Political Punch

Superdelegates are now king makers ? Voting's goal is to accurately represent the public's desires. If superdelegates vote any way other than what the popular vote in their district, county, city, state, country, is, then the Democrats are no better than the Republicans. Remember how the republicans handled Florida and the 'hanging chads', 'dimpled chads', et cetera ? WAKE UP SUPER DELEGATES AND DO YOUR JOB !

The black superdelegates are being threatened of their political career if they support Hillary over Obama. The media knows this but refuse to dig into it. This is why John Lewis and others are rethinking their support for Hillary.

They do not want to go the extent of losing their job over their support for a white lady. It is that simple.

It is not that they really torn between two good candidates as they want to profess. It's the THREAT to their political career driving their actions.

It's a shame.

Center of Responsive Politics
HOPE FUND
Obama has given over $698,000 to super delegates that will support him.
.
Don't dis, this is a fact. If it comes down to superdelegates being the deciding factor. Its because OBAMA BOUGHT THEIR VOTE

Many of the superdelegates are not elected officials, therefore they are not obligated to vote based on the masses. Why would they even change sides? They should vote for the person that they believe will make the best president. I think this is called LOYALTY!!!!! They shouldn't be swayed by what the press and other says. If they change sides is this not flip flopping, which is what Obama is claim Clinton did on Iraq.

All candidates for political office make mistakes in their campaigns.

All candidates for political office have segments of their past, life-choices/policies/associations, that will not appeal to some segment of their constituency.

As voters we need to attempt to ignore rhetoric and the multitudinous spins put on everything that any candidate has to say. We need to listen to what they say and then parse it for ourselves. We need to avoid the sound bites and look for the substance. We should make comparisons between the candidates’ histories and what is now being said by, or about, them.

In short we should take the time to become informed voters.

We serve no one, least of all ourselves, if we vote solely on the basis of political party, race, color, creed, sex, sexual preference, or anything other than how much a candidate reflects our morals, values, ethics, views, and priorities. It is very unlikely that any candidate will shares all of the above with any individual, but either by selection or process of elimination we will still come to a decision, hopefully our own decision.

As a final thought, I would urge the DNC to rethink the how, why, and wherefores of the super delegates. I do not believe, that as they are now constituted, they work beneficially toward the democratic process of the democratic party.

Todd,

Wow! So you would have us to accept that there is no legitimate substance to Sen. Obama and that his very presence on the world stage is a result of some sort of quasi-affirmative action conspiracy?

Is it possible, just remotely possible that white Americans from Illinois who voted him into two of their major representative offices just happened to see an honesty, a charisma, and a genuinely-representative voice that transcended race?

For you and others to suggest that Obama is some sort of guilt-produced token is...something. The man is accomplished and solid. Disagree with his political stance and vote for the 'other guy', if you will, but don't discount his legitimacy as a candidate for President, especially just because he happens to be an African American.

Wow.

Cathy,
My facts are "straight". I'm aware of Clinton's "Goldwater" days. She was 13, or 14 at the time. What's your point? Are you calling Senator G. a racist? Senator Clinton is not a racist. I'm entitled to my opinion. FYI, I was responding to the article.

The Obamas have manipulated people, and the press, very well. If you don't vote for Obama you're either a racist, or don't want change. Day by day Obama gets cockier and cockier on screen. It's almost this sense that if you don't give Obama the handout that we'll all have hell to pay, racial strife, the party being split, etc.

The Republicans are LOVING this. The best possible scenario has played out for them 1) an untested new politician as the nominee 2) a split Democratic party.

This is a sad and fantastic time all at once for American politics. Let me say that as a Black man, when Obama first anounced his intention to run, I thought it was a joke. When he actually did, I thought he was crazy. But then I started to listen and I read about him. I went to his website and I went to Hiliary's I am currently reading his book, the Audacity of Hope. I am now a 100% Obama supporter, and NOT becasue his is black, but in part due to what I have read as his ideas and what he plans to do and based upon his intergrity.

If I can I will state a few reasons why Obama should be given a chance to lead this country above Hiliary Clinton.

1. Like Bill Clinton, his has a story from rags to success, so he understands what the average citizen goes through to make ends meets. And he knows what to do to make things better.

2. He has the credentials in my opinion. A law degree from Harvard, a community organizer, a law Professor, a state senator and then a US senator, so indeed he has moved up the ladder and understands politics and policy making.

3. He certainly has the ability to work both sides of the Isle. You should note that Hiliary Clinton always speaks about her experiance and ability to FIGHT and TAKE ON the Republicans, she does not know how to work with them.

4. He draws support from both parties. We now see there are Obamacans, Republicans for Obama. We know that Senator Lincoln Chafee is now supporting him and Colin Powell has indicated that he likes him and may support him. Such is the Charisma that he has.

5. His programs are REALISTIC, and not based on promises that will end up being broken. For example he correctly says that all through the cold war years, the USA maintained dialogue with Russia though we were techincally at war.

6. If you think he does not know foreign policy, he has foreign family roots, has lived abroad as a youth so he understands how to deal with foreign cultures. It is rumored that George Bush had only travelled out of the country once or twice before becoming president.

7. He is certainly intelligent. Being the president of the Harvard law review, an elected position to run one of the most respected legal journals in the United States, he cartainly must have shown his collegues he is intelligent. Being a law professor shows that he is intelligent. Intelligent people know how to make tough and good choices and decsions.

8. You cannot overlook his charisma. In times of tria and tribulation, many times it is the Charisma and intelectuality of an induvidual that gives the people hope and strength to carry on despite the odds against them. He has also almost single handedly ganvanized the youth vote in the country, if he does not win the nomination, the youth vote may shy away from the general election.

9.Oh! I forgot, this experience issue. Consider this, George W Bush was a Two times Texas governor before he became president, one would have assumed that would be adequate experience required the run the country effectively correct? We now see that this is not the case.

10. And to round up. His age. John F. Kennedy was younger that Barack Obama was when he became president, so how does Obama not qualify to be president?

There is more, but I think thats enough. Obama needs your vote. You will note that I have not mentioned anything as regards race or gender.

The media has gone overboard for Obama. I used to think Fox news was bad, but now CNN and MSNBC have shown to be just as selfish and one sided for their favorite candidate.

The popular vote, is at a dead heat, but watching CNN or MSNBC (excetp for Dan Abrams) you'd think Obama has one already!

How do we revolt against an unfair corporate media? I'm upset they are race baiting us all. First Clinton is a racist, now all these race being an issue discussions, just pitting everyone against eachother.

We are all pons.

Comments (media & blog) are becoming more and more vehement as people discuss the issues of race and gender. It is a fact of our existence that we learn at early ages to take a healthy amount of pride in, not only our accomplishments, but also in our identifications, our cohorts (be they race or gender). In our youth, we were pitted 'boys-versus-girls', and we were made better by fostering a friendly but meaningful sense of competition. We wouldn't dare call that racism or sexism.

Now that we are voting, contributing adults, we learn to hash through political ideas or intensions that will work to make our lives better--ideas/intensions that transcend race and gender. But, that doesn’t discount that healthy sense of identity we gain from being white, black, Latino, Asian, or bi-racial—for that matter.

We shouldn’t HAVE to have Black History month or tributes to other minority groups because the accomplishments of those groups should equally be included in American history. However, that doesn’t negate the healthy sense of pride I especially feel in learning of the contributions of African Americans. When J.C. Watts was a staunch Republican representative in congress, I was proud. When Colon Powell and Condoleezza Rice were the first African Americans selected for such posts, I was a proud black American AND a proud American because of the strides such selections imply. Likewise, I was proud when Barack Obama was elected to the US Senate.

Ultimately, I will vote for the candidate that spawns ideas that contribute to a better quality of life for me and my children, but if I vote for Barack Obama because he is black, then that also contributes to my children’s view of a limitless future (of personal opportunities) as well. (Obama is a good man too. I would not vote for Marion Barry for anything, and he’s black. But, Obama is a positive role model for men, black men, and people in general.)

My point is that while we should vote on issues predominately, fostering and perpetuating a sense of pride in my race or gender is not racism or sexism. It’s not. Obama’s and Hillary’s accomplishments as people and as minorities are something to be proud of in a healthy way. If you are conflicted because of his race or her gender, then you should be. You were taught that. It’s not unhealthy. If they were not good people and patriots, then you would be remiss to be led by race or gender in making your decision. No one is choosing Obama just because he’s black. He is substantive (despite Rush Limbaugh’s opinion). No one is choosing Clinton just because she’s a woman. She has a solid history.

I am confused by Rep. Clyburn's comments. He said,"Those of us who live in the South especially, we know the code words when we hear them and we understand the tone. People felt some of that was going on and they reacted to it in a very bitter way."
What 'code words' and what 'tone'? Is there a guideline as to words and tones?
Racists in the South are pretty obvious and lack subtlety. I grew up in the South and and have relatives who are bigoted and racist. I am continualy shocked at how easily the ugly words come out of their mouths. My memories of racism are as vivid today as they were in the 50's and 60's. The white line on the floor of the buses, signs reading "Whites only"-on water fountains, in restaurant windows, on bathroom doors. Signs saying "Blacks must use back door". It was, and is still, shocking to me.
My confusion lies in the fact that racism seems like a chess game in which only one side knows the unspoken rules and the rules keep changing, therefore the game never ends.

Vivi, you wrote " Ms. Clinton is not a racist,yet the media keep playing it up. M. Obama gets a pass on her crude comments."

Do some research. Hillary was a "Goldwater Girl" -- get your facts straight!

Some of the proceeding posts are the most thoughful posts I have seen to date
however, what perplexes me is why the Democrats always seem to pass on candidates like Sam Nunn, Joe Biden and or Chris Dodd?

The real challenge we have within the Democratic race is that we are dancing around the 800 lb elephant in the room. The third rail issue is race and every reporter, news anchor and pundit wants to remain as far away from this as possible.

As with all politicians who earn a significant majority of the vote from one particular group or party, there is concern as to what the massive support from such a group is expecting in exchange for this blind support? Barack has already given some inkling as to the sensitivity of this overwhelming support by avoiding vote choices on issues involving tougher laws for criminals and the reduction of plea bargaining. This is after he stood at the podium claiming to be tough on crime. His voting record (or lack of it via the ‘here’ votes) shows the contrary. It seems that anything that looks like it is supporting the local police and courts by closing loopholes or reducing tolerance goes against the massive support building behind him.

He is against illegal immigration but sought the support from one of the biggest benefactors of an illegal workforce, the Culinary Union. The reality is that if immigration reform includes amnesty, unions will see this new “legitimate” labor force as the equivalent of fresh meat in a singles bar. The ability to organize millions who will come out from the shadows means a whole new base of health and welfare payments.

Barack is for many things and from a viewpoint at 30,000 feet things look really good. But the lofty goal of bringing the two parties together is not going to be a reality with the current legislative body. What few realize is that laws and bills bubble up from the bottom and not from the top down. The rhetoric of bringing the world together is just that, rhetoric. As a newbie, his political capital will be lean if he were to be elected and he would spend that awfully quick trying to get one or two bipartisan proposals passed. After that, the continued objectives of congressional leaders and the required support of their home state agendas will continue as usual.

Alex T., I read your post and I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, the elite are only 10% of the American population, I'm not threatened by them. They are threatened by us. Actually, I think Hillary Clinton is broke and can only afford to run her campaign in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Otherwise, she'd be more visible. During World War II, England manufactured cardboard planes to fend off an attack by the Germans. It may sound incredible, but it worked. The German scout saw what he believed to be a fleet of thousands of airplanes and warned Germany against attacking England. Hillary Clinton's finances are like the cardboard planes. She touts that she has plenty to campaign with, but actually, there's nothing there. Otherwise, Bill Clinton would be more visible.

Hillary's experience = Bad experience

People need a new direction and a president worthy of trust. McCain should look for a retirement home and Hillary should step aside and stop doing more damage with her negative image. She will only unite republicans.

And I am not sure all that anger and frustration of Bill is not because he was hoping to get loose on all those interns again while Hillary is busy! What he thought was a sure thing seems to be slipping away!

Posted by: s.b,
What does black american owe the clintons? were it not for the blacks, he never would have been elected in the first place. if anyone owes anyone anything he owes them. you better go back and look at the numbers and do a little math. second, what did obama say about white voters? you are a liar. he never said anything about whites being racist. if he did say anything of the sort, you think i would be voting for him?

third, if hillary, black civil right activists, or anyone else was all that concerned about voters being disenfranchised, she would agree to a re-election so EVERYONE can vote. no, she wants to keep it as it is. she can't have her cake and eat it too.

Ditto "Mr Judgment"

"If Hillary can't manage her campaign finances, can't keep Bill on a leash, and can't find her message -- how exactly will she lead the country?"

I think this election is a disaster. The media are the ones causing all this conflict. They are the ones creating the hype. Wasn't it really Obama's wife that went to South Carolina and told the Black Churches that they needed to make a stand together. Clinton's words and the way he said it were taken out on content. The media spun that web. The Fairy tale bit to me was nothing more than hype there was nothing racial about it. To me he meant that it was a fairy tale to think that obama could think that he could win when he really has no experience and no one really knew who he was. Nothing racial. What is really bad is that the republican's are trying to convince people to vote for Obama so that McCain can chew him up and spit him out and they will have the White House again. That is what was going on in Virginia. The conservatives don't like McCain they said since they are stuck with him that they want the democrats to be stuck with Obama. They are saying that they fear him in the national election only so that he will be the one choosen. They really however fear Hillary. They know she has the power to really change things. And that bothers them. They also think that if they can keep the conflict within the democratic party that half of the democrats are going to be so upset they they will not go vote in the general election. And I am sorry to say they are correct about that. The Hillary supporters will not support Obama and the Obama supporters will not support Hillary. However I think the only way this will work is to have them on the same ticket. Hillary should be president however and Obama Vice President until he actually gets some experience and people really have the chance to see what he is really all about. Any other way the democratic party will not be united. People are hurting all over the United States and its a crying shame that the media is trying to destroy the democratic party. If an independent would run they may have a real chance in the national election. People need to get off the hype wagon and start looking at the issues. compare the plans. See what they are really voting for or against. It is bad for our country that we are going to be voting on hype instead of issues.

Becky, are you serious? You really think everyone's problems with Hillary are because we are sexist? The woman is inconsistent and she is trying to claim her time as first lady to be political experience. She is evil, thats not sexist, thats just a fact. Even Maureen Dowd admits that Hillary is a bad test case for American sexism.

The Clintons bring so much baggage with them, and most of the country just wishes that she and her ilk would just go away and never bother any of us again. She bought one election in New York and now she is surprised that she can't buy off all of America. Her rallies are degrading at best, and extremely racist at worse. Bill's attacks on Obama are uncalled for. If he wants to slam Obama for something, slam him on issues.

I am sick to death of the Clintons pulling this kind of stuff. They claim they will do one thing and then backstab everyone.

HILLARY GO AWAY AND NEVER COME BACK!

Bo, an even better article about the Clintons is the one titled, "Ghosts of 1996." Hispanics do not realize what they are getting themselves into voting for Hillary Clinton. Here's what they helped them with in 1996. Check out this link: Ghosts of 1996

His getting Afr. Amer. support is no different than her getting women and white support. And, all of us know the only reason she is getting some of their support is because she IS a woman and she IS Anglo. If you don't believe or know that, then you have your face buried in the sand.

The simple fact of the matter is this: she was polling higher than he was among blacks. She was getting a higer level of support than he was, except Bill over-played his hand. Not to start anything racial here but, some co-workers and I had the discussion many times in the past of why so many black voters were going with her over him. It seemed to us that they would want to back their own.

Well, enter Bill stage left and all hell broke lose....Anyway, many of these superdelegates are people that made up their minds last year. Of course they have a right to change their mind. The story that's not reported here is, there are still black super delegates that will not change their mind and still have plans to vote for Hillary - no matter what. They have that right as do those who want to change their mind.

Change of heart or not, make no mistake about it, she still has more instutional support among blacks than he EVER will. And we know why too.

And, I suspect some people are beginning to realize the level of support she has among the black elite and are wanting to strike a balance or something......In any case, it has taken them 2000+ years to reach this point. So, of course they are re-evaluating, many of you would as well if placed in the same position under the same conditions. Anyway, who makes up their mind a year in advance? That's as stupid as mailing in a ballot for someone months in advance.

Simply stated, people are allowed to change their mind, regardless of the reason. What's a shame is the press is feeding people this race tag line and so many are buying into it. For goodness sakes people, exercise a little common sense; because black, white or purple, Hillary is a flawed candidate.

As a white male, I'm more than happy to vote for anyone against her. I don't care if that person is Obama or McCain. The thought of this woman running the country is very scary. I'm more than happy to lend black voters some support. It's about time they opend their eyes and realized the Clinton's aren't the only game in town. It's good to see so many others are realizing it as well.

How come no one said anything when Obama was compared to JFK.

By the way if someone says somehing like what Bill, that is not playing the race card, it is when you accuse someone of racism is when the race card is being used. So Obama used the race card and still does.
He is a racist!! we all know that!!

Hillary's past solutions.
1)NAFTA
2)Voting to go to war.

Anyone that voted for the Iraq war doesn't have the wisdom or understanding of the regional ethnic conflicts that have led us to a quagmire of epic proportions that will drain this country of billions of dollars and cost the future generations for years to come.

We need a president that has the vision to lead this great country. Not one of negativity and fear.

"Let's see what Obama believes in. His father and step father are muslims. His half sister is also a muslim. He hides his middle name "Hussein", why do you hide it if you don't think it's a problem? His pastor is a racist. I don't know what he believes in, you tell me"

It's one thing to be ignorant, but flaunting it is rather embarassing - truly.

It's too bad that Obama surrogates keep fanning the racial flames, and are not called on it. Obama could call for a stop to it, but he keeps quiet. Ms. Clinton is not a racist,yet the media keep playing it up. M. Obama gets a pass on her crude comments. Blacks played the race card in S.C. Clyburn claims he's neutral, but he.s not. "Code word" was put out there by a black and the media ran with it. A S.C. legislator went on t.v. on election day and implied senator Clinton was not in the state and of course that was not true. Did he apologize? He didn't. The media is doing a great disservice to the public by anointing Obama instead of doing fair coverage. Too bad, some see a racist in a person if Obama is not that person's choice.

Historically, African-Americans have shown that they do not vote for a presidential candidate simply because s/he is African-American. If that were true, Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes, and Al Sharpton would have done as well as Barack Obama has done when they ran for office. However, that's not the case.

Barack Obama has managed to confuse political pundits who have not yet conceived what's actually happening in America because their education hasn't taught them how to analyze a "movement." They are skilled at analyzing a "political campaign." Therefore, we have a "movement" versus a "political campaign." In America there has only been four movements since our existence: (1) When America declared its Independence from England; (2) When Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., unified the country to fight for Civil Rights; (3) When John F. Kennedy ran for president; and now, (4) Barack Obama. During each of these "movements" we have heard stories about the greatest orators in American history. Let's take a look at Patrick Henry who declared the American liberation movement:

In 1765 Henry was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses in Williamsburg. The same year, the British Parliament infuriated the colonies by passing the Stamp Act, a form of direct taxation. Henry led the fight against the act in the House of Burgesses and presented seven resolutions condemning it. The resolutions asserted that only the colonial legislatures could levy taxes on the colonies. In support of his resolutions, Henry warned, “Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and George the Third … may profit by their example.” In answer to cries of treason from conservative members, Henry replied, “If this be treason, make the most of it.” The resolutions started a chain reaction that deeply affected opinion in other colonies.

Next, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., gave the "I Have A Dream" speech during the Civil Rights movement:

"The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone."

. . .

"I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right down in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers."

Senator Barack Obama won the Alabama primary and I truly believe he is simply fulfilling the dream of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and will bring this entire Nation into the next chapter of American history: "The Promise Land."

President John F. Kennedy motivated this country with the following words that rang true for every American:

"It is not what your country can do for you, but what YOU can do for your country."

According to the great American Philosopher, Ralph Waldo Emerson, it was said:

"The spiritual is stronger than any material force, thoughts rule the world."

Historically, the person leading the "movement" has always been the victor. Hillary Clinton is running a political campaign that lays out unguaranteed "issues" while Barack Obama offers "hope" and concludes that "there is nothing false about hope." These words resonate with an American people who have been subjected to eight years of lying, stealing, and murder. Americans have felt powerless against its electorate until Barack Obama came along and said "this movement" doesn't start from the top down, it "begins from the bottom up." His message explicitly states that the new government will work for the people, not Corporate America.

Finally, I do not find it sad that Hillary Clinton is losing this election. After all, she is trying to kill the message of "hope." During the Civil Rights movement Whites/Blacks collectively would not allow anyone to kill "the dream." Patrick Henry put his life on the line when he vehemently spoke out against the tyranny of the British Parliament. As Barack Obama said: "We know the battle ahead will be long. But always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change" . . . "We have been told that we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics. It will only grow louder and more dissonant. We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We been warned against offering the people of this Nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false . . . about hope." I want CHANGE what about you?

Let's see what Obama believes in. His father and step father are muslims. His half sister is also a muslim. He hides his middle name "Hussein", why do you hide it if you don't think it's a problem? His pastor is a racist. I don't know what he believes in, you tell me.

RON PAUL

Look up "Clinton Uranium" and see what Bill has been up to lately. Don't tell me Hillary doesn't know about this, especially with the huge donations he's gotten for his work. If you question what Obama stands for and what his plan for the nation is, it's on his website in detail. Hillary has info on her site also so you can compare and make an informed decision.
On another note, Obama didn't name himself at birth. His parents did. So, the nonsense around his middle name (the idiotic conclusion being "he must be Muslim") is ridiculous. He goes to the same church a lot of my friends attend and has done so for a long time. Although, if he was of another faith and people condemned him for it, that would be as wrong as attacking Romney for being a Mormon or someone else for being Catholic. I don't care who anyone else votes for, who endorses whom, etc. I look at the facts and evaluate them based on what I want and need from my next president and leave it at that. We all should do the same and stop attacking based on twisted media reports and propaganda. That way, we might just end up being a strong united country.

Wow - these withdraws of pledged support make the whole contest seem like nothing more that some sporting event where fair weather fans flock to the darling of the day. How pitiful.

First of all, this is my first comment ever on a non-sports related story. I am dismayed by the branding of Lewis' purported move to Obama as a racial decision. What folks are failing to point out is that most black lawmakers come from districts that overwhelmingly voted for Obama. With Congressional elections around the corner, what congressperson wants to spit in the eye of most of the likely voters in their districts by going against their constituents choice for the nation's highest office. This has nothing to do with race, it's just smart politics. I really cringe to see it painted in purely racial overtones. It's intellectually lazy and demeans the political process.

Your post sounds very well thought out, JOHN DOUGHERTY. I agree with it 100%! ... MIKE, your post is also well worded. And MM described the Obama racial factor in an excellent manner: "Isn't it going exactly against the wishes of Martin Luther King for any black person to vote for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. just because he is black? Wouldn't they be 'judging him by the color of his skin' and not the 'content of his character?' Now, I may think he has no character of worth, but that is a different topic..." ... As for my thoughts: I believe that the Republican attack machine (RAM) has a tremendous amount of dirt ready to unleash against Obama. If Obama wins the nomination, the Republicans will win the White House again. If you want to do your own research, here are some key words: Sinclair, Rezko, cocaine, Kenya. Clinton has been bashed by RAM for so long, and they don't have anything new on her. Plus she has the advantage of being mature and seasoned.

I am from Ohio. At this point in time neither I nor my friends have no idea what Hillary really stands for. We have listened to her throughout the campaign starting with Iowa. We listened to her debates. We even factored in and gave her some benefit of doubt since she is of the gender. But so far Hillary has gone through so many adjustments in her campaign, so many image makeovers, and finding her voice after some of those early wins. But today she is just a blur . Her vision for this country is a blur. Even though she expects female votes, she hardly talks about gender equality, and her vision for what she will do for gender equality is a blur.

On the economic front, she is the worst of all. Her campaign raised more money than Obama in 2007, but she ran out of money in January and had to dip into her pocket for $5 million. Also she put it as a loan, so that she can take it back, whereas others like Romney spent their own money instead of saying it is a loan. If Hillary can not control her campaign money properly, she definitely will not be able to handle it for our country. On the other hand, Obama has proven that e can control the campaign finances and win a lot more states at the same time.

No presidential candidate can win without the AIPAC support.
Obama needs to show more support for Israel, or he will loss our votes. and will be over for him.

It appears our choice for President has boiled down to a naive adolescent and a grumpy old man. No doubt, in these dangerous times, I’ll take grumpy over naïve every time. Slick-Willie in a pantsuit is a goner!

Incredible is the only way to describe some of the comments here. Hillary Clinton never said anything that wasn't true. The fact is that while MLK was the driving force behind the civil rights movement it did take a White President to get the act passed which by the way chased all the conservative Democrats to the Republican party. I'm an African American but it seems that African Americans in this country seem to want people to pretend race doesn't exist while at the same time voting like mice for a black candidate who most have no idea what his policies are. Some of these are the same people who accused people of racism in trying to keep Clarence Thomas off of the Supreme Court and look what they got, an Oreo if there ever was one. I think blacks and whites are looking for someone who will deliver them the goods without have to do anything for themselves themselves. There's all this yak about the war and privacy violations and the mortgage crisis but you don't see people protesting in the streets. Nope, they'd rather just sit back and buy into the foolishness of 'Yes we can'; the reality being that Obama can't because the military, the congress, and business leaders won't let him. It's clear that white people like the cadenced, rhythmic sound of his speeches and seem to descend into the rapture but as a black person I know I can get the same thing by going to church. I also know that a minister's preaching won't get me into heaven; if there is one and that it's up to me to work on that part of the deal. The feel good stuff is best left to motivational speakers. Vote your brains, I'm making assumptions here, and not your nerve endings.

I am an international student graduation in journalism. The four years in this country, I was surprised by the lack of political sense americans have. One of the reasons the terrorist groups didn't attack america after 9/11 is that they fear Bush. Because Bush shown that any country wh is directly or indirectly involved in the anti-american activity will be hit like Iraq and Osama Bin Laden fear that if Bush hit pakistan, his safe hide out will be destoyed. That is the reality which is happening outside america which the whole world knows but Americans dont. So this election is so important for america. If Mccain is the president, they they fear him as they fear Bush. On the other hand, if Obama is the presdent, this country will be destroyed as some of the international media is already reporting that "America is going back to history and the this century will be lead by China or India. Hillary is a better candidate than both these as the rest of the world is projecting. I am so surprised how people of America got in to the charm of speech not substance.....interesting

Obama is like Clinton in '92, leadership and a breath of fresh air, and the Clintons are like George H. Bush in '92: desperate and out of touch with reality.

The Clintons' appalling lack of authenticity has come out in a big way. When Bill was President, most people started noticing it during his second term. But today we already know the HillBill way, and we notice their phoniness in everything they say. The Jesse Jackson incident is just one egregious example.

Democrats, unite behind Obama. It is sad to say this, but there is a real chance the Republicans will take the White House again in November, if we don't unite decisively behind one candidate soon, and that candidate should be Obama. I don't really think that Hillary will make it in a national election with all the weakness she has shown so far.

Whether or not you like McCain, he's the real McCoy. Hillary is not genuine and it comes across in more ways than one. In November, she may very well lose part of the democratic vote. She certainly is not going to get mine ...

I think Hillary has succeeded in shooting herself in the foot.

In the NY primary on Super Tuesday I was torn, and stood there in the voting booth for a little while scratching my chin before I finally pulled the Obama lever.

It's that close for MANY people.

All it takes to tip to Obama is things like

*The racial backlash in SC
*Injecting 5 mil of her own money
*Replacing her campaign manager

These things introduce doubt, and are probably enough to tip the beans into Obama's pot.

Obviously, if Hillary does not come away with wins in Texas and Ohio she is done, it's a very slippery slope from there...

If this lady can blame left wing, right wing for her personal family problem then she will do anything, say anything to get elect.

Two things: Firstly, for the most part, criticism of Hillary is a bit harsh. Having have navigated the massive gender double standards that exist in this country, I have no doubts that she will be an effective commander in chief if elected. In every way that we find Obama bold and inspiring, a woman would be perceived negatively for displaying similar characteristics. Food for thought.

Secondly, I can't believe this "It took President Johnson" nonsense about the Civil Rights Act. US history is chronically (and wrongly) slanted toward the individual, ignoring the contributions of popular movements. It's not a question of LBJ vs. MLK, it's this: Would LBJ have passed the Civil Rights Act if there were no civil rights movement? Laughable. He was critical link in the chain, yes, but that by no means entitles him to the credit.

Clinton's attemp to discredit Obama's speaking ability, by stating that he gives "speeches" and she offers "solutions" is confusing. She is giving a "speech" when she says she is offering "solutions." Most great leaders had great oratory skills, which lead their followers to accomplish great things. Lincoln, Churchill, Martin Luther King, Kennedy, etc. all inspiried their followers with great speeches. Can anyone name any leaders that are known for their "solutions?" Go Obama

I have been a conservative and a Republican all my life, and heavily campaigned for all of their candidates and platforms. But in Obama I suddenly see someone who can unite our country and more importantly, get the rest of the world to like us. He deals in love, not hate. And we need him to bring us all together, and stand up to those right-wing, intolerant racists! Maybe with Obama in office we can finally start putting some of them in prison where they belong!

Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is this FIRST article I've read that's even has hinted on how conflicted African-American women feel! I expected to be flooded with phone calls and mail from either candidate trying to sway my vote. Clinton doesn't want to be seen as a women; Obama doesnt want to be seen as black. Well, my vote is very important. Being and African-American female, with MS, it's a shame that no one ever cares how I'm going to vote!

Obama is best at picking up the black and independent anti-Hillary vote. He will not fair as well against McCain. Unlike Obama, Hillary has original ideas to solve problems and would have a much better chance in the general election. Obama talks a good game, but is better at stealing plans and ideas then actually having any.

All the race card hype was played up by the media and people who were wearing magnifying glasses. In this circumstances, all black votes going for Obama because of race shows the weakness of Obama.

He may win to be the candidate for Dems, but I foresee he would eventually lose to McCain.

Because the continued resentment towards Hillary and distorting of her or her husband's words will anger a lot of people too.

I have always voted and voted democratic but with the in fighting in the party, I view the process as corrupt no matter who wins.I will for the first time stay home come November.

The Clinton party is over. Here's why:

-Obama has a 100+ lead in electoral delegates.

-For the remaining states, Hillary has to not only win TX, OH, and PA, but win them BIG (20 points plus), and then win more states, to cut into this lead.

-Because it is virtually impossible for her to do so, Obama will be ahead in electoral delegates at the convention.

-By that point, the super-delegates will have coalesced around him. If the super-delegates chose Hillary, with fewer electoral delegates, than Oba, there will be a party revolt and the Dems will lose in November (and rightfully so). The same thing will occur if FL and MI delegates are seated, without adjustments.

-Thus, Obama should have the nomination locked up.

Its amazing how many idiots we have voting in this country when they make statements such as they wanted to elect a black or woman canidate.What ever happened to voting for the best person for the job.This just shows how biased liberals are.Suddenly liberals are jumping ship on Billery and i an just luvin it to death.

I think Hillary did play the race card in SC, but I think it needed to be played. Her comment about Johnson is a reminder that Kennedy although inspiring was not a very good President. On foreign policy his inexperience led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Bay of Pigs, and Vietnam. He got nothing done on his domestic agenda. It took Johnson to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Medicare in 1965. His knowledge of the mechanics of statecraft made the difference. That said I think Obama is more sure-footed than Kennedy. But we are banking a lot on his ability to learn quickly and apply those lessons with authority. The Jackson analogy was a reminder that so far this has been played intramurally. Jackson, despite his strength within the Democratic Party, stood no chance in a general election. Will Obama and his call for Change through Unity fare well against McCain in prime time when the contest is no longer in the cloistered confines of the Dem Party? Remember, the Republicans will attack not just Obama's weaknesses but his strengths. His negatives will go up. So far Obama has done well in the swing states. That's a good sign. I wanted Obama to get some experience in handling negative attacks. I wanted to see how he would react. So far: very well. But the attacks have been very gentle, mainly because they've backfired. So we don't know yet how he would do against the concerted fire of an experienced attack machine. Lastly, remember what this is all about: movement conservatives have been on a concerted and successful campaign to reverse the New Deal and return America to pre-Roosevelt days. They almost managed to kill Social Security most recently. The electoral success of Republicans is all about race. It is almost entirely explained by the switching of the South from Democrat to Republican. Republicans have mastered dog-whistle politics. I want to see signs that the Obama campaign understands what they are in for and are ready to protect their flanks.

Hillary is about as authentic as a recycled aluminium can. The poor woman has twisted herself in so many directions, in order to please, that she has no idea who shew is.

We get asnew Hillary every two or three weeks.

And as to her expertise and experience, how come she's done so little in her eight years as Senator? Surely she could have at least giving a preview of all her promises....cuz, well, frankly, she considered an "extremely poor" legislator. 2 bills passed in 8 years.

I think this is a defining moment for the Clinton's, whether they have been fighting for themselves (their position of political power and glory) or equitable justice for the African Americans and the average people. We know they sacrificed a lot to bring the African American issues to the front. Now that the fruit of their hard work is ripe, they should enjoy it,not destroy it. People would question their motives if they tore down what they had built.

This race, as any other in the future, should not be about the color of the skin or the gender of the candidates but the content of his/her promises and the commitment to fulfil the them. The Clintons should play a reconcilatory role for the party and the nation rather than a divisive one, as it may sound.

I think this is a defining moment for the Clinton's, whether they have been fighting for themselves (their position of political power and glory) or equitable justice for the African Americans and the average people. We know they sacrificed a lot to bring the African American issues to the front. Now that the fruit of their hard work is ripe, they should enjoy it,not destroy it. People would question their motives if they tore down what they had built.

This race, as any other in the future, should not be about the color of the skin or the gender of the candidates but the content of his/her promises and the commitment to fulfil the them. The Clintons should play a reconcilatory role for the party and the nation rather than a divisive one, as it may sound.

What bothers me greatly is that people continually say that Hillary is experienced and Barack to green. The last time I checked, neither candidate has been president of the United States. To make assumptions that she is more experienced than Barack based on her husband being a former president, then we all might as well vote for Michelle Obama for Senate or Laura Bush should just run for president in four years. They both are a gamble and that is why we listen to debates and speeches to find out what the person is made of and has planned for the country. If we based everything on experience, then John Edwards would have ran away with the nomination. People assume that Hillary is basically Bill and that she inherits his experience by default, when in actuality they are very different people. I have based my vote on character, morals, experience and objectives. I have no problem stating that I support Obama. Race plays no part in that. To me, he is just the right person for the job at this moment in time.

So a old white man, a white woman and a black man entered a bar.... If only politics were such a joke. As a conservative white male maybe I don't have the sensitivity to the race or gender cards that many do, but if you remove the pictures of the candidates, and just wrote down a column of their positions, accomplishments and character, I think we'd have much more informed voting. I'm against quotas in all their forms, including representation in politics. May the best candidate win; man, woman, black, white or other.
PS. Let's not forget the first serious woman candidate was Elizabeth Dole, or that fear of racism kept Colin Powell's wife from encouraging his candidacy. I do believe and recognize that racism and sexism are alive in this country, but as many have pointed out, endorsing someone for their race or gender is promulgating the problem, not fixing it.

The increasingly racial nature of Hillary Clinton's campaign - whether it is concerns the African-ness of Obama or is directed toward Hispanics - is indicative of a meanness of spirit, and a shallowness of vision that would handicap her as a good leader. She has lost the plot. A leader cannot play the race card, divide the people for temporary advantage, and later seek to unite them in victory. The divide-and-rule spirit is alien to all she claims is good about her candidacy.

The problem as I see it is Hillary does have more experence, but the baggage she carries will no doubt be what the GOP will use to make a very dirty campain. I agree with many of the readers that it is not and should not be about race or gender. But rather who can and should be elected. I like Hillary and I would like to see her get a chance to get into office. And Obama just does not have the experance to lead the contry. If Hillary is not the Dem Canidate I will be voteing for McCain.

The Democrats have always been the ones to see race everywhere, in every issue, in every motivation. "The term "racism" is the same blackmail that "heretic" was in the middle ages.
The Democrats have never done anything for the African Americans but use them for their votes. Now, they're ready to dump all over their promises and Blacks' aspirations to court the Latinos the same way. Do you ever wonder how the Blacks are going to become fully employed when the Latins are taking all the jobs?
I would like to see a competent, intelligent African American woman set a wonderful example as the president or vice-president nominee. But if one does, it will be the Republicans nominating Condoleeza Rice, just like they brought on Colon Powell and Clarence Thomas. (Of course, THomas, presumably, doesn't count. Wrong agenda. He doesn't believe in the abortion of African American babies.)
Rice wouldn't be accepted either, because it wouldn't be a race-based achievement with a race-based agenda.

The racial nature of Hillary Clinton's campaign - whether it is concerns the Africanness of Obama or is directed to Hispanics - is indicative of a meanness of spirit, and a shallowness of vision that would handicap her as a good leader. She has lost the plot. A leader cannot play the race card, divide the people for temporary advantage, and later seek to unite them in victory. The divide-and-rule spirit is alien to all the claims is good about her candidacy.

I don't vote on race or gender, I vote for who I feel will be the best for what our nation needs, no matter