Clinton @ soapcentral.com

The Republicans were bracing for an Obama/Clinton ticket. Why do you ask? They had an arsenal of campaign tactics that they now have to shelve. Rush Limbaugh practically begged Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton during the primary. They would have had a field day had Hillary Clinton won the primary. I think the Republicans are suffering from a bit of sour grapes. They didn't get what they want so they are still trying to play the "Hillary" card. It's called "divide and conquer." Well, the McCain camp didn't get what they want by seeing Hillary Clinton on the ticket, so boo freaking hoo! Get a bloody life, will ya?

I would like to add that the Republicans are using the Hillary Clinton factor to gain those disgruntled voters that wanted Hillary Clinton to win.

/a

Here is another fantastic article by Leonard Pitts. It's a follow up from the previous blog.

BY LEONARD PITTS
lpitts@MiamiHerald.com

"Sure, I'll answer your question.

It rose from a recent column about the Democratic primary in West Virginia. The contest, you will recall, was a decisive victory for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, amid reports that two in 10 voters in that overwhelmingly white state said race was a deciding factor in their decisions. I called that atavistic, to which dozens of you responded: If two in 10 whites voting for Clinton is wrong, isn't the overwhelming support of blacks for Obama equally wrong?

It isn't quite the stumper some folks seem to think.

I suppose the first thing that needs saying is that I have no objection to people of any marginalized ethnicity, race, religion or gender voting in a bloc for some member of their group. That's how they become less marginalized, how they win a seat at the table. The Irish did it in New York, the Cubans did it in Miami, many women are doing it now.

Thing is, that's not what happened in West Virginia. Not unless you're going to tell me with a straight face that that vote reflected marginalized whites (an oxymoron if ever there was one) seeking a seat at the table. No, all the evidence, statistical and anecdotal, tells us those folks did not vote for Clinton because she is white; they voted against Obama because he is black. There's a difference.

So there is something rather specious in all this hand-wringing about black support for Obama. Moreover, it is based upon a fallacy. Namely, that black support for Obama was automatic. The inconvenient truth is, it was Clinton who started out with the black vote sewn up. Then two things happened: 1) Obama's win in Iowa demonstrated his viability and, 2) Clinton and her surrogates made a series of racially insensitive remarks.

The willingness of black voters to support white candidates, then, is not at issue, much as some would like to pretend otherwise. Blacks have long supported white candidates (like they had a choice?). No, the issue is that some whites still find it impossible to return the favor.

Me, I've been around long enough to understand that, while some folks asked about black support for Obama out of honest curiosity, most did it to change the subject, the best defense being a good offense.

One encounters this particular ''best defense'' often when a discussion of race points to conclusions some of us would prefer not to reach. So instead they paint themselves as victims of a double standard, posing profoundly unserious questions like: Why is there a Miss Black America when there could be no Miss White America? Why is there no White Enterprise magazine or United Caucasian College Fund?

The point is not to get answers -- those are obvious. Rather, it is to carve an escape route route through the thicket of logic. It is the rhetorical equivalent of saying, ''Your shoe's untied!'' and then running away when the other person looks down.

To take the questions seriously, you have to believe that black and white stand equivalent in this country, that one does not hold and has never held advantage over the other, so that we should worry white kids might be shoved to the margins if, say, no United Caucasian College Fund existed to help them. That is, putting it mildly, an absurd conceit. Yet it is a conceit some of us still sell and others still buy.

So here's my question: When will people stop trying to weasel out of what is self-evident? After all, there's no mystery about West Virginia. It offers just the latest evidence that something old and ugly has not just survived in us, but flourished. What's it going to take to make some of us stop hiding out from that hard and withering truth? What will it take to make them face it?

I answered your question. Anybody want to answer mine?"

You know. I had a blog in mind that was going to be much tamer than this, but after hearing what Hillary said, on CNN, today, made me change my mind. She was asked whether her candidacy was jeopardizing party unity, and this was her response:

 

“Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June L.A. My husband didn’t wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.”

 

That’s it! I’ve had it with this BITCH! I know. I try not to use that word towards another woman, but Hillary has been eating at my damn nerves. She is a stupid biotch! Yeah. I said it. She is a stupid biotch! Damn it! I can’t even find a suitable adjective to use. Yep. I’m that upset.

 

Is Hillary Clinton wishing Obama dead? Is she giving some lunatic ideas? What a desperate self serving bitch. I don’t know if I can ever like her again.

Some people said that she didn't mean any harm, but pardon me if I don't share their sentiments. She could have said that it's not unusual for the primaries to last that long and leave it at that. There was no need to bring up Bobby Kennedy.

 

Hillary Clinton absolutely turns my stomach. I’m sorry, but can you please pardon me while I go fetch my barf bag?

 

Here is the video. Please view it for yourself:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7418165.stm

I don’t want to hear her name along with these words: Vice Presidency.

/a

If that is not one of the most divisive statements that I have heard, someone, anyone, please come over here and kick me right now. I'm fuming at that statement. Hillary Clinton is dividing the Democratic Party. Racism still exists in this country, and Hillary is giving those people the ammo they need to continue hating. Instead of uniting the voters, she comes up with damaging statements like that in order to benefit herself. Rev. Wright coming out to speak was no coincidence either. I wouldn't put it pass her campaign to encourage him to come out knowing that it would poison some people's mind against Obama. He was almost caught up in PA by about 5 or 6 points before Rev. Wright spoke out.

I'm glad that Obama won North Carolina, and he almost won in Indiana. Well, let me tell you, God doesn't like ugly. I prayed for Obama to win North Carolina by a huge margin, and I also prayed that he would win Indiana. He came close to winning Indiana, but b/c another idiot, Rush  "Hating" Limabaugh, encouraged Republicans to go and vote for Hillary Clinton.

I heard, on CNN, that Hillary has an exit strategy. The word is that she is getting out by June 19th. Well, I hope she exits on a positive note by at least trying to unite the party because her hate messages are not helping the voters.

 

/a

The media could make a huge difference in terms of the negativity. They tend to focus more on the negative issues instead of the positive.  The fact of the matter is that both Obama and Hillary have been presenting their issues to the American people, but the media is sidestepping it to focus on the negative aspect of it. Grant you, Hillary Clinton has sunk to the lowest low, but there were also moments where she presented her issues. Okay, we know that the media is focused on the sensational aspect of the campaign for obvious reasons, the ratings.

It seems to me that Obama, from the very beginning, has been running a clean campaign. The media brought up the Rev. Wright issue, and they would not let it go. At one point, they were blaming Obama for playing up the race issue when he was the one who did not want to bring race into it. Let’s face it; the media has been aching to see the race issue in the campaign, so they danced in their chairs when the Rev. Wright "YouTube moment" came along. That’s what the media has been waiting for, and they were ecstatic. That was the lead story for an entire week. The fact of the matter is that Rev. Wright is not running for president; Obama is running for president. They have deemed Obama guilty by association. Obama had to make a speech, and even after he made the speech, some were not satisfied. I ask this question: Why was the media focusing on that one issue when the economy is in turmoil? It seemed as if the issue of the economy took a back seat for the Rev. Wright’s debacle.

There wasn’t much focus on Obama’s appearance in Pennsylvania and Hillary’s appearance in Indiana on Saturday, 3/29/08.. They were both focused on the issues. Why not turn the negative into the positive and focus on that aspect of the campaign. After all, the American people would rather hear about the candidates issues than all this negativity. IMO, the media could make a difference by focusing more on the positives instead of the negatives.

One more thing to add: The media didn’t focus too much on the fact that Hillary Clinton lied about her foreign policy experience. She has been touting that from the very beginning. She lied about arriving in Bosnia under gunfire. Why wasn’t that the main focus for a week? The point is that the media seems to focus on what they think will be more sensational.

/a