few with this system. If Democratic primary voters choose an unelectable candidate, so be it. At least we will be able to take responsibility for the choice that we, the people, have made.
I do not understand why some think Hillary should drop out because she can't get the delegates.
Obama also cannot get the delegates.
This isn't a game of horseshoes.
Obama is not more entitled to the super delegates because he has a few more votes.
Hillary has shown she can win where it counts.
Also, why should not all the votes count?
I think it is amazing how Hllary has done so well against the tide.
The media has been in the tank for Obama. Same with HuffPost.
This article by Stephan Schlesinger is the only pro Hillary article on this entire site.
The banner at the top is all about how Hillary's win is nothing.
And all day on TV, it's how all those in PA who voted for Hillary must be racists.
So, it;s OK to demean Hilary but you had better not breath a word about Obama or his feelings might get hurt.
Or a black person who supports Hillary must be crazy but a woman who supports Obama is couragous.
I thought I know what party I belonged to when this started but I don't recoginise the Obama supporters.
They will brook no debate. You are with them or against them.
It is not Hillary who will cause Obama to lose to McCain. It is Obama and his hateful supporters.
You think you can spew this hatred and then think the people who support Hillary are just going to follow your messiah?
I don't think so.
I honestly don't think Obama supporters care--mostly because so many of them are brand-new to the political process, and don't even remotely grasp history, or what it takes to win in November. It's as though half of the Democratic Party has succumbed to delusional pixie dust.
It takes hogwash, choosing between two evils, negative campaigning, and underhanded dirty pool Rovian tactics BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU SAY IT DOES. Grasp that. You are a useless, self-fulfilling prophecy. Why wait until November? I've already won....I now see there is a legitimate defense to "business as usual". The only pixie dust is the same old shell game pixie dust of you and the jaded politicos who just can't seem to accept the fact that if we don't adapt in the country, politics-wise and culture wise, we are as good as dead.
Excellent post and great comment; thank you!
HuffPost's Pick
Wow! I could not agree with you more. I am a lifelong democrat who is completely disillusioned by Obama supporters. I love Obama! But I do not think he is the best candidate. And I am beyond tired of his supporters approach of "Our Way Or the Highway Baby!" I am tired of hearing how if I am a supporter of Hillary I am only this shy of being insane or an evil demon. I thought we all began this process with the same goals in mind, get rid of Bush, start the long process of reclaiming our country, not to mention our standing in the world. But apparently with Obama supporters, if you support Clinton then you cannot possibly hold those same ideals or principles. This is simply not true and as we've seen it is also incredibly devisive. The problem does not lie with Hillary, but with the people whose anger at Bush has somehow been wrongly aimed at another candidate who wants the same things as their heir apparent, Barack Obama.
Wow--HuffPo makes this a "pick"? Either this moderator is new and hasn't been informed of the Obama slant, or HuffPo is having an editorial change.
I agree, too. I wish Senator Obama and his campaign would strongly encourage his supporters to behave in a more civilized manner. They are ruthlessly damaging the candidate they adore--which baffles me.
As much as I might love to join your feel-good lovefest, and ruminate on how badly we Obama supporters have treated you, I just can't bring myself to do it. And I know this is a HuffPost Pick, so hopefully I won't be banished to blog Guantanimo
You have an absolute, indelible right to support whom you chose. that said, I want you to try to understand why we Obamacans get so riled up at the very thought of an HRC in the W.H.
It's not "my way", it's not the highway...
1. First and foremost, I just cannot tolerate lies from someone who claims to have my best interest at heart. To even attempt to list said lies is pointless, and I'm sure i don't really have to...you already know the drill.
2. When someone's name continuosly comes up in conversations pertaining to illegalities, malfeasance, boiler room schemes and deals, and using their influence to peddle themselves, their agendas, or as a vehicle for profit, well...whe
To Be Continued.
Continued.
3. Obama has inspired MILLIONS of people to do something bigger and more important than themselves. To vote, to be active in the campaign, the community, the country. Obama has now created something even bigger than himself, something so wonderful even he cannot manipulate it. And the beautiful thing about that is that he realized it almost from the start, hence his call to those of us who support him to make this about much more than him. For your candidate to come into my newfound sphere of happiness, hope, and a solid goal for America is inconsciab
4. Her actions are destroying the Democratic party, and driving millions to the independant and Republican parties. I know this because I myself am a Republican, and the reason I switched from Democrat is I did not believe the Democratic Party had my best interest at heart. That line of reasoning started with Bill Clinton, who I absolutely cannot and could not stand, because I realized how destructive his policies and 'invisible hand' surplus were bad for us, but good for him. I decided to follow the money, go Republican, and revel in the Blackwater culture. Why not? The donkeys just couldn't seem to get their heads on straight. And apparently still can't.
The problem with the "big state" argument is that most of those states will go blue no matter what.
So Hillary won California--so what? You think McCain would take it over Obama? HAH!
So she won New York--so what? Same as above
So she won Michigan--so what? If Obama had been on the ballot, he would have destroyed her (black vote)
So she won MA and New Jersey--so what? Blue states, through and through.
She has no argument to be the nominee.
The problem is that he might not win them (according to SUSA). Your argument on Michigan is a lie
Not necessarily a lie but wildly inaccurate or even "hope-ful" ...
Obama himself asked Michigan people to vote "Uncommitted" after he
withdrew his name (this was not necessary, and Kucinich, Gravel, and Dodd
left in their names). And even then people chose to give her more votes
than to the others still on or to the Uncommitted choice.
I'd say just give him the Uncommitted then. That represents the people
who would have followed his recommendation. His campaign repeated
this request several times there.
LoonaC, well said. Lamethrower, here's the so-what reason for you.
Several polls have shown in recent posts that Clinton (at this point) would beat McCain in the states that Obama would lose to McCain. One of them has been Pennsylvania and, at times,
Ohio. When the mud from 527s start being tossed in the general election, numbers will get even worse, in both directions (Dem nominee and McCain).
See http://www
and check out some of the general election breakdowns over the past few weeks.
Like it or not, as in past years (such as when Gore won but lost), the electoral college results do matter.
This is not true. In fact, most of the states Obama has won won't vote democratic in the Fall. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan are swing states. They have voted republican and may again this Fall because of the fallout of the Obama supporters who are so hateful that they are driving away party faithfuls.
stephen you are right there still is a viable path for HRC to get the nomination:
http://www
Thank you! I love the "Eleven States of America," and HRC as a Civil War Union officer. U.S. Grant is popping wheelies in his grave as I write.
Somewhere down the road, the real issue will have to be
discussed, and that is who is likely to defeat McCain.
So far the campaign has been nasty, for Senator Clinton
to win, she has to take the high road. the Democratic candidate
will face the real fight, starting after the convention in August.
For me, that is still Senator Clinton.
So, exactly when is she going to be taking this "high road". She's so far down the low road right now I'm not sure she could ever get to the high road.
Yes the campaign has been nasty, thanks to your candidate Hillary Rove Clinton.
Obama went negative first when he called Ms. Clinton a liar for truthful statements she made concerning her health care plan. He made the remark in order to hide the lies he made concerning the number of people his plan would cover, when he claimed his plan would cover as many as the Clinton plan. He followed that with the David Axelrod statement blaming Ms. Clinton for the death of Benazir Bhutto. Obama called the Clintons racists for statements with absolutely no racial component. And he has continued to deny statements he has made, telling lie after lie while getting a pass from the MSM.
The low road in this campaign was opened by Obama and he continues to lead the trip down the low road. And his supporters, who seem to have no idea about any specific proposal Obama has made, continue to use spin and distortion to attack Ms. CLinton without ever offering anything much about Obama.
No, let's be real, grown up, thinking adults. This whole concept that Senator Obama must be "vetted" in order to withstand the Republican attack machine is BS, and is simply fodder for the media to support the continuation of the Democratic fight, when we all know that the real reason that the media wants this to continue is to enhance their own bottom-lines (the commercialization of the ABC "debate" being just one disgusting example). This should not be about a "fight." This is about the direction of our country in the years to come. We have one candidate whose platform is based upon changing the direction of our country, overcoming the divisive politics which currently exist, and mobilizing our country toward a common prosperity, and we have another candidate who, until she began employing the "kitchen sink" Rovian attack campaign just a few weeks ago, had lost 11 straight primaries and all hopes of winning the Democratic nomination. Had the "fight" ended there, Obama would not have been worse for having not been "vetted." Rather, if/when the Republicans began the attacks on Obama, he would have been able to point to the civilized and productive discussions that took place during the Democratic Party's nomination process, and argue strongly to the American people that the Republican's divisive approach unique to them and was indicative of their own policy failures. The Democrats would have clearly and unquestionably possessed both the moral and policy highground. Thanks Hillary.
Oh, I'm so sure that pointing out the democratic civility would scare the republicans from taking pot shots at the candidate in the Fall. This post sounds so naive. Politics has and always will be a contact sport. Anyone who says let's rise above it never does. Obama has taken his negative shots, though most have been taken by his surrogates. He is not clean and, if he is the nominee, he will face by far harsher scrutiny by the republicans.
Based on current vote totals incl FL/MI Hillary is ahead in popular vote
and she is 3 delegates behind total. However, she is ahead by 100 ballot box
delegates (bb-dels) as opposed to the unrepresentative (disenfranchised
large demographic voting blocks as well as generally disenfranchising 90 percent
of the Democratic voters who voted in 2004, 2006 in those states) caucus delegates
(c-dels). The numbers below also include super-delegates (s-dels) as well as total (t-dels)
http://www
Hillary: 15,112,072 votes 1367.0 bb-dels 149 c-dels 274.0 s-dels 1790.0 t-dels
Obama: 15,009,005 votes 1267.0 bb-dels 289 c-dels 237.0 s-dels 1793.0 t-dels
It is time that the Obama coalition be exposed for what it is:
- rich elite liberals
- cross-over Reps looking to take over Dem party as Rep Party collapses
- 90-10 black racist vote.
It may seem a little harsh to call the 90-10 a "racist" vote, but that's what it is.
While PA was looking to be 20 point landslide for Hillary, the only thing that
kept Obama afloat was another 92-8 black vote giving him 150,000 extra
votes.
It is time for Black people to wake up. Giving a 90-10 3rd world dictator-type
vote to Obama is purely a racist vote. It is for the Black community to
start to show some independence from being strong-armed into supporting
an unqualified candidate.
Spin...spi
And, regarding the black vote, I'm constantly amazed that all Hillary supporters seem to forget that she originally had the black vote by quite a high margin. I think it was something like 70%. Obama won the black vote and Hillary lost it.
You are so ignorant it's appalling. Rich elite liberals??? Read this article and you'll truly know who caters to the rich elites:
http://www
It's very funny to me how flawed your whole argument is. To dispute your claim of popular vote tallies here's another article:
http://www
And the fact that you consider a 90-10 black vote racist, just shows how truly ignorant you really are. To dismiss black support as purely racially motivated is not only condescending, it's hypocrisy at its worst. According to your theory, I guess every white voter that supported Hillary is also a racist and doesn't vote for Obama strictly because of the fact that he is black. How truly appalling is that idea?
Not sure I understand your point about the Hillary rich people telling Pelosi to shape up. Obama's got his own rich people - hope you don't think he got his $240 million from a bunch of $25 contributions, although I'm sure he'd like you to think so. I won't bore you with my rant on the Kennedy machine backing Obama from Day One, because the topic here is just who and what is an "elite liberal".
"elite" means above it all or thinks they are above it all, like Obama. "Rich" in this context means only "professionally rich" maybe saved up a couple million, maybe making 250Kplus per year - i.e. well to do, but not capitalist rich. "Rich" like Cambridge, MA liberals associated w Harvard. Very "smart" people who may be "smart" but not necessarily cognizant of the "real world" which they think they are so smart about.
So, if you look at CNN's exit polls from PA you will find the general breakdown in my prev post:
http://www
1. put cursor over Philadelphia: Obama 281,364, Hillary 150,298 (Phil not all black)
2.click on exitpoll: p1 get black vote 85 percent, media says 92 (also p4)
3. p3 exitpoll: income: under 15K Obama 53-47, 15-200K Hillary 55-45, over 200K Obama 57-43.
4. p4 exitpoll: partyid: dem hillary 56-44, indep obama 54-46 (these are crossover Reps)
No, equating white voters choosing Hillary with the 90% vote that blacks are giving Obama just doesn't wash. Obama is getting @ 40% of the white vote or he wouldn't be where he is today.
Having said that, I do not think that the high percentage of blacks voting for Obama is racist. I think many blacks consider it a point of racial pride, just as many Irish Catholics voted for JFK on that basis.
But if anyone is going to hurl racist at Hillary or her supporters, they at least can't complain when the question is raised: "If Barry weren't black, which candidate would most African Americans vote for?"
RichLiberal - I am a Clinton supporter but I can tell you with certainty that it is not up to you to tell anyone how to vote. That was really obnoxious.
It is interesting, is it not, that whites are pilloried as racists for not voting for Obama (the "race" problem), but what we are not supposed to discuss is the blatant racism from which Obama benefits. 90-95% is just plain ridiculous and it's high time that it is called for what it is. If every caucasian followed the lead of the black voters Obama would be at about 9% in the polls.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
