Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
It's Her Party and She'll Do What She Wants To
Hillary Clinton has now been campaigning in Florida and arguing that the state's delegates should count, along with those from the Michigan primary. This would sound fair enough, unless you know that both Michigan and Florida moved their primaries up after the Democrats agreed that the only states to vote before February 5th ("Super Tuesday") would be Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina (picked because they were relatively small states, representing different demographics). The Democratic Party agreed that votes from the two renegade primaries would not count. The major candidates made an explicit agreement not to campaign in either state. Florida law required that all candidates keep their names on, but Obama and Edwards pulled their names from the Michigan ballot.
Now Clinton is trying to change the rules mid-game. She's arguing that her delegates from Michigan should count after all. (Running essentially unopposed, she still got only 55% of the vote, since 40% voted "uncommitted" and Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel--and Chris Dodd, who'd already dropped out--split the remaining 5%.) She's campaigning in Florida with a wink and a nod (doing closed talks and photo ops, not public rallies), while trying to get those delegates to count too. She seems to be banking on the hope that a Florida win, even if only symbolic, will erase Obama's momentum from his massive South Carolina victory.
Now you can argue the right or wrong of the Democratic decision to put teeth into the agreement that the primaries should have some kind of structured sequence, and not just be a mad dash to see who comes earliest. And the Florida situation was created not by state Democrats but by the Republican legislature. But I can find no evidence that Clinton raised objections when the initial decisions were made. And now she's trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. Her surrogate Bill overtly supported a similar attempt when allied teachers union officials tried to ban special caucuses on the Nevada strip after the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama. Ironically, Clinton won a majority of these caucuses, but her contempt for the rules was the same. She was a team player only when she thought it would benefit her.
We actually saw the same pattern in 2006. In a season when Democratic candidates were scrambling to raise enough to finance an ever-expanding array of competitive races, Clinton made a conscious decision to raise $52 million for a Senate campaign that she could have won in her pajamas, spent $40.8 million (to beat a token opponent who spent less than $6 million), and transferred the rest to her presidential campaign. Only the self-funded Jon Corzine has ever spent more for a Senate race in our history.
You could say she was just playing the game, but Barack Obama and John Edwards, in comparison, campaigned throughout the country to support worthy Democratic candidates, while doing negligible fundraising for themselves. Obama emerged with less than a million in the bank and the Edwards campaign ended up still in debt from 2004. Their top priorities really did seem to be helping other Democrats win a critical election, instead of subordinating all other goals to their own personal futures.
Imagine if Hillary had transferred $20 million into the dozen Congressional campaigns that Democrats lost by margins as close as a few hundred votes. Or into Harold Ford's Senatorial campaign, to help close a $5-million gap with Republican Bob Corker. A few extra ads or mailings might well have tipped the balance But Hillary made different decisions. Much as may have been true with her support of a recent Iran vote so reckless that Senator James Webb called it "Dick Cheney's pipe dream," her priority was election-year positioning.
If we look at Clinton's actions throughout this campaign, they consistently put her right to win above broader principles. Even the tears that turned around her New Hampshire campaign seemed to me to be about her frustration that the nomination she thought was her birthright seemed about to slip away. As Frank Rich has written, even her choice to feature Bill Clinton in the campaign as lead attack dog risked bringing up enough old ghosts to sharply increase the likelihood of Republican victory in November. No one runs for president unless they are ambitious, but once you think you have the right to rewrite the rules in mid-course, or subordinate every opportunity of your critical allies to your own personal gain, you set up a precedent unsettlingly like the administration we have just endured for the past seven years. And I don't think we want to go there again.
Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living with Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org
55 Comments so far
Show AllPaul doesn't like Hillary. He never likes Hillary. Each week, he cranks out another half-told truth. This week, we're told that Hillary went to two fundraisers. We're not told that Barack's been advertising in Florida for weeks. No excuses about it being a 'national buy,' the DNC said no.
After November 2008, there'll be a president. But people who continue to slant their coverage may find no audience to reach because they've already run off everyone who might have listened.
After witnessing Ms. Clinton and her handlers in the NYC senate race of 2000, I am unsurprised at anything she has done to win the presidency. Then, as now, she behaved all the while as though the senate seat was hers for the asking, and the sorry thing was, her supporters on the west side of the city were just as willing to forgo anything that looked like a reasonable struggle during the primary season. Her opponents were overwhelmed by her cashbox, and I think I voted for the late Al Lewis that year, who ran on the Green party ticket.
I think it's going to be a long time, however, before the residue of what the DLC has built the party into is overcome. Their unwillingness to be forthright about the blatant criminality of the war in Iraq is the most telling factor this campaign season. The only reason I'd even consider a vote for AIPAC Obama this year is because of the grassroots energy he seems to have helped galvanize- although we'll see what happens to all that in the post-convention weeks, when the reality of who owns the "democratic party" begins to assert itself. But all I see or hear in any of his campaign speeches or mannerisms is a student schooled in the rhetorical style of one John F. Kennedy, with every inch of that unlamented cold-warrior's world reference.
I suspect I'll be voting for McKinney or LaRiva. It all looks like the same shit from her for yet another year.
As for Hillary apologist HeatherM, yet eanother white corporate liberal unwilling to do her homework. When are you geniuses going to look up at the mess the United States capitalist system is making of this country, let alone every other it's allowed to run at gunpoint? You all make me sick. And don't talk about ideological purity either. You are the most dogmatic people on the planet.
Loeb is missing the mark.
Michigan has been in a depression, not a recession, for years. It is now the nation's worst economy. It is a large, multi-ethnic industrial state that should be exactly what the Democrats want for their base, especially as they continue their cynical pose of representing the average person. Of course, the Dems did what they could to screw Michigan.
Yes, of course Hillary Clinton will do or say anything in order to amass power and influence, just like the rest of the sorry lot. However, that does not mean that two wrongs make a right, which is the essence of Loeb's argument.
hillary clinton=she banshee personified. crazy bitch! google hillary clinton images and you will see the one i am thinking of, truely frightening to think that THAT could be in our living rooms for the next four to eight years. ugh.
No, homeward-angel. That's the critique of a right-wing troll. People with brains don't vote based on looks. Good-bye.
Eshu, I'd advise you to do something other than peering into your crystal ball before calling someone a "Hillary apologist" as you did me. I didn't identify who I am supporting. My point was the way media covers only two candidates. I also happen to believe that the people in Michigan and Florida are more important than any single candidate and that their delegates should be seated. Especially after Florida 2000, the DNC should be the last to deny Florida a voice.
This is why Obama gets so much mileage off the hope and change mantra--Billary back means the same old shit.
I would vote for Attila the Hun before I would vote for HRC/WJC or any of the DLC filth. This has nothing to do with blue dresses, race, or feminism. It has everything to do with disgusting filth that are bought and paid for Overseers on Master's Plantation who will NEVER serve us, that I would not cross the street to spit on.
Pieces of 8.
Don't Republicans like to change the rules in the middle of the game??
Correct seriousprofessor. Only a troll or the brain-dead personification of that icon "the typical American" (start asking questions and see if you can find one) would vote based on such superficiality.
The ones most loudly claiming that Hillary will be the nominee are scared-shitless Republicans who know that she cannot be elected (as witnessed by Jim Roddy, on OnQ Pittsburgh PBS.) They are afraid of Obama and the image of how he juxtaposes against McCain, who will be their candidate of course. As pointed out in articles and comments here, the media is doing everything they can to make Hillary the candidate, so that we will have another Republican to do their bidding for the next 4 - 8 years.
Don't know who or what Obama really is; anyone who goes beyond local politics is a professional political animal, and anyone who thinks differently is a hopelss romantic. At least electing Obama would shake up their complacency and arrogance somewhat.
Watching all the MSM political pundittos gush with how exciting this all is has left my TV room smelling like vomitus. What all this has made me do is increase the bottom line for Molson's and Old Grandad and my local unlicensed pharmacist.
It is time for Billary to ride off into the sunset with her pal Bush. Yippi kai aaa m------ f-----
Do Hillary's actions in Florida and Michigan reflect the positive change that women have expressed would come with the election of a woman? If so I want none of it.
The fact that Hillary is reviled by so many Democrats does not bode well for her beating the Republican nominee if she is nominated by the Democrats.
Let's face it. Both of the so-called "front runners", Clinton and Obama are unelectable. They have been selected by the corporate state to try to install a crazy war criminal, John McCain, in office. Anyone for a "hundred year" war?
I regretfully voted for Bill twice in the '90's. I will NEVER make the mistake of voting for another Clinton or DLC machine candidate again. I don't care about the personality bashing/sexism-based arguments against her. All you need to keep repeating is, "WTO, GATT, NAFTA, Telecommunications Act of 1996, air wars against Muslim countries, etc".
Look, folks. You are being given a false choice between several candidates who are acceptable to corporate interests. The real differences between them are minor and all revolve around divisive social issues like pray in school, abortion, and gay rights. NONE of them want a true, non-profit public health insurance system. On the economic and social justice issues that really matter, nothing is said, or anybody that does talk about it - like Kucinich - is marginalized and denigrated.
If you want to make a statement this fall, vote for a Black woman for President - probable Green Party nominee, Cynthia McKinney!
luckylefty,
I am guessing you will not be able to vote for Atilla as I expect he will return to Halliburton after eight years as VP. They might have a little bonus for him, maybe something with 9 or 10 digits to the left of the decimal place.
Not that Obama is all he is cracked up to be, but the Hill-Bill gang appears determined to make Rovian politics the standard for both major parties. Oh goodie. Just when I thought US politics could not get any worse, I am reminded that it, like everything else in life, can always get worse, until that last breath escapes.
went alittle off topic there, it happens sometimes.
You democrats really take the cake! Is it any wonder that the incredible and awful happened in 2004, George Walker Bush was reelected! While you each take turns tearing down the "other" candidate little of a constructive nature is taking place.
For years now we have seen the right wing bury its differences in order to gain power, we have now had many years of such power, from Reagan right through to Bush the 43rd. I wonder what it is going to take in order to get folks to realise that the way to achieve in this political system is incrementally, in stages.
I have my differences with Senator Clinton certainly, I also am uneasy with the lack of experience Senator Obama carries into this race. But I much prefer to speak to positives rather than negatives, especially when these comments will certainly come back to haunt whichever candidate wins the nomination.
We have a very long way to go if our democratic process is to be saved, if it is to be returned to the people and rescued from the corporation. Negativity serves only to further enmire us in this mess.
I cant vote for either of these two Wolf Blitzkreig appointed Eneblercrats. Hillary is Lieberman and Obama speaks in raw consultese, as if everyone'S brain has become BAD Orwellian Jello.
Claudius -- You said a mouth full. Exactly. Changing rules mid-way through is a Republican tactic. Hillary was ands still is a Republican. She is only a Dem on paper. Like so many others in the DLC. The Dem party has been invaded by Republicans left and right.
Truthteller - I completely concur!!
Purvis Ames -- Exactly, that's why they shoved Hillary and Obama down our throats. They have no intention of either of them winning. It was all done on purpose. They plan on yanking this presidency away just like the last two because very little has been done to stop them.
correction seriousprofessor, you have misinterpreted my post as being superficial, or brain-dead. But the intent of the comment was directed to show the kind of president the us would have on CORPO tv for the next 4 years. Although I dont like much of Obama's policy, he is certainly more composed, and definitly more electible than any of the other Dems have proved to be. Plus the fact that if in the event (voterrollhackIng) that Billary is given the throne, then only about 500 million easterners will be seething with anger that the us elected a woman
president. The truth is, america is probably much closer to accepting a black man president than a white woman president. So yes, i will use any opportunity to show the people just the kind of juxtaposed characterizations that she would bring to the us news media, EVERY SINGLE DAY, just like bush during these last 7 years. Whatever the result of the election(between hillary or obama) i think it is safe to say a dem is going to win this next presidency.
Vince, agreed, if Billary does get the nomination, then they are going to be in for a very very tough run against the right wing machine. Get ready for some mudslinging!! but then again thats one of the games Billary does best.
Hillary "Thatcher" Clinton.
I don't know if any of you heard the Andrew Young comment regarding Bill being the "first black president". He said with a laugh that 'Bill Clinton has bedded more black women than Obama'. Wow. That's how low we've gotten in this discourse. I remember the hope I felt when Bill Clinton was elected, that the USA would become a truly better land, working with the world. When he pointed his finger and said "I did not have sex with THAT WOMAN" I turned totally away from him, though I still liked Hillary. THAT WOMAN was a 21 year old intern using what her culture had taught her to do - find the most powerful man and please him, that's the ticket to success. Talk about Power Over.
What Hillary has allowed to happen in her name is just as horrible as any Rove trickery. Billy is sick, out of control.
After watching Obama's acceptance speech on Saturday in S.C. with the young, the black, the white, the old, the asian, all cheering with true authenticity, I turned to C-Span and watched a depleted, sad, little girl trying to rouse her crowd as they sat glumly behind her. She scolded them. She reminds me of me when I was in fourth grade and trying my best to win camper of the week award. I was diligent, I made my bed and stood straight in line and I got the "points". But I didn't get the award. It went to Lois who never did what she was supposed to do but yet she made people laugh and feel good about themselves. She brought people together. I was so intent on making my bed and being the best and being the victim.....It took me a long time to understand that dynamic.
Obama's grandmother in Kenya said, in her language as she does not speak English, "He listens well." That's when I decided to vote for him. He's not perfect, he's not our saviour. But he can win and will make America a better place. Hillary cannot and McCain will and then I will leave this country.
By the way, Tom Brady takes a lower salary from the Patriots so that they can invest that money in building a team that will go to the Super Bowl. Hillary would never do that, as noted above. They feel Entitled to Be Back In The White House, they will not be elected and our country will suffer even more.
Truthseeker58,
You wrote: "Hillary was and still is a Republican."
Hillary was raised to be a Republican, and Hillary is a Republican today, but the speeches she made as a prominent student at Wellesley demonstrated that she had adopted quite progressive ideas. Her abandonment of the left took place over the decades following Wellesley. In some ways that makes her even more dangerous, as self interest and convenience clearly led her to reject the ideas of the left, and in the process of eradicating her cognitive dissonance when she began to enjoy the privileges of the right, she would have likely developed virtually impenetrable internal barriers to such ideas.
TRUTHTELLER: Right on about the "false choice," and KIVALS: Intriguing disection of Hillary's political anatomy.
Ah yes, the pragmatic right. ardee is correct of course: all you have to do is sell your soul, agree to the rules of the game, and you can shove your agenda down everyone else's throat. Except that ardee, though correct, is in the end, mistaken. This may be politics as it exists here today, but do not confuse that with the desire for a civil society of just laws. The desire for justice is universal and hard-wired. Your klan cannot endure. Be off to your gated community.
On NOW this past Friday a prominent evangelical preacher said "When you mix politics and religion, what you get is politics." The success that you gloat about ardee is about to become history, and whomever is elected is gonna wish they had never run. A spoiled but exhausted populace will make sure of that.
I'm shocked, shocked that there's politicking by the politicians! For every questionable action by Hillary, there's plenty to question about Obama. So swallow your pride and get ready to vote for one of them in November, unless you prefer President McCain or (shudder) President Romney.
Whatever you think about Hillary or Obama, you can be sure either will be better on environmental, judicial, economic, and social policy than *any* Republican. You can vote Green, and we'll end up Red.
I'd rather see John McCain as president than Hillary.
Do you guys remember Michael John Hamdani in New York city?
re: homeward-angel (4:07)
"But the intent of the comment was directed to show the kind of president the us would have on CORPO tv for the next 4 years."
The intent was what it was. The actual comment criticized Hillary's looks. Overlaying a claim of reasonable intent on an unreasonable action does not magically change the action.
Thoughtful people do not use personal appearance as a rational political critique. I'm astonished that you're fighting this point.
Join the community of rational progressives.
Paul,
Hillary and Barack are political twins. You can't criticize one without criticizing the other.
ardee January 29th, 2008 4:48 pm
'Is it any wonder that the incredible and awful happened in 2004'
no, it isn't a wonder - b/c folks like hillary and john voted for the war. (which was meticulously planned). the 2 dem candidates for pres/VP in 2004 both agreed to allow bush to go to war. the public didn't see the candidates positions as legit b/c they weren't. (kennedy alluded to this yesterday, saying this candidate didn't vote to start war). i don't like obama voting for funding war, yet both clinton and edwards helped to create this iraq war.
'from Reagan right through to Bush the 43rd. I wonder what it is going to take in order to get folks to realise that the way to achieve in this political system is incrementally, in stages.'
i'm confused or is this just a non sequitur, i mean ardee there was continuity b/w bush 1 and bush 2, continuity called clinton 1. what'd we receive for this continuity , 500,000 dead civilians in iraq, millions of americans being removed from welfare roles (as the tech economy boomed), bombs in yugoslavia, NAFTA,etc...(i know they're all corporate hacks b/c we live in america folks, thats why our government resembles a corporation; , Pres, VP, cabinet officials that represent segments of the corporation- exmple sec of treasury). i'm hoping for a break from this continuity bush/clinton ,and i'm not 25, but i have listened to interviews of younger voters concerning this election, and heard young adults say there is no time they could remember when either a bush or clinton was not VP or president. that's incremental change? another hillary/bill act?
The fact that more young voters have participated in the process and more independents were wooed to the dems raised the possibility that SC (one of the most repub states) could go dem in the general ( as noted in 1/29/08 nyt's.) You think clinton generated this voter turnout?
- i noticed something i hadn't paid attention to at wikipedia yesterday , i'm guessing it could be hillary's (i mean bill's) grand design.
it's interesting that b clinton could subvert the intent of the 22nd amendment by running as hillary's VP (similar to Putin circumventing term limits in russia by redefining the definition of prime minister and president - remember this rhodes scholar is a master of twisting language and meaning).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Vice_President
"The Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the vice president to meet the same eligibility requirements as the president. That is, the vice president must be at least 35 years of age, have been born a citizen of the United States, and have been a resident of the U.S. for at least the 14 years preceding election.
It is unclear whether someone who has been twice elected to the presidency can subsequently be elected Vice President. The Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution states that a person may not be elected to the presidency more than twice, but it does not rule out such a person subsequently becoming president by other means (for example through the line of succession).There is no restriction on the number of terms a person can serve as Vice President - the limit only applies to the Presidency."
the clintons seem as though nothing is above them (certainly not the constitution) imagine a real two-for Pres Hill/ VP Bill.
if anyone can explain how this is not a possibility i'm all ears???
HeatherM is right that I have been attacking Hillary. And she's been defending her. We have a tremendously consequential choice to make, and I think there is a measurable and important difference between what she stands for and how she has conducted her campaign. And the admittedly flawed but still more progressive stands of Obama and Edwards.
Much as I dislike Hillary, and I do, I would still vote for her if she is the nominee--if only because one more Roberts or Alito on the Supreme Court could provide a veto on progressive change for the next forty years.
But I hope that those who read progressive boards like these will do what they can so we don't have to make that sad choice, and can actually elect someone, who, as is posted eloquently above, brings new people into politics, and invites us to work for change, which we'll have to do, no matter who is elected.
Bill aint gonna run for VP-period whether it's Constitutional or not. Can you imagine the spin the Republicans would put on that situation? Like "a vote for Hillary is a vote for 'President Bill'", no Hillary wont chance that plus she would loose all those fem votes that are voting not for the candidate but to break "the glass ceiling".
Barn Burner January 29th, 2008 8:50 pm
fair point barn burner, i'm just exploring the boundaries and if hillary is the candidate, there can be no doubt that it will be an extension of clinton 1 <the point is amplified by clintons dependence on her husbands term as her 'experience'. actually obama has more experience representing people (11 years) then either hill or john. {i'm amazed that hillary being such a go getter didn't garner an arkansas senate seat to compliment her husbands presidency. no hillary was mr clinton's wife, she wasn't elected, in fact she brought heat on him for whitewater and travelgate.) anyway..
about the glass cieling, come on, you don't think a former president running with his ambitious wife (think McBeth) isn't breaking the glass cieling (and the soap opera freaks, more people then all progressives combined , will consume bill in mass. bill good, bill good..)also, a bill as Vp is a slap in the face to the repubs with cheney. it also would be a constitutional challenge and the masses would go ga ga... you'ld be surprised....
excuse my sardonic humour barn burner but the outsets of possibility are more often a reflection of truth. the talk on the street is clinton 1 (x3)
HeatherM, if you're not about Hillary, than stop slagging about how so and so never likes her. What is there to like? The woman's a god damn political thug in front of a political machine. I don't need a crystal ball to tell me that, nor do I need one to see that you think there's some kind of real process going on here within the upper levels of the "democratic" party that's actually looking to empower the U.S. electorate. You carry on as though the media is going to report on candidates who actually have something to say, when the evidence is blatantly to the contrary. The media shuts out Gravel on the basis of his polling data, they shut out Kucinich for the same reasons, and instead of recognizing that, you want to begin a discussion about open media with the pretense that Hillary Clinton is some kind of figure for open political leadership, which she isn't. That may not be where you're coming from, but that's how you began, with the observation that Loeb doesn't like Hillary, and never does. What fucking difference does it make? And why in the world should a woman who fronts for the war criminality of the United States government be indulged at all?
Crystal ball? I don't need a stinking crystal ball to see a true believer when I see one.
It'll be interesting to see a woman president.The 'boys club' on Capitol Hill needs to get shaken up. The U.S. can then get in step with the rest of world and join the group of countries that have had a woman president. None of the candidates are perfect, including Clinton. It's a relationship, or marriage of sorts, and none of those are perfect. You just have to decide, like a mature adult what you're going to put up with and what you will not, and balance out the pros from the cons. Otherwise, like most wishy-washy immature people, you become a fair weather friend, and have two or four spouses in your past, because you're expecting too much from the world.
Eshu, I don't know where you got the idea that you can curse at strangers on this forum. Hopefully, Common Dreams will correct you. I don't need to hear your swearing at me and I find your cursing abusive.
I noted that every column this author write is "Hillary bad, Obama good." That's a pattern. That doesn't have to do with "I like" anyone. That has to do with I expect those who want to be seen as journalists to be truthful.
From CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/29/fl.primary.dems/
Though Democrats agreed to leave the state off their itineraries in a show of solidarity with the national party, Clinton attended permitted fund-raisers in Florida on Sunday and planned to appear with supporters there after polls closed.
"Permitted fund-raisers" is pretty basic. The author is mocking Hillary and bringing up the lie that she cried by the ripping off the old Leslie Gore song.
I haven't praised Hillary in this thread or any comments I've left at Common Dreams.
Telling the truth doesn't require liking someone. But the truth does matter. I would appreciate if you could find someone else to focus on and I think your cursing is not in keeping with Common Dreams stated policy.
The author of this piece writes:
HeatherM is right that I have been attacking Hillary. And she's been defending her. We have a tremendously consequential choice to make, and I think there is a measurable and important difference between what she stands for and how she has conducted her campaign. And the admittedly flawed but still more progressive stands of Obama and Edwards.
--
I just saw that. I will assume that's why someone thought it was okay to use the f-word and others in the post aimed at me.
I didn't defend Hillary, I defended the truth. It's really sad that you can't even point out reality without being attacked or said to be "defending Hillary."
As I said before, the truth is the truth. "Permitted" is permitted. I would defend Obama or Edwards the same way. I wouldn't worry about Gravel because he doesn't stand a chance. But I will vote for whichever of the three gets the nomination. I don't see a great deal of difference in any of them on the Iraq War. None could pledge all troops would be home by 2013.
I really think it's sad that defending the truth unhinges people and makes them insist you're supporting Hillary. I'm supporting the truth and I'm sick of slanted attacks on any of the candidates.
The American people did not get to choose the candidates they were chosen for us by the elites and the corporations. They all should be questioned more importantly, the system itself. Campaign Finance Reform and Clean Elections people...its the only way to get our country back as we don't have the money to buy it back.
Sure, Hillary is a war goddess, and is more dangerous than Bush because she's just as big of a hawk as he is, only much smarter. But for me the most telling thing about this article is how much money is actually required to successfully run a Presidential campaign, and that's the real problem: you can't be elected President unless you're filthy stinking rich.
Hillary has divided the Democratic party as no nominee before her, yet her supporters argue that she will unite the Country? Should she win the nomination, she will easily face the lowest level of support from Black voters of any Democratic Presidential candidate in modern history.
No national Poll dares to reveal her negative numbers among African American voters but I guarantee that it is lower than McCain. I would wager that it is equal to her negative numbers among Republicans.
No Democratic nominee can win without a heavy black turnout and Hillary has no chance of that. As an African American, I can't possibly allow Hillary to show the disrespect and downright contempt for us as a voting block, then reward her with my support. I will never vote for a Republican, so why would I vote for a right wing race baiting nominee who happens to identify them self by the LABEL Democrat?
Hillary voters need to wake up from the dream that Black voters will come back to Hillary for the General election because there is no chance of that happening. McCain is a warmongering right wing fool, but I don't despise him, as I do Hillary. If the Democrats lose after 8 years of a delusional psychopath simply because they haven't enough sense to know a sheep in Democrats clothing when they see one, then so be it.
I guess we were supposed to forget Bill belonging to that lilly white exclusionary country club in Arkansas then saying that "THE WORKERS THERE ARE BLACK" as though it is OK because the servants were people of Color.
Jesse Jackson indeed!!!, we'll just remember that come November 7, 2008. If Scumbag Bill comes to a Black Church in my State I'm protesting outside and I won't be alone!
Actually... Obama was the one running ads in FLA. Hillary was only meeting with her already established constituants. Big difference.
Convention delegates..... that's the DNC's call. Right? And they haven't had a very good track record lately.
Fact is... FLA has a lion share of electoral votes. And the DNC can't strip them of those. Look at the numbers. Had Hillary been opposing John McCain, she'd have won.
Blurgy is incorrect. Hillary has had quite good exit polling numbers among older black women. And, dare I say... they *are* the black vote.
Young folks like rallies. They like parties. They don't show up at elections... and that's a well documented fact. If they do show up... they tend to be fickle "independants."
The democratic base will support Hillary. Just look at the florida vote and you can see what older women care about. Black or white.
Slime always wins in the end and the Clintons will win the nomination and America is the big loser.
William Kristol was attacking Hillary in the NYT's yesterday.
Because she has the best chance of beating mccain, who Kristol wats in....
I gotta admit if the neo-cons are aginst her, it means Rove is against her...
WWIII but Israel will prevail, with our help, huh?
Right Mr. Putin?
Calling Hillary more dangerous than Bush is just wrong. As Mr. Loeb commented, judicial appointments by her will likely be at least more moderate than any appointees of McCain or (shudder) Romney. Say what you will about Clinton (and there's plenty of negatives, I grant), but if you decide you can't vote for her in the general election, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. Think of the environment, the judiciary, social policies, the economy--all areas where Clinton would at least be likely to be more moderate than any Republican.