Now is the time to invest in US property, Don’t abandon it, invest in it.

I am opposed to Hillary Clinton as a candidate and have made it clear that if she is the nominee I will vote for a third party candidate. Ditto when it comes to Obama.

But my reasons have nothing to do with campaign tactics, my reasons are related mainly to foreign policy.

The Clintons used the race card intentionally in NH and it worked. Rather than apologize they have apologists like this web site try and redirect their actions or come up with weak explanations.

It won’t work. Even Democrats have had enough of the Clintons.

I have heard of the growing economic pressures on the “black community” due to illegal immigration. This can be seen in the aftermath of Katrina.
In the next 5 years it won’t matter what color your skin is cause the poor are going to be a whole lot poorer and there will a great deal more people in that catagory.

(in quotes because I think it is not right to refer to someone’s color just the “content of their character”)

And it gets even weirder when you realize that the owner of this site claims he is really an Edwards supporter, and yet focuses entirely on Hillary as the next best thing to god and Obama as evil incarnate, utterly ignoring his own ostensible candidate.

I think that all you have to do is look at the difference between the expected results and the actual ones to understand that this charge doesn’t make sense. A white guy who is that much of a bigot isn’t likely to favor a white woman as a candidate, either. If anyone had benefitted from such a “Bradley effect”, it would have been Edwards. Yet he did no better than expected. Obama also did about as expected.

It’s pretty clear that what happened was that Clinton got many of the undecided and second-tier candidate votes, and perhaps some help from elsewhere. “Elsewhere” would probably mean voters the polls didn’t count, I suppose, or independents who decided to vote for candidates in a different party. Turnout appears to have been higher than normal. Not at all surprising given how many candidates there were on both sides.

Sadly, this should be a cautionary tale about freely throwing around words like “racism” and “sexism”, but I know better than to expect it will have any effect.

I’ve known racists, and I can tell you that there is absolutely no doubt when you encounter one. None of the Democratic candidates is such a thing, and none wants to be associated with them. I think the charges of sexism are equally specious. As Shirin points out, no one has offered any real proof.

All time high isn’t good enough when enough people stay home in anger. The Clinton campaign is destroying itself.

Michel Chossudovsky’s writing : You think any of the Candidates have read any of it?
If so, which one you think can “change” that procession of madness?

Kuchinich and Paul have probably read them and would make drastic changes.
I don’t hold out that hope for the rest.
They would just try to go back to the bad old days before W stole the first election.
Things are so bad I could accept this for a minute.

The Obama insiders haven’t done that.

Further, if the Obama campaign continues to cry “racism” every time a compliment (read Biden) or criticism is made of him or his record, he will lose both white and (especially!) Hispanic voters.

Especially Hispanic voters? Just the white ones or the little brown ones like the son of Jeb Bush? LOL!!
I’m sooooooo glad you went here. This is another Mark Penn tactic.

Clinton pollster: Latinos don’t like Black leaders

Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:37:58 PM PST
I really think that Clinton’s people need to go to a cultural competency lecture. Like a real retreat, where they sit down and talk about how not to offend voters.

Here you go. Unlike guacamole and chips, Black leaders and Latinos don’t go together.

When I asked Bendixen about the source of Clinton’s strength in the Hispanic community, he mentioned her support for health care, and Hispanic voters’ affinity for the Clinton era. “It’s one group where going back to the past really works,” he said. “All you need to say in focus groups is ‘Let’s go back to the nineties.’ ” But he was also frank about the fact that the Clintons, long beloved in the black community, are now dependent on a less edifying political dynamic: “The Hispanic voter—and I want to say this very carefully—has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.” {emphasis mine)

Just replace the word white with hispanic:

The White voter—and I want to say this very carefully—has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.

Does that make it more clear?

I truly believe that this is how the Clinton people view the world. Mark Penn in all his Blackwater/union busting glory says: let’s divide us all up into our specific groups and I’ll appeal to you on that basis. Latinos don’t like Black leaders, well let me talk to you. She’ll even tell you you’re not illegal, but you can’t drive. Poor white person, let me tell you how scary Al-Qaeda is, waiting for a “new guy” to come along so they can blow us all up!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/12/171256/424/480/435807

Further, if the Obama campaign continues to cry “racism” every time a compliment (read Biden) or criticism is made of him or his record, he will lose both white and (especially!) Hispanic voters.

While I don’t doubt Obama’s desire to bring people together, I question that the best way to do it is by decrying the battles of the ’90’s while simultaneously embracing the battles of the ’60’s.

I can imagine many people sitting out this election if Hillary becomes the nominee

In the coming election voter turnout will be at an all time high, which isn’t saying much, considering the last few cycles. I don’t know who it will be. I do know they will have lines around the block.

Michel Chossudovsky’s writing : You think any of the Candidates have read any of it?
If so, which one you think can “change” that procession of madness?

But I agree with Larry that your second paragraph is a bit difficult to decipher.

The Clintons’ Racial Strategy
by BooMan
Sat Jan 12th, 2008 at 10:41:25 AM EST

Carl Hulse and Patrick Healy’s article in the New York Times, Clintons Move to Tamp Down Criticism From Blacks About Recent Comments, accomplishes precisely what the Clintons needed to happen. It’s actually even better than they had any right to expect. First, it makes absolutely no mention of comments from Fmr. Sen. Bob Kerrey, New Hampshire chairman Bill Shaheen, supporter Andrew Cuomo, or anonymous Clinton advisers. It doesn’t touch on Bill Clinton’s patronizing use of the word ‘kid’ to describe Obama. All it addresses are two comments: Hillary’s comments about MLK Jr., and Bill’s comment about a fairy tale. And, it’s true…Hillary’s MLK comment was so stupid and self-defeating that it probably was nothing more than sloppiness. And Bill’s comment about a Fairy Tale was specifically about whether or not Barack Obama has been consistently against the war in Iraq, and not meant to be dismissive of his chances or his message. So, the article fails to address the (possible) use of surrogates to spread racial and anti-Muslim stereotypes about Obama. But the article does not fail to mention the two most harmful names for Obama’s campaign…the names that instantly turn-off white voters and remind them why they don’t like black complaints about racism.

In a call on Friday to Al Sharpton’s nationally syndicated talk radio show, Mr. Clinton said that his “fairy tale” comment on Monday about Senator Barack Obama’s position on the Iraq war was being misconstrued, and that he was talking only about the war, not about Mr. Obama’s overarching message or his drive to be the first black president.
Going hat in hand to Al Sharpton? Not that ambulance chaser again. Won’t he ever stop seeing racism under every pillow and behind every curtain?

Others continued to take issue with the remarks, including Representative Jesse L. Jackson Jr., Democrat of Illinois and an Obama supporter.
“Following Barack Obama’s victory in Iowa and historic voter turnout in New Hampshire,” Mr. Jackson said in a statement, “the cynics unfortunately have stepped up their efforts to decry his uplifting message of hope and fundamental change.”

Do people even know that there is a Jesse Jackson Jr.? The prevailing sense is that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have once again made a mountain out of a mole hill and injected race into the debate when race wasn’t even the issue.

Never mind that Billy Shaheen suggested that Obama was a cocaine dealer, or that an anonymous Clinton adviser was quoted in the Guardian as saying, “If you have a social need, you’re with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you’re young and you have no social needs, then he’s cool.” Never mind the rest of it.

Here is how it works. The Clintons push some racially sensitive buttons and elicit an emotional response. Then they go apologize explain themselves on the Al Sharpton radio show. The New York Times only covers the most innocuous of their comments. The result is that they remind voters that Barack Obama is not the post-racial uniter, but a typical black candidate, supported by serial whiners Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Nothing could undermine Obama’s campaign more among the white vote, and the Clintons know it. And there is nothing, nothing, that Obama can do about it. If he complains, he only makes it worse. If he doesn’t complain, these subtle allegations that he is a lazy, drug-dealing Muslim do damage all on their own.

Congratulations to the Clintons. You really are good at this campaigning thing. I’m so impressed.

http://www.boomantribune.com/

I can imagine many people sitting out this election if Hillary becomes the nominee.